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

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



I think there is a sense in which the immediate is a "flow", as in "one damn thing after another." Mediation always entails an "ever-present" element, reflection or development. But of course: "There is nothing, nothing in heaven, or in nature or in mind or anywhere else which does not equally contain both immediacy and mediation." http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbegin.htm#0092
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.mira.net/~andy/


Greg Thompson wrote:
Michael,
Are you suggesting that "immediate" experience and/or "flow" is unmediated?
Or are you saying something else?
-greg


On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>wrote:

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