[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism



Just an issue of theoretical serendipity I thought I might share.  Yesterday I spent two hours with my class discussing Dewey's concept of immediate experience and mediate experience - which he also sometimes refers to as primary experience and secondary experience.

Then this morning I read across this sentence in the Michael Roth article that Mike sent relating to the discussion of mediation

The adjective immediate is the antonym of mediate, mediated. It is used in the
sense that there is ‘no intermediary or intervening member, medium, or agent’
(Simpson, 2005a).

What is interesting here is that I'm guessing at least some cultural historical theorists do see mediate and immediate as opposites (I'd be interested to hear more on this) but what we came to in our discussions yesterday (if you can even come to anything when discussing Dewey) is that he saw the two as something of a continuum.  The immediate experience is what you experienced at the moment and as a result of that experience you make connections back to mediated experience (prior experience that is given to us through symbols) expanding its meaning and pushing us forward.  Immediate experience without the connections back to mediate experience is the experience of brutes.  But mediate experience divorced from immediate experience is hollow and empty.  We need to maintain that connection back and forth but always starting with immediate experience.

Roth also compares immediate experience to flow (no, I am not going to try and spell the guy's name) and I think Dewey agrees with this, but he sees what we now refer to as flow (and Dewey refers to as seeing the value of the end in the sequence of the means) as much, much more common to our activities.  It is any time we are really engaged in the activity for the sake of the activity, and it can be anything.  As a matter of fact that is what much of education should be about - teaching us to approach activities as immediate experience that is then informed by mediated experience.

Just an interesting connection between immediate experience and mediate experience coming out of this conversation.

Michael
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 4:12 PM
To: Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism

Is the blind man's stick mediating his actions in the world, even when he
is meeting no obstacles so that he "see right through it"? When culture is
sufficiently appropriated/internalized so that we "see right through it" do
we say that culture no longer mediates our experience of the world?

Here is what Michael Roth wrote about the issue, a while back. His view.
mike


On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <pmocombe@mocombeian.com
> wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Your example bears witness to the three stances, ready-to-hand,
> unready-to-hand, and present-at-hand, of Dasein highlighted by heidegger
>
>
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> President
> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> www.mocombeian.com
> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> www.paulcmocombe.info
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "Glassman, Michael"
> Date:04/01/2014 12:31 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: lchcmike@gmail.com,"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism
>
> Mike,
>
> I wonder about the issue of tools.  If something is use unconsciously,
> without overt awareness of its implications, is it really a tool.  I think
> of labels as being used certainly in the development of small groups as
> overt tools of power and control, but also in larger societies in ways that
> individuals are not even aware of.  It is sort of like, when riding a
> bicycle we understand the tires as tools driving us forward.  But what
> about the grooves in the back path that we naturally fall into, that take
> us in a particular direction without us even realizing that this is
> happening to us.  Can we say we are manipulated by those grooves?  Are they
> really tools?  We don't even realize the grooves are there until someone
> yells out "where are you going" and we realize the grooves have been
> controlling our behavioral trajectory.
>
> I don't know.  I feel like this bears some relationship to Sylvia
> Scribners' three epochs of human history (am I remembering this right?) or
> perhaps Paul's ideas on sub-atomic particles which is fascinating but I am
> having a hard time processing.
>
> Michael
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu]
> on behalf of mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 11:27 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism
>
> Michael/Paul--- Wouldn't Vygotsky say, invoking the notion of dual
> stimulation, that if you mediate your action through a label (a cultural
> artifact par excellance) you not only act differently toward the other but
> are yourself changed (in fact, more or less literally, your position with
> respect to the other is changed) as you subordinate yourself to this "tool"
> and control yourself "from the outside" ??
>
> Greg has been writing about positioning and labelling.
>
> Vis a vis symbolic interactionism.  Kenneth Burke seems to me a productive
> person to think with. See below.
>
> mike
>
> mike
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <
> pmocombe@mocombeian.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hi michael...yes I have checked into labeling theory...it is in doing so
> > that I cam across the similarities between vygotsky and mead
> >
> >
> > Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> > President
> > The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> > www.mocombeian.com
> > www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> > www.paulcmocombe.info
> >
> > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: "Glassman,
> > Michael" <glassman.13@osu.edu> </div><div>Date:04/01/2014  9:08 AM
> >  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's
> > theory and symbolic interactionism </div><div>
> > </div>Paul,
> >
> > I think your view of symbolic interactionism (as related to Mead) as
> being
> > a tool of power and domination is more reflective of Mead's theory than
> you
> > might think.  Have you looked at labeling theory?  Also a trajectory
> taken
> > by Mead's students which seems pretty close to what you want to day.  I'm
> > not sure what role Vygotsky would play in this.
> >
> > Michael
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu]
> > on behalf of Dr. Paul C. Mocombe [pmocombe@mocombeian.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 5:58 AM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism
> >
> > At the heart of vygotsky's and mead's work is hegels master/slave
> > dialectic as they apply it to the constitution of identity, I.e.
> > Consciousness...As though there is no consciousness/identity prior to
> > socialization via language and symbolic interaction.  This is similar to
> > the identitarian logic of frankfurt school logician theodor adorno.  I
> have
> > a problem with that as I view language and symbolic interaction as always
> > an element of power and domination.  In essence my research question is,
> > "is there a sui generis consciousness that exist prior to
> > socialization/domination by symbols and language.  Haitian metaphysics
> says
> > yes...it exists at the subatomic particle level and is just as real as
> the
> > i and me of language and symbolic interaction.  Zora Neale hurston in her
> > ethnographic field work in haiti was attempting to theorize about this in
> > her literature...it is the essence of who we are.  I may have to go into
> > the realm of physics to make sense of this metaphysical logic.
> >
> >
> > Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> > President
> > The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> > www.mocombeian.com
> > www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> > www.paulcmocombe.info
> >
> > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Greg Thompson <
> > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:03/31/2014  11:53 PM
> > (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>,"eXtended
> Mind,
> > Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject:
> [Xmca-l]
> > Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism </div><div>
> > </div>Paul,
> > And another piece you might be interested in:
> > Winter, J. A. and Goldfield, E. C. (1991), Caregiver-Child Interaction in
> > the Development of Self: The Contributions of Vygotsky, Bruner, and Kaye
> to
> > Mead's Theory. Symbolic Interaction, 14: 433-447.
> > doi: 10.1525/si.1991.14.4.433
> >
> > I suspect a Hegelian/Marxian root is shared between Vygotsky and Mead.
> Mead
> > said at one point that his social psychology was an attempt to do what
> > Hegel did, with the hopes that it would be "less incorrigible." I have
> the
> > exact quote somewhere if you're interested.
> >
> > The Vygotsky-Hegel connections have been much debated here on XMCA, but
> it
> > seems that there is good reason to think that Vygotsky would have been
> > influenced by Hegel, whether directly or indirectly (quick duck - I think
> > they'll be some words flying soon in defense of one side or the other of
> > this argument...).
> >
> > I'm interested in this intersection as well, more in terms of links and
> > complementarities with Goffman and Vygotsky, but I'm happy to chat about
> > the Mead/Vygotsky link.
> >
> > -greg
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:53 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Anne Edwards has an article on this topic in *The Cambridge Companion
> to
> > > Vygotsky".
> > >
> > > I have inquired of Anne, and would of anyone interested, to understand
> > > where the concept of culture appears in the Meadian framework.
> > >
> > > mike
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <
> > > pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am working on a paper comparing and contrasting george herbert
> mead's
> > > > symbolic interactionism with
> > > > vygotsky's theory....any suggestions anyone?
> > > >
> > > > Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> > > > President
> > > > The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> > > > www.mocombeian.com
> > > > www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> > > > www.paulcmocombe.info
> > > >
> > > > Race and Class Distinctions within Black Communities
> > > > www.routledge.com/9780415714372
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > Assistant Professor
> > Department of Anthropology
> > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > Brigham Young University
> > Provo, UT 84602
> > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>