[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learningpossibilities
I have a concept of dialogue that includes the notion of *inter/subjectivity* but I believe the general meaning of this concept assumes we start with two separate embodied bodies who then enter into a place or zone to create or construct shared worlds. This puts the subject over and the place under in the intersubjective time-space.
I want to start within places (as both material and psychic place) and these places are where intersubjective phenomena manifest within awareness (perceiving/movement) prior to being reflected *upon* through discourse/rhetoric.
A key notion is the *speaking subject* within places who is invited or received into *voice* and this contrasts with finding one's own authentic voice existing as a subject first and projecting one*s unique voice into the intersubjective place. This version of intersubjectivity is a focus on legitimate *rights* which each subject inalienably *possesses* as a right.
So when playing with notions of endowing or embodying the focus on bodies *made flesh* extends beyond the subjective person to include embodied or endowed places within which intersubjective perceiving/moving occurs manifesting experiences of subjectivity.
This may occur at the level of awareness prior to becoming consciously aware and articulating then articulating this awareness. In this process identity and subjectivity emerge in the moment of the *speaking subject* occurring within psychic/material places.
I also believe these places are always both imaginal and material places that are structured within different boundary markings of the horizon of places with differing degrees of the imaginal or the real being foregrounded (and the other aspect thereforewithdraws into the background as *absence* from presence.
Dialogue as intersubjective phenomena can be imagined as either foreground subjects who bring forth their own unique speaking voice as embodied speaking then projecting into shared places. This imagines two unique subjects as the foreground.
Intersubjective can also imagine places as being foregrounded as embodied and endowed dwelling places and from these psychic/material places *speaking voices* emerge into ontological existence within embodied endowed places that matter. The focus shifts or inclines or leans into developing places as foregrounded and what occurs in these places manifests intersubjectively as subjectivity.
What is imagined as legitimate rights attaches to these concrete/imaginal places.
The example of Merleau-Ponty and the phantom limb phenomena and how the virtual/real box transforms subjectivity and embodied identity by placing the limb in the imaginal/real box as framework (both imaginal and real simultaneously).
Dialogue must *give place a chance*
From: "Ana Marjanovic-Shane" <email@example.com>
Sent: 2016-03-01 11:10 PM
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learningpossibilities
Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would also
love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as it is
clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP
Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of
dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think that we
find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is dialogue
and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic pedagogy?
So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe Dialogic
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis <email@example.com> wrote:
> Brian, Helen, Larry,
> Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice. I can imagine how
> excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what
> adventures they might go on today¹, the apparently dialogic processes and
> the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions.
> Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your concept
> of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different
> interpretations and versions of DP being used.
> Larry I don¹t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs in the
> playful moments, but what is important is that children (and teachers) are
> being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than they
> might in Œreal life¹. As to being Œcaptured¹ in a positive way, at times
> in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is committed
> and engaged at the same time, a sense of group Œflow¹ emerges I guess you
> could say, and you know the group has been Œcaptured¹ in an engaged and
> committed way.
> Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play and
> its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he
> discussed the idea of a Œdual affective plan¹ is of relevance. In the
> text it famously says ³Thus, in play a situation is created in which, as
> Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child weeps
> in play as a patient, but revels as a player² (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p. 11).
> This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the
> concept of Œmetaxis¹ which is where a dual state is entered and where
> learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. Understanding
> something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism emerging in
> a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person¹s
> real-world attitudes and beliefs).
> Kind regards
> On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >Hi Larry
> >I¹m using Vygotsky¹s idea that when we play we foreground what we imagine
> >over material reality so that the meaning of what we do predominates. We
> >we play we are intending to pretend - you can¹t be made to play - that¹s
> >what I mean by Œat will'. I¹m not sure which metaphor captures that
> >experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or stepping
> >Œin' and Œout' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds.
> >On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of Œbeing captured
> >by¹ - e.g. when the adults in the class I¹m teaching initially pretended
> >to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join in -
> >they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with little
> >intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some
> >Œwill' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In a
> >similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really interested in
> >a book they are likely to Œlean in¹ physically and be Œdrawn in¹ to the
> >world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend to
> >talk like a character which Œcaptures¹ their interest and brings meaning
> >to the dialogue Š
> >Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action?
> >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> Brian,
> >> Just to echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces AT
> >>ONCE. This means simultaneously.
> >> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one
> >>time-space being over the other which also indicates the other
> >>time-space becomes under.
> >> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one time-space
> >>or the other *at will*.
> >> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) movement
> >>which is meaning making is always *at will*.
> >> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which
> >>contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning.
> >> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur
> >>prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness.
> >> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action that
> >>occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding discourse?
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> Sent: 2016-03-01 6:09 PM
> >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional
> >>dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning
> >> Thanks, Helen
> >> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if Š?² and
> >>then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!)
> >>collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if we
> >>were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that¹s
> >>empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of
> >>us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we¹re
> >>experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might mean
> >>for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ...
> >> I¹ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7 year
> >>olds as if we¹ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools: fabric,
> >>pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and relationships
> >>we¹ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we¹ve been in a
> >>shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to pigs by
> >>Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to
> >>convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being
> >>killed by the monsters we¹d just embodied or stay and party with Circe Š
> >>and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to the
> >>children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do friends do
> >>- and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh, and
> >>we¹re often reading bits of text in context as the children have all
> >>been labelled as Œstruggling readers¹ and aren¹t doing so well on those
> >>tests ...)
> >> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a lot,
> >>especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are always in
> >>two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other at
> >>will - like what children do when they play without adults.
> >> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it¹s the meaning of our
> >>actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the acts
> >>and things in themselves. And when we¹re in dialogue with others (or
> >>often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the
> >>potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the
> >>imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we can
> >>move in time and space - we¹re not stuck with one or two chronotopes but
> >>can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on events.
> >>While at the same time each person is always able to see through the
> >>perspectives of their life experiences - about what ³home² is like for
> >>me, what my ³friends" do with me, what ³dangers² I¹ve faced etc. to make
> >>new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ...
> >> However, with me present and both playing along with the children and
> >>stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about
> >>cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the group) and
> >>what¹s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no one is
> >>dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose whether
> >>or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean (e.g.Circe
> >>might be an evil witch - how might we find out?).
> >> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each person
> >>chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone can
> >>step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced and
> >>those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality happen
> >>together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the sense
> >>that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had been
> >>brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at pictures in
> >>the books - I¹d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make to
> >>find he had been suspended Š maybe he¹ll be back next week. Another
> >>older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from
> >>versions of Homer¹s story - he wanted to show the younger children how
> >>he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we then
> >>embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger boy
> >>snuck in to join his friends!
> >> This week we¹ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in Š!)
> >> Brian
> >> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call
> >>dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by
> >>Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and Dramatic
> >> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0]
> >> Brian Edmiston, PhD
> >> Professor of Drama in Education
> >> Department of Teaching and Learning
> >> Columbus, OH 43210
> >> firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>
> >> go.osu.edu/edmiston<http://go.osu.edu/edmiston>
> >> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to heed,
> >>to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person
> >>participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, lips,
> >>hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his
> >>entire self in discourse'
> >> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293
> >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett
> >><firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
> >> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the 'imagined
> >> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education' lesson or
> >> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for children to
> >> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions,
> >> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has agreed
> >> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and back to
> >> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE
> >> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone steps
> >>out of
> >> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and actions
> >> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be revisited,
> >> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where
> >> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and
> >> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed.
> >> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined
> >> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles they
> >> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole point is
> >> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step out
> >> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it made me
> >> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or "I
> >> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the
> >> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE
> >> well) is a dialogical pedagogy. It is the very awareness of the
> >> chronotopes (that we have all agreed we are pretending) that makes this
> >> possible. It is a different kettle of fish altogether when people are
> >> thrust into a 'simulation exercise' and are never quite sure if what
> >> are experiencing is real or not (especially in light of current events
> >> which mean many children have had to experience confusing school
> >> and evacuation events), which is why Heathcote put so much emphasis on
> >> establishing 'agreement' about the situation that was being mutually
> >> created and the roles that were being adopted. I do not find this
> >> oppressing, but rather empowering, that the teacher is endowing students
> >> with the power to 'pretend', to 'try out different ways of being', and
> >> contribute to both the imaginary situation and the reality of the
> >>lesson as
> >> it unfolds in a very dialogical way, that may in fact allow them to
> >> a new understanding of who they currently are and who they might
> >> potentially be.
> >> Cheers,
> >> Helen
> >> --
> >> *Dr HELEN GRIMMETT *
> >> Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education
> >> Professional Experience Liaison - Primary
> >> *Education*
> >> Monash University
> >> Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus
> >> 100 Clyde Road
> >> Berwick VIC 3806
> >> Australia
> >> T: +61 3 9904 7171
> >> E: firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>
> >> monash.edu<http://monash.edu>
> >> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A
> >> Approach
> >> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers
> >> On 2 March 2016 at 03:42, Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane <firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> wrote:
> >> Dear Larry,
> >> I am reading your highly interesting comments and feedback on the ideas
> >> started to develop in the ³Spoilsport² article. Yes, you are right
> >>that I
> >> use the concept of a chronotope - as one of the central concepts in my
> >> study. I understood this concept from MM Bakhtin as a unity of time,
> >> and axiology, i.e., set of values, relationships, rules and expectations
> >> that exist for the participants in a time-space. Bakhtin described
> >> chronotope in literature as ³the intrinsic connectedness of temporal and
> >> spatial relationships that are artistically expressed . . . [S]patial
> >> temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought out, concrete
> >> whole.Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically
> >> visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the
> >>movements of
> >> time, plot and history² (Bakhtin, 1994, p. 184).
> >> And while, in literature there may be ONE chronotope within the literary
> >> work, in our lives, and especially in play, education, art, etc - we
> >> ³operate² on more than one chronotope simultaneously - as if they are
> >> laminated layers of the same event. However, these chronotopes relate to
> >> each other in a different way - depending on a situation.
> >> You invoke the concept of being ³captured² by the imagined worlds
> >> (chronotopes). I think that it may be true - but we are captured in
> >> different ways and have different means of freeing ourselves up - in
> >> different situations - depending on the relationship in which these
> >> chronotopes are set. My whole argument in the Spoilsport paper is that
> >> the imagined chronotope becomes a place of ³dwelling² it is as
> >> ³captivating² as the our chronotope of the real - and that it is hard,
> >> potentially impossible and often seen as illegitimate (non-normative) to
> >> ³spoil² this chronotope - to try to break its mangels. Both the imagined
> >> and the ontological chronotope can become oppressive. I think that the
> >> dialogic freedom may come from the possibility to create such a
> >> relationship between the chronotopes that allows their participants to
> >> examine the boundaries and see them in each-others¹ perspectives. In
> >> sense I don¹t see the relationship between the imagined and the reality
> >> a *divide* as you put it, but as a fruitful boundary and dialogic
> >> contact-zone, where a new meaning stems exactly from being able to draw
> >> boundary between them.
> >> I am intrigued with your last comment about Jewish ³Adamic² world
> >> contrasting with the Greek classical world. What did you mean?
> >> What do you think?
> >> Ana
> >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Lplarry <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> Ana,
> >> In this response the paradigms hinge on the notion of differing
> >> chrono/topes.
> >> * community of players (CoPl)
> >> * reality (RC) or ontological
> >> * imagined (IC)
> >> Therefore, the theme of being *cast out* may be playing with a theme of
> >> *falling away* or being *cast out* from the garden of Eden as a
> >> theme.
> >> There seems to be a theme of what dominates *over* what becomes its
> >> opposite.
> >> Ana, you suggest both drama and dialogical chronotopes INVOKE OR SUMMON
> >> UP imagined worlds. I will add the metaphor that both *capture* or are
> >> *captured by* imaginal worlds. This is the *capta* aspect of.
> >> Now to *be* summoned or invoked or embodied or endowed are polar
> >> opposites in your horizon of understanding.
> >> A clear di/vergence of the imaginal and ontological and community of
> >> players chronotopes.
> >> I question if BOTH the imaginal AND ontological exist within a relation
> >> of con/vergence as primary prior to becoming differentiated into polar
> >> opposites.
> >> This version of the imaginal/reality *divide* plays with the notion of
> >> *apposition* prior to the forming of polar opposites with one side
> >> *capturing* the other side by dominating over the other, placing the
> >> side *under* or relagated to the *shadows*.
> >> The play of the Jewiish *Adamic* world contrasting with the Greek
> >> classical world seems to have a place in this turn taking
> >> Larry
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: "Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> Sent: 2016-03-01 12:41 AM
> >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional
> >> dualities indrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learning
> >> possibilities
> >> Dear Sue and Brian and all,
> >> First thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my paper. I
> >> take your response very seriously. I have some questions for
> >> and also s
[The entire original message is not included.]