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

[Xmca-l] Re: Resending LSV/ANL on crisis in ontogengy



But isn't any talk of progression and stages in development necessarily complicated by the fact that the beginner (the infant) is surrounded from the start by people who have (to varying degrees) already developed these understandings and whose behaviour therefore exhibits and represents them? Also by the practical inseparability of the infant from the SSD (infant and caregiver operate together and caregiver manages and controls infant's exposure to the 'big bad world' of laws, rules, obligations and judgements).  Knowing WHAT to do comes before knowing WHY it is done that way but different cultures will provide different environments.

Which is not to challenge the series of 'but WHY?' questions which would lead a child from customary to use (but WHY?) to social conventions (but WHY?) to rules and roles and then (but WHY?) to deontological considerations. But I would assume that ages of 'transitions' would be culture dependent at family and more 'macro' levels.

Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Thompson
Sent: 23 March 2015 04:18
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Resending LSV/ANL on crisis in ontogengy

Martin, you sent us a very dense paragraph and I wanted to try and parse just two sentences of it to see if I'm understanding you.

You wrote:
"It seems to me that we need to distinguish among the customary use of artifacts, taken for granted social conventions, institutional rules and roles, and the deontological aspect of living in complex systems of institutions. This is the sequence, in my view, in which children develop an understanding of the social world in which they live."

So what you are saying here is that the sequence of development that you are proposing is:
1. customary use of artifacts
2. taken for granted social conventions
3. institutional rules and roles
4. deontological aspects of living in complex systems of institutions

Is that right?

I wonder if you might be willing to make some guesses as to ages of these?

Also, as you know, John Lucy has been working on this issue as it relates to language development and I see some interesting points of alignment here. (Benjamin Smith's work on marble playing Aymara boys demonstrates the development of #2 among 6-8 year old boys in Peru).

Anyway, I find this fascinating and would love to hear more (is there more about this in your Tomasello review piece?).

-greg




On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
> wrote:

> In my view this normative dimension has to be central to any account
> of human ontogenesis. I think Tomasello, and collaborators such as
> Hannes Rakoczy, are on the right track here, but in my view they don't
> draw some necessary distinctions. Children don't simply deal with, and
> come to understand, different kinds of norms, any more than they do
> different kinds of roles. It seems to me that we need to distinguish
> among the customary use of artifacts, taken for granted social
> conventions, institutional rules and roles, and the deontological
> aspect of living in complex systems of institutions. This is the
> sequence, in my view, in which children develop an understanding of the social world in which they live.
>
> Martin
>
> On Mar 21, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Helen Harper <helen.harper@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I’m intrigued by Michael Tomasello’s discussion here about children
> taking on normative behaviours, and the idea that they come to
> represent a group or a culture through those behaviours.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtf2btmfPgw <
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtf2btmfPgw>
> >
> > I wonder if this is consistent with your view Andy?
> > Helen
> >
> >> On 22 Mar 2015, at 10:08 am, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> p. 365, "The Child's Psyche":
> >>
> >> "A child may or may not be bought a toy, but it is impossible not
> >> to
> buy it a textbook or an exercise book. The child therefore requests a
> schoolbook to be bought for it quite differently to how it asks for a
> toy to be bought. These requests have a different sense not only for
> its parents but above all for the child itself."
> >>
> >> I was thinking, in relation to Huw's issues, that really SSD is
> >> little
> to do with "biological maturation." It is to do with the normative
> series of roles, and these are found in bureaucracies as well as the
> modern life of a child.
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -----
> >> *Andy Blunden*
> >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >>
> >>
> >> Peg Griffin wrote:
> >>> Thinking of growth which challenges social arrangements, Andy, am
> >>> I
> mistakenly remembering an anecdote like the following in Leontiev's
> "Problems in the Development of Mind:"  A child not yet going to
> school and a child going to school have different "calls" on the
> family to buy pencils or crayons -- might be nice for the younger one but absolute need for the
> older one.   I hope this scenario is really there (or somewhere not just in
> my internal constructions] because in it socio-cultural institutions
> impact one another and pull in the individual's growth while doing it
> and then there's a wonderful arabesque rebound to the individual.
> >>> [Sorry I don't right now have a copy and a way to get to where
> >>> this
> might be in the Leontiev book.  Hint:) I'm really pretty sure it's far
> away from the part about trying to teach forearm cells to recognize
> light! ] Peg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>


--
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
________________________________
[http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>

This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.