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

[Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky

I have the same question about del Rio and Alvarez, Helena. On p. 65,
speaking of the model found in HDHMF, they say:

"Although the model tries to find a way of overcoming dualism, the
exterior-interior sequencing reintroduces the 'psychophysical problem' as
it restores the separation between both planes, external and internal."

Yet in the very same text, Vygotsky says (in Chapter Five):

"But we have something else in mind when we speak of the external stage in
the history of the cultural development of the child. For us to call a
process “external” means to call it “social.” Every higher mental function
was external because it was social before it became an internal, strictly
mental function; it was formerly a social relation of two people. The means
of acting on oneself is initially a means of acting on others or a means of
action of others on the individual."

I just don't see how this reintroduces the psychophysical problem, or
restores the separation between both planes, external and internal. If I
say something to you, and you remember what I said and how I said it and
that I said it, does that create some kind of psychophysical parallelism,
some kind of two world theory? I just don't get how.

In general, I'm very sympathetic to the argument (systemic and semantic
consciousness, not consciousness based on activity). But I am suspicious of
its narrative like quality (the "two Vygotskies"), the lack of attention to
pedology and defectology, which were the main practices of Vygotsky's
professional life, and I don't like the ending (Epictetus and "amor fati").

Weirdly, I think that del Rio and Alvarez assume continuity between their
two Vygotskies where there really is none (e.g. p. 82, where the teenage
Vygotsky's ruminations on the "guilt of living" are amalgamated to
Vygotsky's analysis of Tamara Dembo's experiments on artificially created
anger). I think the REAL dualism is to assume that there are only two
things: nature and culture.

First of all, human beings are part of nature: our scientific knowledge is
simply nature's self-knowledge, and our technological progress is simply
our ability to turn the tables on the environment, for better or worse, the
way that all animals do when they over-reproduce and destroy their
environment. Whether we can get beyond that is a historically open
question, which means...

It means, in the second place, that there are really three processes, not
two: phylogenesis, sociogenesis, and logogenesis--the ability (the
potential!) to deliberately design our own consciousness, and perhaps even
our own history and our evolution. Needless to say the latter is not really
consistent with Epictetus and "amor fati".  In each case, development can
be said to be "outside-in" (viz., from nature to culture, from
socio-culture to psycho-culture, and from dialogic speech to inner,
reflective, narrativistic speech). But that doesn't suggest dualism to me;
it just suggests change.

("Ramon & Cajal 1914" (p. 74) should be "Santiago Ramon y Cajal". Despite
the aristocratic sounding name, Santiago was a rebellious working class
tyke who wouldn't stay put on a school bench--he wanted to be a painter so
his father apprenticed him to a barber: they compromised, and he became
a world famous neuroanatomist.)

David Kellogg
Macquarie University

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>

> Sorry, message got pasted in twice. Please ignore previous message.
> Helena Worthen
> helenaworthen@gmail.com <mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>
> Berkeley, CA 94707
> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com
> > On Apr 10, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > hi -
> >
> > In an effort to get back in the conversation, I have read the
> Roth-Jornet paper, Theorizing Without Mediators, and have some comments. As
> usual, I like to see ideas tested agains concrete examples. I like it even
> better when the ideas seem to have some useful, practical applications.
> >
> > Roth and Jornet argue that the well-worn familiar term, “mediation,”
> leaves sociocultural theory open to charges of dualism, and that Vygotsky
> himself was abandoning the term (and perhaps the concept) in his late years
> >
> > I agree that the English word "mediation" has some problems. Tools and
> signs are said to “mediate” but they are not themselves active; they are
> objects, they don’t initiate anything. They have a function, however.
> While a text does not actively do anything, someone does something with it.
> So “mediating” looks like a verb (a gerund) but really isn’t.  Nor does
> mediate simply locate something in the middle, or between two things. To
> extend Roth and Jornet’s metaphor, a river does not mediate its shores; it
> may lie between them, but a bridge, if there is one, would mediate.
> >
> >  This vocabulary problem affects other words that are terms of art in
> sociocultural theory. “Affordances” is one. The phrase “activity theory” is
> a little awkward. When introducing someone to sociocultural theory, I
> always have to warn them that there is a kind of private language involved.
> I don’t know where it came from – translations?
> >
> > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet
> suggest?        `
> >
> > I have tried to collect the pairs that are referenced when we talk about
> “mediation” or “artifact mediation”?  Some that are mentioned in the first
> couple of pages of this article are:
> >
> > Nature/culture
> > Intrasubjective/intersubjective
> > Individual/(collective or group) – this is my addition
> > Inner mind/outer world
> > Developing individual/social practice
> >
> >  So are these dualisms or dialectical partners?
> >
> >  The idea that a tool or a sign “mediates” between all of these does not
> seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examplesThe idea that a
> tool or a sign “mediates” between all of these does not seem problematical
> to me. I can think of concrete examples for all of them. Schools mediate
> between nature and culture. Writing a poem mediates between one’s inner
> mind and the outer world; same for intrasubjective/intersubjective. A
> teacher mediates between a developing individual and a social practice. An
> agenda mediates between an individual and a group.  The document drafted by
> Jimmy Carter and amended sequentially by Rabin and Sadat mediated that
> phase of the negotiations, etc.
> >
> >  This does not seem to lead to the quote from Mikhailov in line 46 on
> page 1, about ‘from the perspective of the soul, there are no mediators.” I
> am also not convinced that if tools, technology and signs mediate every
> activity, “mediation would explain nothing.”  I can see that in numbers,
> this is true – 4ab x 6a = 24ab is really 4b x 6 = 24b, right?- but not in
> communication.  Nor do I really understand the quote from Spinoza on line
> 25 of page 2, “being is transparent in its determination . . . in that it
> excludes every mediation that would produce the determination.” Being as
> existence?  And the thalidomide baby example is striking but it does not
> earn its place by being clear.  What is the sign or tool here? What is the
> activity?
> >
> >  Overall, the jump to Spinoza confuses me. Spinoza wrote in Latin, in
> the 1800s; does he mean what Vygotsky means by “mediation”?
> >
> >
> > Spinoza aside, I’m willing to accept that Vygotsky, according to
> Mikhailov, supplanted “mediation” with “the intersubjective speech field.”
> We can still look at what is in the middle of the intersubjective speech
> field and see what’s going on. If “intersubjective speech field” is a new
> way of talking about mediation, so be it.
> >
> >
> >  Now we go to the concrete case provided by Roth and Jornet, one that
> might seem to be an example of mediation, to see what is different if we
> look at it as an example of a speech field. The authors indicate that this
> concept will be different because it “includes time and social relations as
> irreducible aspects of the unit of analysis.” I am not convinced that this
> is different: the famous Engestrom triangle places a tool or sign as the
> mediator between categories that are embodied in people (history, customs,
> rules etc. on the one side and an object/outcome on the other), all in
> dynamic whole that changes over time.  So time and social relations are
> irreducible aspects of that unit of analysis, too.
> >
> >
> >  But on to the case: page 5, with images of a Quick Reference Handbook
> (QRH), script of an interaction between an examiner and an airline pilot.
> The pilot has made a mistake and the examiner is quizzing him about how it
> happened. The QRH shows a checklist of what was supposed to happen; it is
> the authority to which both refer. I think that the discussion illustrated
> with variations of the famous triangle is summarized in the paragraph in
> the middle of page 7: ‘To identify the QRH as a mediator, the
> subjectivities of pilot and examiner must be assumed to pre-exist the
> relation, and the tool be placed in between. It also functions to “mediate”
> between the different (subjective) “meanings” and as a tool in the
> “construction of” intersubjectivity. Alternatively, however, and in line
> with a unit analysis, it is possible to consider the QRH to be an aspect
> integral to the field in which the two participants are also constitutive
> parts. The QRH then is integral part of the common ground in and to the
> sequentially organized turn taking of examiner and pilot. Such is the
> approach we work towards in the sections below.’
> >
> >  So we are looking for a unit analysis (analysis of a whole unit, not
> unit of analysis) rather than an analysis into elements. I am not yet
> convinced that in practice there is really any difference.
> >
> >
> >  On the other hand, the expanded script on page 10 does certainly show
> how the words of the conversation exist for both the pilot and the
> examiner, and thereby creates a shared social space. In other words,
> “intersubjective speech field” makes sense – a moment in time when the
> words of each person (subject) are alive in the hearing and consciousness
> of the other – “I hear you and you hear me.” And it does not leave a crack
> by which it could be opened to the charge of dualism. Instead it is a
> whole, a coherent unit of analysis. But “intersubjective speech field?” -
> another term of art!!
> >
> >
> > Finally, while I have had trouble with the term ‘mediate’ and can see
> that it is open to misunderstandings, I have always found that these
> misunderstandings melted away quickly when I was working with something
> very concrete.  When a union steward, for example, is defending a worker
> who has been disciplined, the text of the contract definitely mediates the
> relationship between the worker and the employer. No doubt about it; take
> that text away, and the relationship changes abruptly.
> >
> >
> > What would the “intersubjective speech field” have been like if the QRH
> had not been available?  Would the pilot have offered a different defense?
> That would be a way to have tested what mediating role it played.
> >
> > Helena
> >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com <mailto:
> lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Alfredo, Amelia, and Pablo,
> >>
> >> Alfredo,
> >> Your hope that we will cover this ground by reference to a wider
> literature by ‘expanding ’ the field, may have the unintended consequence
> of also ‘abbreviating’ the focus on ‘with/out mediation,  at the core of
> your paper.
> >>
> >> This notion of abbreviation and expansion and when each direction is
> appropriate.
> >> This speaks to your article’s notion of “accented”. When contents are
> accented by some reference [I.e. deictic, body orientation, verbal
> indication] then, the semantic, sense-giving *field* changes.  The contents
> no longer have to be said because the presence of the contents in the
> *field* goes ‘without’ saying, being an aspect of the integral co-inhabited
> space.
> >>
> >> Following this line, I notice Amelia and Pablo’s article explores five
> usually overlooked aspects of Vygotsky’s work. The first overlooked aspect
> is:
> >>
> >> “the understanding of the mediational system as a trans-organic,
> EXTENDED branch of the psychological system.
> >>
> >> This first aspect explored by Amelia and Pablo  may or may not share a
> family resemblance to your and Michael’s exploration of theorizing with/out
> mediation?
> >>
> >> I hope Amelia and Pablo read through your article so that we can read
> each article through the perspective of the other article thus expanding
> our notion of ‘mediation’? I am referring to the title of Amelia and
> Pablo’s article [Vygotsky and beyond: Horizons for the Future of
> Psychology]. This is a theme of ‘extending’ with/out premature
> abbreviation. May require a middle path?
> >>
> >> I will re-send your and Michael’s article in the hope of engaging both
> articles with the potential to  open possible new horizons  through
> engaging with the ‘later’ Vygotsky [1932-1934] and his re/thinking his
> life’s work and this new direction’s relevance for our current moment in
> time. I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo’s article
> >> Also recognizing this is contested ground.
> >>
> >> Searching for a new con/sensus
> >>
> >> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
> >>
> >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil
> >> Sent: April 9, 2017 10:50 AM
> >> To: lpscholar2@gmail.com <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>; eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky
> >>
> >> Thank you Larry for sharing your reading of our article, which I think
> is a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's article,
> we can cover the ground by reference to a wider literature as well.
> Obviously, ours is only one among other takes in current literature that
> point in the similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical to
> these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue
> would be a great xmca accomplishment.
> >>
> >> Alfredo
> >>
> >> From: lpscholar2@gmail.com <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com> <
> lpscholar2@gmail.com <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>>
> >> Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21
> >> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky
> >>
> >> Alfredo,
> >> I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael’s
> article (Theorizing – with/out mediators) that joins the current ‘takes’ on
> the later Vygotsky.
> >>
> >> My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is
> significant as  an enlarging of the scope and ‘re-working’ of the Vygotsky
> who was known in the process of moving into the West European  and North
> Atlantic form of theorizing.
> >>
> >> I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ‘playworlds’ and
> ‘spielraum’ (translated playrooms).
> >>
> >> A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle
> diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex).
> >> This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the
> triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an
> ‘intermediary’ third (element, essence, thing).
> >> Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of
> (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two
> things/elements become changed or develop.
> >>
> >> Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit
> of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each
> individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements
> transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex
> mediator)
> >> But rather
> >> There are only relation of (within UNITS).
> >> When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE
> UNIT (not elements) develops.
> >>
> >> Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working
> classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place)
> as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ‘later’
> Vygotsky.
> >> Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working
> >> BUT
> >> In a spirit of ‘play’ in rooms.
> >> A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and
> never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever.
> >>
> >> Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams.
> >> More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ‘mediators’ as we play
> with these notions.
> >>
> >> I recommend others read the article ‘Theorizing with/out mediators’.
> >> Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of
> re-working theorizing with/out mediators.
> >>
> >> I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions
> percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers.
> >>
> >> My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions
> of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working
> PRE-assumptions.
> >>
> >> My morning muse
> >>
> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> >>
> >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil
> >> Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM
> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky
> >>
> >> Hi Esteban,
> >>
> >> yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few
> threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this
> issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language.
> >>
> >> Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works
> attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in
> particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been
> circulated).
> >>
> >> Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are
> making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the
> prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the
> instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not
> so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had
> the chance to pursue.
> >>
> >> I attach yet another such work, this time by del Río and Álvarez. Much
> is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own
> prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English
> and in Spanish.
> >>
> >> I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as
> things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this
> tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature.
> >>
> >> Alfredo
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com
> <mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>>
> >> Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11
> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie,
> Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech!
> >>
> >> Hi, Esteban -
> >>
> >> Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in
> the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have
> some significance, hopefully, given what we’re dealing with here.
> >>
> >> You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the
> sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who-
> betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-
> laundering- <http://www.ibtimes.com/who-betsy-devos-brother-erik-
> princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering->2493834
> >>
> >> Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US.
> >>
> >>
> >> Helena
> >>
> >>
> >> Helena Worthen
> >> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >> Berkeley, CA 94707
> >> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz <EDiaz@csusb.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Bruce,
> >>>
> >>> Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any
> emails from that list serve.  Can you please check on that.  I still want
> to continue on it if possible.  Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> Esteban Diaz
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Bruce Jones <bjones@ucsd.edu>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM
> >>> To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis
> ... and TRUMP'S speech!
> >>>
> >>> On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote:
> >>>> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego.
> >>>> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe?
> >>>
> >>> Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces.  I do the unsubscribes by
> hand
> >>> in order to make sure they are removed from the database.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Bruce Jones
> >>> Sys Admin, LCHC
> >>> bjones@ucsd.edu
> >>> 619-823-8281
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >>
> >