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

[Xmca-l] Re: Nissen on working with youth



The Nissen article is interesting, although I think functionalism is given
rather short shrift.  What the author seems to be omitting (Leontiev's
motive, consciousness of a collective and the potential generative (or
ongoing) life of the youth project) is a (functional) conception of
autopoiesis.

Other than this he seems to be bold, and I get the sense that he recognises
that actively used theory has its own sources of objectivity.

Where he ends up seems to be an almost impossible situation.  But it looks
like he is looking at the means and effects of institutional measurement (
http://substance.ku.dk/english/about/).  What does one then do, I wonder,
when one looks to abolish standards or to multiply them for each situation?

With respect to third spaces, or circumstances for thinking and
participating without coercion, I think it is worthwhile noting that these
(in the sense of a ZPD like situation) are not power-free situations but
situations that serve to reveal the objective circumstances being studied
which has its own power, a power of logic and science which may fly in the
face of institutionalised power (which, as I see it, is inevitably going to
corrupt and stupefy).

With respect to Archer, I get the impression she is undertaking a "two
planes" like study, complete with a morphogenesis located at these two
cross-sections.  Personally, the way on from the 'two planes' for me was to
recognised that these are merely two arbitrary cross-sections that can be
usefully referenced.  My (fleeting) impression is that she will be useful
reading for those still stuck in a two-world view.

Best,
Huw



On 12 February 2015 at 06:39, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andy,
> In the way Nissen asked about the transfer of meaning from conscience to
> consciousness to conscientization as modelled and travelling across
> traditions, I wonder if "a" collective motive may have a shared "image".
> Is it possible that "a" motive that is collective is also a motive that is
> "figured". The singularity of the collective motive as a project to be
> "embodied" is a metaphor and therefore an image.  In bringing the
> shared motive to actuality [being embodied]this act must be envisioned as
> possible.
>
> Andy you wrote, "figured world is just a field of individual competition
> for rewards"
>
> and this may be the standard meaning of the concept "figured world".
>
> I was using the term "figured" [ personal sense] as being collectively
> imagined and therefore participating in collective motives actualizing
> "worlds". [personal sense]  How this personal sense becomes "meaning" which
> is expressing collective motive is what I was attempting to indicate. This
> "place" of empowerment involving recognition as participating in recognized
> collectives.
>
> The main reason I posted to was acknowledge Nissen's understanding of
> "collectives" and "prototypical" as helping to expand my understanding
> beyond personal sense to shared meaning.
>
> Larry
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > In Nissen's theory a collective is a project, not something imagined. A
> > project does entail a figured world a la Dot Holland, but a figured world
> > lacks a collective motive which unites the collective. A figured world is
> > just a field of individual competition for rewards.
> > Andy
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >
> >
> > Larry Purss wrote:
> >
> >> This thread is focusing on Nissen's work as presented in the two
> articles
> >> attached.
> >>
> >> I would like to return to the "journal of Dialogic Pedagogy" article on
> >> page A25.
> >>
> >> He describes his concept of *"collective" *as a term which brings
> together
> >> meaning and sense.
> >> He writes,
> >>
> >> "I suggest the concept of *collective* as a kind of *subject*.  A
> >> community
> >> whose singular existence is no longer accidental, nor simply a function
> of
> >> a shared project, but self-constituted and self-conscious, mediated by
> its
> >> precarious relations to other subjects - including, importantly,
> >> participants - as these relations are formed *in and with* cultural
> >> standards under singular circumstances.  Recognizing itself as
> recognized
> >> by these others.  In the terms of Hegel's dialectics, it is a singular
> >> "we"
> >> that exists *in and for itself *as an "us".  The implication is that
> >> empowerment involves recognition as participant of recognized
> >> collectives."
> >>
> >> I would suggest that Nissen's concept "collective" may be considered a
> >> "figural world" that in being seen "as such" becomes that which is
> >> imagined.
> >>
> >> Another central concept that Nissen uses is "prototypical" as indicating
> >> the way or approach of modelling practises as "embodying" concrete
> >> universals.  Another world with similar quality would be "incarnating"
> >> concrete universals. Nissen is suggesting Freire's work on
> >> "conscientization" can be used as a "prototypical model" and in this way
> >> can be transported to other places and times such as Copenhagen and
> >> working
> >> with youth on the streets.
> >> Nissen is asking how concepts such as "collectives" and "prototypical"
> can
> >> be related to different traditions that carry what seem like different
> >> meanings but may potentially share a common sense. [theme]
> >>
> >> For example he asks,
> >>
> >> "How did *conscientization* develop from Christian *conscience* and
> >> Enlightenment *consciousness*, and how did it later transform into a
> >> psychologized empowerment?" This question is addressed as this movement
> is
> >> explored in the article.
> >>
> >> Prototypical concrete universals are *theoretical, but they do not
> easily
> >> translate* to an immediate common sense. They must be mediated within
> >> *collectives* and therefore do not lend themselves to simple and
> >>
> >> reductionist standardized concepts. [such as in dictionaries].
> >> To understand prototypical concepts we need time and effort to first
> take
> >> the prototypes seriously, in their own right, and then time and effort
> [as
> >> models] to make them relevant as they are translated across space and
> >> time.
> >>
> >> I hope I have done justice to Morten Nissen's understanding of the
> >> concepts
> >> "collectives" and "prototypes" which found insightful and I hope to
> >> explore
> >> further. I would recommend reading the two articles. He has thought
> deeply
> >> on these "themes"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:45 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Very interesting, Larry. So some ideas are tracking here.
> >>>
> >>> Concerning:
> >>>
> >>> He points out that within a Bahktinian perspective znachenie [meaning]
> is
> >>> the *arena* for the evolution of the opposition between the I/you.
> >>>
> >>> And not from a Vygotskian perspective? Do Bakhtin and Voloshinov part
> >>> ways
> >>> here?
> >>> I am pre-occupied with a series of other tasks and cannot turn back to
> >>> these texts
> >>> at present but am reading the discussion with a lot of interest and
> doing
> >>> my best to keep up.
> >>> mike
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks Mike for this lead. I will google her work.
> >>>>
> >>>> I also have downloaded the other Morten Nissen article written for the
> >>>> Journal of Dialogic Pedagogy. That paper referenced a work by Fernanda
> >>>> Coelho Liberali [Creative Chain in the Process of Becoming a Totality]
> >>>> In the article is an extended discussion of "meaning" and "sense"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> comparing
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> and contrasting Vygotsky's and Bahktin's approaches to these ideas.
> >>>> It is interesting that Vygotsky references "smysl" as "sense" while
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Bahktin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> references "smysl" as "themes".
> >>>>
> >>>> I will offer a glimpse into the way Liberali is approaching "meaning"
> .
> >>>>
> >>>> He points out that within a Bahktinian perspective znachenie [meaning]
> >>>> is
> >>>> the *arena* for the evolution of the opposition between the I/you.
> >>>>
> >>>> A. A. Leontiev [2002a] affirms that mastery of meaning is the most
> >>>> important way in which individual behaviour can be mediated through
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> social
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> experience ... realized through various significations ....
> >>>> Therefore znachenie introduces an idea of the power of existence *yet
> to
> >>>> come. The power of becoming *or "zone" of potential development. In
> >>>> *this
> >>>> sense *[of meaning] the "zone" leads to the possibility of
> creativity...
> >>>> Fundamentally, it indicates meaning *as the potential for human beings
> >>>> within the "zone"*.  The "place" where human beings get together to
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> create
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> new meanings through the sense they share together in the chain of
> >>>> activities they take part in throughout their lives.
> >>>>
> >>>> I once again return to Zinchenko's "hypothesis" that it is in the act
> of
> >>>> imagining "inner form" that inner form comes into being. It is for
> this
> >>>> "reason" that I use this "method" of presenting versions of znachenie
> >>>> and
> >>>> smysl and in this process of presenting versions am participating in a
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> zone
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> of shared creation through imagining inner form [and outer form].
> >>>> As Zinchenko mentioned he is haunted by the image of  oscillating
> sense
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> meaning.
> >>>>
> >>>> If others would like a copy of Liberali's article I could send.  It is
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> only
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> one version of one perspective of meaning and sense but is engaging
> with
> >>>> the power of becoming within zones.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:26 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Larry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Locally we have been attracted by the idea of "figured worlds" which
> we
> >>>>> learned from the work of Dotti Holland. A local colleague, Chandra
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Mukerji,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> has written persuasively about, for example, the construction of the
> >>>>> gardens at Versaille and is many practices as creating the space to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> imagine
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Paris as the new (imagined!) Rome.  This idea seems to capture of a
> lot
> >>>>> what you are gesturing toward in your invocations of space, field,
> >>>>> ,,,,,,,,,etc. and that activities that constituted it as a space.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> mike
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Greg,
> >>>>>> I would answer "yes" that everywhere peoples "care" about "forming
> >>>>>> persons".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So from this recognition of multiple centers of "care" [and also
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> multiple
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> standards] how do we embrace "bildung" but avoid ideological
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> imperialism??
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I would suggest the notion of "places" as "spaces of formation" that
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> are
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> exploring "situated care" and "situated agency".  This involves
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> ethical
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> questions of "care"  to be explored and developed within novel
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> formations
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> [places].  I would point out that many of these places are using
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> notions
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> such as "hybrid" places that are not merely subjective and not merely
> >>>>>> objective but "third spaces" of transformation. I would also suggest
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> they
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> are imagining certain "kinds" of persons with certain "dispositions"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> that
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> abide within these formative "places" [or spaces]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Places where we can [with care] bring our notions of "bildung" and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> ask
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> questions of who decides, about what, in which situations.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Places [zones, clearings, fields, circles, etc] from which we
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> form
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> hybrid cultural forms.
> >>>>>> Places not as "literal" but "imaginal" could be ... places, possible
> >>>>>> places, which in creating/discovering THIS "scene" [as an
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> instantiation
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the possible]  is realizing and articulating "our culture".  [and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> making
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> "real"]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Does this forming places always have to be a dialectical struggle??
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Is
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> my
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> question a pastoral utopian type question which will not be able to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> breath
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> and come "to life"??
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Interpretive community is another way to picture or figure this
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> "place".
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> How powerful are "models" for showing or indicating the possibility
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> bringing to form an ethical kind of "approach"??  Not standards but a
> >>>>>> different notion of "facets" [as faces of the possible] Always
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> situated,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> never re-producible but using "models" to show the possibility.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Always in full recognition that one person's utopia may be another's
> >>>>>> ideological imperialism.
> >>>>>> Never going beyond the ethical [as the piety of questions].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> De-constructing
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the Eurocentric notion of "bidung" and opening a place for hybrid
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> forms
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> neither purely subjective nor purely objective.  Third spaces.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Greg Thompson <
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And note that this piece articulates very nicely with the issues on
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> other thread about the transferrability of pedagogy across
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> socio-cultural
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> contexts, or as Nissen says:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> " the question whether and how standards of educational practice
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> can
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> be
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> transferred across great spatio-temporal and socio-cultural
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> distances
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> is
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> far from straightforward
> >>>>>>> ​ ​
> >>>>>>> and simple: addressing a Brazilian audience with Danish
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> experience, I
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> was
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> impelled to reconsider it."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would add that this piece also articulates with Martin Packer's
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> issues
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "constitution" in that Nissen suggests that pedagogy is the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> "forming
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> of
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> persons".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That also takes us back to bildung - is this ideological
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> imperialism?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I would argue, with Nissen (I think), that it is not, but rather
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> approaches
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> a cultural universal. The particular forms vary dramatically from
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> one
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> cultural context to the next but it seems to me that peoples
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> everywhere
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> care very much about "forming persons".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -greg
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:17 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Morten's article from J. Dialogical Pedagogy, "Meeting youth in
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> movement
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and on neutral ground" attached. I thought this had been posted
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> before
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> as
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> part of the discussion. Apologies.
> >>>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>>> PS-- Check out the journal. Open access, interesting, or so I
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> think.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> an
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> object
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> >>>>>>> Assistant Professor
> >>>>>>> Department of Anthropology
> >>>>>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> >>>>>>> Brigham Young University
> >>>>>>> Provo, UT 84602
> >>>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> object
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> >>> object
> >>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>