From djwdoc@yahoo.com Mon Jun 3 12:40:39 2019 From: djwdoc@yahoo.com (Douglas Williams) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:40:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Message in a Bottle from the Machine Learning World: Language Guided Imagination, and Piagetmodeler References: <1073159441.8295743.1559590839049.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1073159441.8295743.1559590839049@mail.yahoo.com> Hi-- This paper is attracting some discussion. I don't know that it's particularly relevant for your discussions, but again, it is a sign of what people are thinking of in computer science currently when they are discussing human thinking: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.07562.pdf Alan Turing drew on Behavioralism for his P-series of artificial intelligence computer programming, though that didn't go very far. Piaget's stages model is now being looked at as a basis for modeling artificial devices: Building Minds with Patterns (Look Inside) | | | | | | | | | | | Building Minds with Patterns (Look Inside) This book is about building a mind, from a very practical computational perspective. There may be many philosoph... | | | Kind of interesting, though I'm guessing Hal will not be the result. Regards,Doug -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190603/d4088d23/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Jun 5 01:19:19 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 17:19:19 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: test on Working youth In-Reply-To: <08126222-370a-2190-14bd-c2cbab270ee9@marxists.org> References: <1431E793-DB2B-4A53-87AD-8E0901623566@umich.edu> <3D08AD9A-310F-477C-9E51-8D4C1371AA2D@umich.edu> <2a6b90f9-c28f-484e-3f88-3089b4979c49@marxists.org> <7CB7C2AF-5FE3-4D02-AEC8-F95782C53B10@cantab.net> <906ACB1D-420D-43F2-B33E-F083F43FC131@cantab.net> <08126222-370a-2190-14bd-c2cbab270ee9@marxists.org> Message-ID: Sorry, Martin. I was out of town (London again, for a memorial service for my mother). I'm sending you the chapter off list. I'm afraid, Andy, that if I post it on-line, Springer will not want to bring it out ini paper and ink, and I am counting on getting contracts for the whole of the pedology. This has a couple of advantages. I think the first one for me is that I get to work with Nikolai Veresov, who is extremely picky. I am a pretty messy translator and I need Nikolai to keep me honest. But something in me also says that the internet as we knew it is crumbling, and that if we want to keep Vygotsky for posterity we still need to stock the libraries. I notice that even IMA puts out books now and then! David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:16 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > David, *any* of your "rough" translations of Vygotsky which you would be > willing to share with the world would be most welcome on marxists.org, > perhaps with an introductory note explaining the context of the translation? > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 31/05/2019 8:11 am, Martin Packer wrote: > > Hi David, > > Yes, please send me your English translation. Thanks! > > Martin > > > > > On May 30, 2019, at 1:27 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Martin: > > There is an article by that name in the list of Volume Six of the > Collected Works, but there's nothing in the Russian Electronic Library, and > no trace of the journal either. > > It's published exactly the same year as the chapter on the structure of > interests in Volume Five of the English Collected Works (Chapter 1 of the > ECW and the RCW, though it is actually Chapter 9 of Vygotsky's Pedologiya > Podrostka) > > There is a lot on how the interests of the working adolescent and that of > the bourgeois adolescent differ in the fourth section of Chapter 8 > (Conflicts and Complications). This hasn't been translated into English > yet, but we published the Korean translation in February and I have a very > rough English translation I did if you want it. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in > understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:27 AM Martin Packer wrote: > >> Anyone know anything about this text by LSV? >> >> A pdf would be magical! :) >> >> The structure of interests in the transitional age and the interests of >> working youth. In *Problems of the ideology of working youth*. Moscow, >> 1929, No, 4, pp. 25-68. >> >> Martin >> >> >> On May 28, 2019, at 12:19 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> My copy of the Ilyenkov book arrived today. It is a kind of intellectual >> biography of Ilyenkov and the reception of ideas in the West. As David >> noted, it is very small, only 48 pages of text. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 24/05/2019 10:20 am, Edward Wall wrote: >> >> Mike >> >> Most contemporary mathematicians do not end a proof with a QED >> although Eric Livingston (whose name has come up on this list) might tend >> to side with my interpretation of Euclid. >> >> There is mathematics as application - a quite respectable use - and >> mathematics as, one might say, exploration. In the first case, mathematics >> provides a means of doing something; it is, in a sense, secondary as one?s >> primary focus is elsewhere. Memorization of the relevant mathematics seems, >> to me, a reasonable response. In the second case, mathematics is - I think >> this way anyway - like writing a poem, painting a picture, composing a >> melody, etc.. You are trying somehow to capture structure or a pattern. >> >> I read your work as trying to capture structure/patterns of >> behavior. I don?t read you as one who just memorizes the reasonable notions >> of other scholars and doesn?t look further (and I may have been once a bit >> like that - smile). However, one could perhaps argue that is what it takes >> to be an effective social worker or teacher. That is, certain things are so >> obvious, we are no longer puzzled. >> >> Ed >> >> ?Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our >> power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our >> freedom.? ~ Viktor Frankl >> >> >> >> >> On May 22, 2019, at 5:53 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >> That's really interesting, Ed. Thanks. I never stopped to inquire what >> QED mean't. I was >> taught mathematics as a series of routines. Note that I might not have >> picked that up from >> Wikipedia. >> >> "*Q.E.D.*" (sometimes written "*QED*") *is* an abbreviation for the >> Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be >> demonstrated"), a notation which *is* often placed at the *end* of a *mathematical >> proof* to *indicate* its completion. >> >> Your translation makes clear the mixing of participant observer/observant >> participant in QED. Unfortunately, >> I was the kind who often didn't "get" the demonstration and found tricks >> of memory to keep things straight enough to pass tests. >> >> mike >> >> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 3:27 PM Edward Wall wrote: >> >>> Mike >>> >>> Perhaps relevant, traditionally the proof of a mathematical theorem >>> (pace Euclid) was ended with a QED (Quod Erat Demostrandum). I have always >>> thought, perhaps erroneously, that Euclid was calling attention to the >>> participating/viewing (in/of the proof) as well the final assessment that >>> the whole was, in some sense, ?satisfactory? to the prover/viewer. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On May 20, 2019, at 6:12 PM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>> Hi Huw- >>> >>> I was not at all focused on the originality of the 2 cybernetics idea. >>> I was focused on how >>> it (presumably) provides formalisms for distinctions that have existed >>> in philosophy for a long >>> time (about this i am still a beginning learner) and which I think may >>> also mark the way that >>> followers of Rubenshtein used to criticize Leontievians, the way that >>> ethnographers distinguish >>> between different realtions of observer to observed, >>> >>> The observant participant "vs" participant observer mark two poles of >>> our relationship with the >>> people we were working with. >>> >>> A classical scholar colleague not in this conversation offered a >>> relevant distinction from Aristotle in >>> the context of discussions about the kind of work we do. There seems to >>> be close matching here too. >>> Perhaps relevant? >>> *Theoria* is generally translated as "viewing" or "looking at" and by >>> extension, "contemplation." It actually derives from the word *theoros*, >>> which is said to come from *thea* (sight, or view, as in a vista -- >>> something viewed) plus *orao* (to see). In other words *theoros* combines >>> the seeing with the seen. So a *theoros* is a spectator or a witness to >>> what is there to be seen. A *theoros* can also be someone who goes to >>> consult an oracle -- the oracle being someone through whom a god ( >>> *theos*) speaks. What the oracle speaks is often in the form a riddle >>> or puzzle which the *theoros* must figure out for himself or herself. >>> Even the epic poets were participants in this spiritual "praxis," acting as >>> the voices for the gods to speak their sometimes obscure narratives in >>> which the work of gods and men were mutually implicated. So the epics, like >>> the oracular statements, were viewed as *theorytis*, (spoken by a god). >>> >>> The idea of the *theoros* is interesting in that it involves the >>> spectator's presence as a witness to an action (as Aristotle noted, >>> drama is the imitation of action). This implies an interpretive approach to >>> viewing and telling about an event, whether an oracle or a dramatic >>> production, that has in some way been spoken by a god (literally, through >>> inspiration, the breathing of the god into the *phrenoi *(the lungs -- >>> for Homer, synonymous with the mind -- the center of human consciousness) >>> of someone who is open to receiving that breath and in turn speaking it for >>> others. The danger then becomes for the *theoros* to report his or her >>> *theoria* to others -- the tendency of the theorist to lay claim to >>> ultimate truth -- *theorytis*, given by a god. Politically in early >>> Greek society, this translated into the use of the plural *theoroi* to >>> mean ambassadors or envoys who interpreted the intent of the state to >>> "those who speak strange tongues" (Homer's expression for non-Greeks) and >>> vice-versa. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 6:29 AM Huw Lloyd >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Mike, >>>> >>>> I'm not sure anyone in cybernetics claimed it to be a novel idea, but >>>> rather it seemed to be a necessary distinction, one that recognised a >>>> change in the landscape of the topic of inquiry when the observer was >>>> included within it. >>>> >>>> I think one could extrapolate "established form or structure" from >>>> "hard system" and then consider reflections about that establishing of that >>>> system as orthogonal yet related, but according to my interpretation of >>>> your descriptions I would attribute reflexive considerations to both roles. >>>> They both can refer to the structure of "observing" rather than the >>>> structure of the "observed". >>>> >>>> The attached paper by Ranulph Glanville seems appropriate! >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 19:12, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>>> Huw- >>>>> >>>>> I found that the Wikipedia characterization of the two generations of >>>>> cybernetics, which is new to me, interesting and potentially a variant of >>>>> an idea that has been batted around for some time: >>>>> >>>>> Von Foerster referred to it as the cybernetics of "observing systems" >>>>> whereas first order cybernetics is that of "observed systems". ... Peter >>>>> Checkland and co. made this distinction in their study of organisational >>>>> projects, distinguishing, for example, between the process by which >>>>> requirements are discerned (amidst complex interactions of stakeholders) , >>>>> and the "hard" system that may be produced as a result. >>>>> >>>>> In our research in community settings we have been distinguishing >>>>> between a participant observer and an observant participant. In our >>>>> practice we have played both roles. I think of the "hard" system in our >>>>> work >>>>> as "psychotechnics" and the other, perhaps, as a part of >>>>> psychosocioanthropological inquiry. >>>>> >>>>> Is this extrapolation reasonable? >>>>> >>>>> mike >>>>> >>>>> PS-- Andy >>>>> There was a big and organized opposition to cybernetics in the >>>>> USSR. It affected people like >>>>> Bernshtein and Anokhin who were central to Luria's thinking. It was >>>>> still in force when I arrived >>>>> in Moscow in 1962 after a well advertised thaw. Hard to feel the thaw >>>>> in October, 1962! >>>>> The distinction Huw makes suggests that the objections were more than >>>>> Stalinist ideology. But >>>>> they were also Stalinist ideology. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:02 AM Huw Lloyd >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi David, >>>>>> >>>>>> This is an extract from the start of the text from the wikipedia >>>>>> entry, which I don't have any significant quibbles with: >>>>>> >>>>>> "*Second-order cybernetics*, also known as the cybernetics of >>>>>> cybernetics , is the >>>>>> recursive application of cybernetics to itself. It was developed between >>>>>> approximately 1968 and 1975 by Margaret Mead >>>>>> , Heinz von Foerster >>>>>> and others.[1] >>>>>> Von >>>>>> Foerster referred to it as the cybernetics of "observing systems" whereas >>>>>> first order cybernetics is that of "observed systems".[2] >>>>>> It >>>>>> is sometimes referred to as the "new cybernetics", the term preferred by Gordon >>>>>> Pask , and is closely >>>>>> allied to radical constructivism >>>>>> , which was >>>>>> developed around the same time by Ernst von Glasersfeld >>>>>> .[3] >>>>>> " >>>>>> >>>>>> Another way to describe this distinction on the dimension of observer >>>>>> is between "hard systems" and "soft systems". The "hard system" most easily >>>>>> maps on to a model of some apparatus. The "soft system" however applies to >>>>>> the system by which the hard system is discerned. Peter Checkland and co. >>>>>> made this distinction in their study of organisational projects, >>>>>> distinguishing, for example, between the process by which requirements are >>>>>> discerned (amidst complex interactions of stakeholders) , and the "hard" >>>>>> system that may be produced as a result. >>>>>> >>>>>> One can equally apply this distinction in psychology -- being >>>>>> concerned with the dynamic processes of action and construal in distinction >>>>>> to a concern to map things out in terms of brain architecture etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> One might say that 1st order cybernetics is typically ontologically >>>>>> and epistemologically naive (or atleast static), whilst 2nd order >>>>>> cybernetics recognises its potential fluidity and importance. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding objects, objects still exist in cybernetic thinking but are >>>>>> typically defined by communicational boundaries. Once one understands the >>>>>> application of black boxes or systems, then one can more readily apprehend >>>>>> cybernetics. Ranulph Glanville's writings on black boxes are a good place >>>>>> to start. Ranulph was also deeply interested in objects (and their >>>>>> cybernetic construal) related to his life-long engagement with architecture >>>>>> and design. >>>>>> >>>>>> One needs to take some care in interpreting Bateson's learning >>>>>> levels, but they can be mapped on to other initiatives. The steps between >>>>>> his levels are quite large and one could easily interpose additional >>>>>> levels. Bear in mind that Bateson's levels do not necessarily imply >>>>>> positive changes either. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't say I recall coming across material in which Bateson is upset >>>>>> by Russell or Godel. Rather he applies typological distinctions throughout >>>>>> much of his work and can be considered a champion of drawing attention to >>>>>> "typological errors". >>>>>> >>>>>> From the description, it seems the finding Ilyenkov book is more of a >>>>>> booklet (64 pages), the impression I had is that is either a collection of >>>>>> papers or a summary of llyenkov's influence upon a group of academics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Huw >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 02:06, David Kellogg >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Huw... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So actually this is the bit of Bateson that I'm having trouble >>>>>>> understanding, and it's quite different from what I am failing to >>>>>>> understand in Ilyenkov. I can't really do what Andy suggests, becuse this >>>>>>> person has written a whole book about it, and as an author I always find it >>>>>>> rather rude when anybody writes to me to say that they don't have the time >>>>>>> and don't want to spend the money to get my book and they want me to just >>>>>>> clear up a few points for them and save them the trouble. Maybe I am just >>>>>>> over-sensitive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So this Bateson is working with a world that is almost the opposite >>>>>>> of the one physicists work with. That is, it's a world where objects are >>>>>>> essentially unimportant ("feedback" is a structure that is quite >>>>>>> independent of whether we are talking about a microphone, a thermostadt, a >>>>>>> child, or a civilization). It's a world where only communication matters. >>>>>>> (There are some forms of physics which handle a world like this, but they >>>>>>> are precisely the realms of physics I don't really get.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In this world, there is something called Learning Zero, or the Zero >>>>>>> Degree of Learning, which is essentially making responses that are >>>>>>> stimulus-specific. Then there is something called Learning One, which is >>>>>>> generalizing responses to a well-defined, closed set of stimuli. And then >>>>>>> there is Learning Two, which I think is what you mean by second order >>>>>>> cybernetics. That is what people like to call "learning to learn", but when >>>>>>> we say this, we are ignoring that the two uses of "learn" mean things that >>>>>>> are as different as Learning Zerio and Learning One, as different as >>>>>>> instinct and habit, as different as unconditioned and conditioned responses >>>>>>> to stimuli. This is being able to generalize the ability to generalize >>>>>>> responses to well defined stimuli, so that they operate not only within a >>>>>>> well-defined context but in a context of context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Children do a lot of this. They learn language, first as Learning >>>>>>> Zero and then as Learning One. Then they have to learn how to learn THROUGH >>>>>>> language, treating language itself as context and not simply text. This >>>>>>> inevitably leads to a Learning Three, where language is itself the object >>>>>>> of learning--Halliday calls it learning ABOUT language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bateson is very disturbed by this, because he feels that Russell's >>>>>>> paradox is lurking behind all of these sets which both are and are not >>>>>>> members of themselves. I don't have any problem with it, because I think >>>>>>> that Russell's world is math and not language (I think of math as a kind of >>>>>>> very artificial form of language that only operates in very artificial >>>>>>> worlds, like those of physics and cybernetics). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this what you mean by the discontinuity of second order >>>>>>> cybernetics? Isn't it an artifact of imposing Russell's theory of logical >>>>>>> types and an artifact of the artificiality of the cybernetic world? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Sangmyung University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> New Article: >>>>>>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: >>>>>>> Vygotsky?s >>>>>>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >>>>>>> understanding narratives by >>>>>>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>>>>>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>> To link to this article: >>>>>>> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some e-prints available at: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 11:32 PM Huw Lloyd < >>>>>>> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Quite possibly it was from a lack of recognising the continuity >>>>>>>> into second order cybernetics, which many of the founding members of >>>>>>>> cybernetics recognised. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 11:05, David Kellogg >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy, Alfredo-- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The most intriguing thing about this book was the statement that >>>>>>>>> Ilyenkov fought against the introduction of ideas from cybernetics into >>>>>>>>> psychology. On the other side of the world, Gregory Bateson was fighting >>>>>>>>> hard for their inclusion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I read through "The Ideal in Human Activity" a couple of times >>>>>>>>> (true, without understanding much of it). But I didn't see anything against >>>>>>>>> cybernetics. Am I missing something? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> Sangmyung University >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> New Article: >>>>>>>>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky?s >>>>>>>>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >>>>>>>>> understanding narratives by >>>>>>>>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>>>>>>>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>>>> To link to this article: >>>>>>>>> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some e-prints available at: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 6:22 PM Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://realdemocracymovement.org/finding-evald-ilyenkov/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the era of alt-truth, disinformation and scepticism about the >>>>>>>>>> very possibility of knowledge, the work of a defiant Soviet thinker is >>>>>>>>>> attracting growing interest. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Evald Ilyenkov?s dialectical approach to philosophy from Spinoza >>>>>>>>>> to Hegel and Marx made him a target for persecution by the bureaucratic >>>>>>>>>> Stalinist authorities of his day. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The re-discovery of his original texts, suppressed or harshly >>>>>>>>>> redacted during his lifetime, is giving rise to an enhanced view of his >>>>>>>>>> contribution. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Finding Evald Ilyenkov* draws on the personal experiences of >>>>>>>>>> researchers in the UK, Denmark and Finland. It traces Ilyenkov?s impact on >>>>>>>>>> philosophy, psychology, politics and pedagogy and how it continues to be >>>>>>>>>> relevant in the light of today?s crises. >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> At the moment we need consensus points to anchor our diversity. One >>>>> tree, many branches, deep roots. Like a cypress tree living in brackish >>>>> water. Anon >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ?All truly wise thoughts have been thought already thousands of times; >>> but to make them truly ours, we must think them over again honestly, until >>> they take root in our personal experience.? -Goethe >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> ?All truly wise thoughts have been thought already thousands of times; >> but to make them truly ours, we must think them over again honestly, until >> they take root in our personal experience.? -Goethe >> >> >> >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190605/974cd34a/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Wed Jun 5 02:18:44 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 19:18:44 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: test on Working youth In-Reply-To: References: <1431E793-DB2B-4A53-87AD-8E0901623566@umich.edu> <3D08AD9A-310F-477C-9E51-8D4C1371AA2D@umich.edu> <2a6b90f9-c28f-484e-3f88-3089b4979c49@marxists.org> <7CB7C2AF-5FE3-4D02-AEC8-F95782C53B10@cantab.net> <906ACB1D-420D-43F2-B33E-F083F43FC131@cantab.net> <08126222-370a-2190-14bd-c2cbab270ee9@marxists.org> Message-ID: <97891285-5115-a661-a759-937a7e515aef@marxists.org> That's fine, David. MIA would never want to do anything that undermined print publishing of new Marxist works. However, if there any Korean language or Russian language Vygotsky texts which are not destined for printing, we are interested in making them available on MIA as well. Keep up the good work, Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 5/06/2019 6:19 pm, David Kellogg wrote: > Sorry, Martin. I was out of town (London again, for a > memorial service for my mother). > > I'm sending you the chapter off list. I'm afraid, Andy, > that if I post it on-line, Springer will not want to bring > it out ini paper and ink, and I am counting on getting > contracts for the whole of the pedology. > > This has a couple of advantages. I think the first one for > me is that I get to work with Nikolai Veresov, who is > extremely picky. I am a pretty messy translator and I need > Nikolai to keep me honest. > > But something in me also says that the internet as we knew > it?is crumbling, and that if we want to keep Vygotsky for > posterity?we still need to stock the libraries. I notice > that even IMA?puts out books now and then! > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without > SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s > construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:16 AM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > David, /any/ of your "rough" translations of Vygotsky > which you would be willing to share with the world > would be most welcome on marxists.org > , perhaps with an introductory > note explaining the context of the translation? > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 31/05/2019 8:11 am, Martin Packer wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> Yes, please send me your English translation. ?Thanks! >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On May 30, 2019, at 1:27 AM, David Kellogg >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> Martin: >>> >>> There is an article by that name in the list of >>> Volume Six of the Collected Works, but there's >>> nothing in the Russian Electronic Library, and no >>> trace of the journal either. >>> >>> It's published exactly the same year as the chapter >>> on the structure of interests in Volume Five of the >>> English Collected Works (Chapter 1 of the ECW and >>> the RCW, though it is actually Chapter 9 of >>> Vygotsky's Pedologiya Podrostka) >>> >>> There is?a lot on how the interests of the working >>> adolescent and that of the bourgeois adolescent >>> differ in the fourth section of Chapter 8 (Conflicts >>> and Complications). This hasn't been translated into >>> English yet, but we published the Korean translation >>> in February and I have a very rough English >>> translation I did if you want it. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> New Article: >>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story >>> without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s >>> construalism in understanding narratives by >>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> To link to this article: >>> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> >>> Some e-prints available at: >>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:27 AM Martin Packer >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Anyone know anything about this text by LSV? >>> >>> A pdf would be magical! ?:) >>> >>> The structure of interests in the transitional >>> age and the interests of working youth. In >>> /Problems of the ideology of working youth/. >>> Moscow, 1929, No, 4, pp.?25-68. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>>> On May 28, 2019, at 12:19 AM, Andy Blunden >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> My copy of the Ilyenkov book arrived today. It >>>> is a kind of intellectual biography of Ilyenkov >>>> and the reception of ideas in the West. As >>>> David noted, it is very small, only 48 pages of >>>> text. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 24/05/2019 10:20 am, Edward Wall wrote: >>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>> ? ? ?Most contemporary mathematicians do not >>>>> end a proof with a QED although Eric >>>>> Livingston (whose name has come up on this >>>>> list) might tend to side with my >>>>> interpretation of Euclid. >>>>> >>>>> ? ? ?There is mathematics as application - a >>>>> quite respectable use - and mathematics as, >>>>> one might say, ?exploration. In the first >>>>> case, mathematics provides a means of doing >>>>> something; it is, in a sense, secondary as >>>>> one?s primary focus is elsewhere. Memorization >>>>> of the relevant mathematics seems, to me, a >>>>> reasonable response. In the second case, >>>>> mathematics is - I think this way anyway - >>>>> like writing a poem, painting a picture, >>>>> composing a melody, etc.. You are trying >>>>> somehow to capture structure or a pattern. >>>>> >>>>> ? ? ? I read your work as trying to capture >>>>> structure/patterns of behavior. I don?t read >>>>> you as one who just memorizes the reasonable >>>>> notions of other scholars and doesn?t look >>>>> further (and I may have been once a bit like >>>>> that - smile). However, one could perhaps >>>>> argue that is what it takes to be an effective >>>>> social worker or teacher. That is, certain >>>>> things are so obvious, we are no longer puzzled. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> ?Between stimulus and response there is a >>>>> space. In that space is our power to choose >>>>> our response. In our response lies our growth >>>>> and our freedom.? ~ Viktor Frankl >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 22, 2019, at ?5:53 PM, mike cole >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> That's really interesting, Ed. Thanks.? I >>>>>> never stopped to inquire what QED mean't. I was >>>>>> taught mathematics as a series of routines. >>>>>> Note that I might not have picked that up from >>>>>> Wikipedia. >>>>>> >>>>>> "*Q.E.D.*" (sometimes written "*QED*") >>>>>> *is*?an abbreviation for the Latin phrase >>>>>> "quod erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to >>>>>> be demonstrated"), a notation which >>>>>> *is*?often placed at the *end*?of a >>>>>> *mathematical proof*?to *indicate*?its >>>>>> completion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your translation makes clear the mixing of >>>>>> participant observer/observant participant in >>>>>> QED. Unfortunately, >>>>>> I was the kind who often didn't "get" the >>>>>> demonstration and found tricks of memory to >>>>>> keep things straight enough to pass tests. >>>>>> >>>>>> mike >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 3:27 PM Edward Wall >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike >>>>>> >>>>>> ? ? Perhaps relevant, traditionally the >>>>>> proof of a mathematical theorem (pace >>>>>> Euclid) was ended with a QED (Quod Erat >>>>>> Demostrandum). I have always thought, >>>>>> perhaps erroneously, ?that Euclid was >>>>>> calling attention to the >>>>>> participating/viewing (in/of the proof) >>>>>> as well the final assessment that the >>>>>> whole was, in some sense, ?satisfactory? >>>>>> to the prover/viewer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ed >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 20, 2019, at ?6:12 PM, mike cole >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Huw- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was not at all focused on the >>>>>>> originality of the? 2 cybernetics idea.? >>>>>>> I was focused on how >>>>>>> it (presumably) provides formalisms for >>>>>>> distinctions that have existed in >>>>>>> philosophy for a long >>>>>>> time (about this i am still a beginning >>>>>>> learner) and which I think may also mark >>>>>>> the way that >>>>>>> followers of Rubenshtein used to >>>>>>> criticize Leontievians, the way that >>>>>>> ethnographers distinguish >>>>>>> between different realtions of observer >>>>>>> to observed, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The observant participant "vs" >>>>>>> participant observer mark two poles of >>>>>>> our relationship with the >>>>>>> people we were working with. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A classical scholar colleague not in >>>>>>> this conversation offered a relevant >>>>>>> distinction from Aristotle in >>>>>>> the context of discussions about the >>>>>>> kind of work we do.? There seems to be >>>>>>> close matching here too. >>>>>>> Perhaps relevant? >>>>>>> /Theoria/?is generally translated as >>>>>>> "viewing" or "looking at" and by >>>>>>> extension, "contemplation." It actually >>>>>>> derives from the word /theoros/, which >>>>>>> is said to come from /thea/?(sight, or >>>>>>> view, as in a vista -- something viewed) >>>>>>> plus /orao/?(to see). In other words >>>>>>> /theoros/?combines the seeing with the >>>>>>> seen. So a /theoros/?is a spectator or a >>>>>>> witness to what is there to be seen. A >>>>>>> /theoros/?can also be someone who goes >>>>>>> to consult an oracle -- the oracle being >>>>>>> someone through whom a god (/theos/) >>>>>>> speaks. What the oracle speaks is often >>>>>>> in the form a riddle or puzzle which the >>>>>>> /theoros/?must figure out for himself or >>>>>>> herself. Even the epic poets were >>>>>>> participants in this spiritual "praxis," >>>>>>> acting as the voices for the gods to >>>>>>> speak their sometimes obscure narratives >>>>>>> in which the work of gods and men were >>>>>>> mutually implicated. So the epics, like >>>>>>> the oracular statements, were viewed as >>>>>>> /theorytis/, (spoken by a god). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The idea of the /theoros/?is interesting >>>>>>> in that it involves the spectator's >>>>>>> presence as a witness to an action (as >>>>>>> Aristotle?noted, drama is the imitation >>>>>>> of action). This implies an interpretive >>>>>>> approach to viewing and telling about an >>>>>>> event, whether an oracle or a dramatic >>>>>>> production, that has in some way been >>>>>>> spoken by a god (literally, through >>>>>>> inspiration, the breathing of the god >>>>>>> into the /phrenoi /(the lungs -- for >>>>>>> Homer, synonymous with the mind -- the >>>>>>> center of human consciousness) of >>>>>>> someone who is open to receiving that >>>>>>> breath and in turn speaking it for >>>>>>> others. The danger then becomes for the >>>>>>> /theoros/?to report his or her >>>>>>> /theoria/?to others -- the tendency of >>>>>>> the theorist to lay claim to ultimate >>>>>>> truth -- /theorytis/, given by a god. >>>>>>> Politically in early Greek society, this >>>>>>> translated into the use of the plural >>>>>>> /theoroi/?to mean ambassadors or envoys >>>>>>> who interpreted the intent of the state >>>>>>> to "those who speak strange tongues" >>>>>>> (Homer's expression for non-Greeks) and >>>>>>> vice-versa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 6:29 AM Huw >>>>>>> Lloyd >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Mike, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure anyone in cybernetics >>>>>>> claimed it to be a novel idea, but >>>>>>> rather it seemed to be a necessary >>>>>>> distinction, one that recognised a >>>>>>> change in the landscape of the topic >>>>>>> of inquiry when the observer was >>>>>>> included within it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think one could extrapolate >>>>>>> "established form or structure" from >>>>>>> "hard system" and then consider >>>>>>> reflections about that establishing >>>>>>> of that system as orthogonal yet >>>>>>> related, but according to my >>>>>>> interpretation of your descriptions >>>>>>> I would attribute reflexive >>>>>>> considerations to both roles. They >>>>>>> both can refer to the structure of >>>>>>> "observing" rather than the >>>>>>> structure of the "observed". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The attached paper by Ranulph >>>>>>> Glanville seems appropriate! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 19:12, mike >>>>>>> cole >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Huw- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I found that the Wikipedia >>>>>>> characterization of the two >>>>>>> generations of cybernetics, >>>>>>> which is new to me, interesting >>>>>>> and potentially a variant of an >>>>>>> idea that has been batted around >>>>>>> for some time: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Von Foerster referred to it as >>>>>>> the cybernetics of "observing >>>>>>> systems" whereas first order >>>>>>> cybernetics is that of "observed >>>>>>> systems". ... Peter Checkland >>>>>>> and co. made this distinction in >>>>>>> their study of organisational >>>>>>> projects, distinguishing, for >>>>>>> example, between the process by >>>>>>> which requirements are discerned >>>>>>> (amidst complex interactions of >>>>>>> stakeholders) , and the "hard" >>>>>>> system that may be produced as a >>>>>>> result. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In our research in community >>>>>>> settings we have been >>>>>>> distinguishing between a >>>>>>> participant observer and an >>>>>>> observant participant. In our >>>>>>> practice we have played both >>>>>>> roles.? I think of the "hard" >>>>>>> system in our work >>>>>>> as "psychotechnics" and the >>>>>>> other, perhaps, as a part of >>>>>>> psychosocioanthropological inquiry. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this extrapolation reasonable? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PS-- Andy >>>>>>> ?There was a big and organized >>>>>>> opposition to cybernetics in the >>>>>>> USSR. It affected people like >>>>>>> Bernshtein and Anokhin who were >>>>>>> central to Luria's thinking. It >>>>>>> was still in force when I arrived >>>>>>> in Moscow in 1962 after a well >>>>>>> advertised thaw.? Hard to feel >>>>>>> the thaw in October, 1962! >>>>>>> The distinction Huw makes >>>>>>> suggests that the objections >>>>>>> were more than Stalinist >>>>>>> ideology. But >>>>>>> they were also Stalinist ideology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:02 AM >>>>>>> Huw Lloyd >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi David, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is an extract from the >>>>>>> start of the text from the >>>>>>> wikipedia entry, which I >>>>>>> don't have any significant >>>>>>> quibbles with: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "*Second-order cybernetics*, >>>>>>> also known as the >>>>>>> cybernetics of cybernetics >>>>>>> , >>>>>>> is the recursive application >>>>>>> of cybernetics to itself. It >>>>>>> was developed between >>>>>>> approximately 1968 and 1975 >>>>>>> by Margaret Mead >>>>>>> , >>>>>>> Heinz von Foerster >>>>>>> ?and >>>>>>> others.^[1] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?Von Foerster referred to it >>>>>>> as the cybernetics of >>>>>>> "observing systems" whereas >>>>>>> first order cybernetics is >>>>>>> that of "observed >>>>>>> systems".^[2] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?It is sometimes referred to >>>>>>> as the "new cybernetics", >>>>>>> the term preferred by Gordon >>>>>>> Pask >>>>>>> , >>>>>>> and is closely allied to >>>>>>> radical constructivism >>>>>>> , >>>>>>> which was developed around >>>>>>> the same time by Ernst von >>>>>>> Glasersfeld >>>>>>> .^[3] >>>>>>> " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ^ >>>>>>> Another way to describe this >>>>>>> distinction on the dimension >>>>>>> of observer is between "hard >>>>>>> systems" and "soft systems". >>>>>>> The "hard system" most >>>>>>> easily maps on to a model of >>>>>>> some apparatus. The "soft >>>>>>> system" however applies to >>>>>>> the system by which the hard >>>>>>> system is discerned. Peter >>>>>>> Checkland and co. made this >>>>>>> distinction in their study >>>>>>> of organisational projects, >>>>>>> distinguishing, for example, >>>>>>> between the process by which >>>>>>> requirements are discerned >>>>>>> (amidst complex interactions >>>>>>> of stakeholders) , and the >>>>>>> "hard" system that may be >>>>>>> produced as a result. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One can equally apply this >>>>>>> distinction in psychology -- >>>>>>> being concerned with the >>>>>>> dynamic processes of action >>>>>>> and construal in distinction >>>>>>> to a concern to map things >>>>>>> out in terms of brain >>>>>>> architecture etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One might say that 1st order >>>>>>> cybernetics is typically >>>>>>> ontologically and >>>>>>> epistemologically naive (or >>>>>>> atleast static), whilst 2nd >>>>>>> order cybernetics recognises >>>>>>> its potential fluidity and >>>>>>> importance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding objects, objects >>>>>>> still exist in cybernetic >>>>>>> thinking but are typically >>>>>>> defined by communicational >>>>>>> boundaries. Once one >>>>>>> understands the application >>>>>>> of black boxes or systems, >>>>>>> then one can more readily >>>>>>> apprehend cybernetics. >>>>>>> Ranulph Glanville's writings >>>>>>> on black boxes are a good >>>>>>> place to start. Ranulph was >>>>>>> also deeply interested in >>>>>>> objects (and their >>>>>>> cybernetic construal) >>>>>>> related to his life-long >>>>>>> engagement with architecture >>>>>>> and design. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One needs to take some care >>>>>>> in interpreting Bateson's >>>>>>> learning levels, but they >>>>>>> can be mapped on to other >>>>>>> initiatives. The steps >>>>>>> between his levels are quite >>>>>>> large and one could easily >>>>>>> interpose additional levels. >>>>>>> Bear in mind that Bateson's >>>>>>> levels do not necessarily >>>>>>> imply positive changes either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can't say I recall coming >>>>>>> across material in which >>>>>>> Bateson is upset by Russell >>>>>>> or Godel. Rather he applies >>>>>>> typological distinctions >>>>>>> throughout much of his work >>>>>>> and can be considered a >>>>>>> champion of drawing >>>>>>> attention to "typological >>>>>>> errors". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From the description, it >>>>>>> seems the finding Ilyenkov >>>>>>> book is more of a booklet >>>>>>> (64 pages), the impression I >>>>>>> had is that is either a >>>>>>> collection of papers or a >>>>>>> summary of llyenkov's >>>>>>> influence upon a group of >>>>>>> academics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 19 May 2019 at >>>>>>> 02:06, David Kellogg >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Huw... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So actually this is the >>>>>>> bit of Bateson that I'm >>>>>>> having trouble >>>>>>> understanding, and it's >>>>>>> quite different from >>>>>>> what I am failing to >>>>>>> understand in Ilyenkov. >>>>>>> I can't really do what >>>>>>> Andy suggests, becuse >>>>>>> this person has written >>>>>>> a whole book about it, >>>>>>> and as an author I >>>>>>> always find it rather >>>>>>> rude when anybody writes >>>>>>> to me to say that they >>>>>>> don't have the time and >>>>>>> don't want to spend the >>>>>>> money to get my book and >>>>>>> they want me to?just >>>>>>> clear up a few points >>>>>>> for them and save them >>>>>>> the?trouble. Maybe I am >>>>>>> just over-sensitive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So this Bateson is >>>>>>> working with a world >>>>>>> that is almost the >>>>>>> opposite of the one >>>>>>> physicists work with. >>>>>>> That is, it's a world >>>>>>> where objects are >>>>>>> essentially unimportant >>>>>>> ("feedback" is a >>>>>>> structure that is quite >>>>>>> independent of whether >>>>>>> we are talking about a >>>>>>> microphone, a >>>>>>> thermostadt, a child, or >>>>>>> a civilization). It's a >>>>>>> world where only >>>>>>> communication matters. >>>>>>> (There are some forms of >>>>>>> physics which handle a >>>>>>> world like this, but >>>>>>> they are precisely the >>>>>>> realms of physics I >>>>>>> don't really get.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In this world, there is >>>>>>> something >>>>>>> called?Learning Zero, or >>>>>>> the?Zero Degree of >>>>>>> Learning,?which is >>>>>>> essentially making >>>>>>> responses that are >>>>>>> stimulus-specific. Then >>>>>>> there is something >>>>>>> called Learning One, >>>>>>> which is generalizing >>>>>>> responses to a >>>>>>> well-defined, closed set >>>>>>> of stimuli. And then >>>>>>> there is Learning Two, >>>>>>> which I think is what >>>>>>> you mean by second order >>>>>>> cybernetics. That is >>>>>>> what people like to call >>>>>>> "learning to learn", but >>>>>>> when we say this, we are >>>>>>> ignoring that the two >>>>>>> uses of "learn" >>>>>>> mean?things that are as >>>>>>> different?as Learning >>>>>>> Zerio and Learning One, >>>>>>> as different as instinct >>>>>>> and habit, as different >>>>>>> as unconditioned and >>>>>>> conditioned responses to >>>>>>> stimuli. This is being >>>>>>> able to generalize the >>>>>>> ability to generalize >>>>>>> responses to well >>>>>>> defined stimuli, so that >>>>>>> they operate not only >>>>>>> within a well-defined >>>>>>> context but in a context >>>>>>> of context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Children do a lot of >>>>>>> this. They learn >>>>>>> language, first as >>>>>>> Learning Zero and then >>>>>>> as Learning One. Then >>>>>>> they have to learn how >>>>>>> to learn THROUGH >>>>>>> language, treating >>>>>>> language itself as >>>>>>> context and not simply >>>>>>> text. This inevitably >>>>>>> leads to a Learning >>>>>>> Three, where language is >>>>>>> itself the object of >>>>>>> learning--Halliday calls >>>>>>> it learning ABOUT language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bateson is very >>>>>>> disturbed by this, >>>>>>> because he feels that >>>>>>> Russell's paradox is >>>>>>> lurking behind all of >>>>>>> these sets which both >>>>>>> are and are not members >>>>>>> of themselves.?I don't >>>>>>> have any problem with >>>>>>> it, because I think that >>>>>>> Russell's world is math >>>>>>> and not language (I >>>>>>> think of math as a kind >>>>>>> of very artificial form >>>>>>> of language that only >>>>>>> operates in very >>>>>>> artificial worlds, like >>>>>>> those of physics and >>>>>>> cybernetics). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this what?you mean by >>>>>>> the discontinuity of >>>>>>> second order >>>>>>> cybernetics??Isn't it an >>>>>>> artifact of imposing >>>>>>> Russell's theory of >>>>>>> logical types and an >>>>>>> artifact of the >>>>>>> artificiality of the >>>>>>> cybernetic world? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Sangmyung University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> New Article: >>>>>>> Han Hee Jeung & David >>>>>>> Kellogg (2019): A story >>>>>>> without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>>>>>> pedology, Bruner?s >>>>>>> constructivism and >>>>>>> Halliday?s construalism >>>>>>> in understanding >>>>>>> narratives by >>>>>>> Korean children, >>>>>>> Language and Education, >>>>>>> DOI: >>>>>>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>> To link to this article: >>>>>>> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some e-prints available at: >>>>>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at >>>>>>> 11:32 PM Huw Lloyd >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quite possibly it >>>>>>> was from a lack of >>>>>>> recognising the >>>>>>> continuity into >>>>>>> second order >>>>>>> cybernetics, which >>>>>>> many of the founding >>>>>>> members of >>>>>>> cybernetics recognised. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2019 >>>>>>> at 11:05, David >>>>>>> Kellogg >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy, Alfredo-- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The most >>>>>>> intriguing thing >>>>>>> about this book >>>>>>> was the >>>>>>> statement that >>>>>>> Ilyenkov fought >>>>>>> against the >>>>>>> introduction of >>>>>>> ideas from >>>>>>> cybernetics into >>>>>>> psychology. On >>>>>>> the other side >>>>>>> of the world, >>>>>>> Gregory Bateson >>>>>>> was fighting >>>>>>> hard for their >>>>>>> inclusion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I read through >>>>>>> "The Ideal in >>>>>>> Human Activity" >>>>>>> a couple of >>>>>>> times (true, >>>>>>> without >>>>>>> understanding?much >>>>>>> of it). But?I >>>>>>> didn't see >>>>>>> anything against >>>>>>> cybernetics. Am >>>>>>> I missing >>>>>>> something? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Sangmyung University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> New Article: >>>>>>> Han Hee Jeung & >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> (2019): A story >>>>>>> without SELF: >>>>>>> Vygotsky?s >>>>>>> pedology, >>>>>>> Bruner?s >>>>>>> constructivism >>>>>>> and Halliday?s >>>>>>> construalism in >>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>> narratives by >>>>>>> Korean children, >>>>>>> Language and >>>>>>> Education, DOI: >>>>>>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>> To link to this >>>>>>> article: >>>>>>> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some e-prints >>>>>>> available at: >>>>>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, May 17, >>>>>>> 2019 at 6:22 PM >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://realdemocracymovement.org/finding-evald-ilyenkov/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the era >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> alt-truth, >>>>>>> disinformation >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> scepticism >>>>>>> about the >>>>>>> very >>>>>>> possibility >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> knowledge, >>>>>>> the work of >>>>>>> a defiant >>>>>>> Soviet >>>>>>> thinker is >>>>>>> attracting >>>>>>> growing >>>>>>> interest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Evald >>>>>>> Ilyenkov?s >>>>>>> dialectical >>>>>>> approach to >>>>>>> philosophy >>>>>>> from Spinoza >>>>>>> to Hegel and >>>>>>> Marx made >>>>>>> him a target >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> persecution >>>>>>> by the >>>>>>> bureaucratic >>>>>>> Stalinist >>>>>>> authorities >>>>>>> of his day. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The >>>>>>> re-discovery >>>>>>> of his >>>>>>> original >>>>>>> texts, >>>>>>> suppressed >>>>>>> or harshly >>>>>>> redacted >>>>>>> during his >>>>>>> lifetime, is >>>>>>> giving rise >>>>>>> to an >>>>>>> enhanced >>>>>>> view of his >>>>>>> contribution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> */Finding >>>>>>> Evald >>>>>>> Ilyenkov/*draws >>>>>>> on the >>>>>>> personal >>>>>>> experiences >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> researchers >>>>>>> in the UK, >>>>>>> Denmark and >>>>>>> Finland. It >>>>>>> traces >>>>>>> Ilyenkov?s >>>>>>> impact on >>>>>>> philosophy, >>>>>>> psychology, >>>>>>> politics and >>>>>>> pedagogy and >>>>>>> how it >>>>>>> continues to >>>>>>> be relevant >>>>>>> in the light >>>>>>> of today?s >>>>>>> crises. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> At the moment we need consensus >>>>>>> points to anchor our diversity. >>>>>>> One tree, many branches, deep >>>>>>> roots.? Like a cypress tree >>>>>>> living in brackish water.? Anon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?All truly wise thoughts have been >>>>>>> thought already thousands of times; >>>>>>> but to make them truly ours, we must >>>>>>> think them over again honestly, until >>>>>>> they take root in our personal >>>>>>> experience.? ? -Goethe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ?All truly wise thoughts have been thought >>>>>> already thousands of times; but to make >>>>>> them truly ours, we must think them over >>>>>> again honestly, until they take root in our >>>>>> personal experience.? ? -Goethe >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190605/d58b76c1/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Jun 8 15:00:03 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 07:00:03 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Marx and Der Judenfrage Message-ID: I am ploughing through an enormous tome by Yuri Slezkine, called "The House of Government". Slezkine sets out to give us a kind of historical ethnography of Soviet times in the form of an autobiography of "the Swamp"--an area of Moscow across the river from the Kremlin. To his credit, he soon realizes that when you do this, you cannot have a "bricks and mortar" model of context (what Ruqaiya Hasan called 'material situational settings'); you need to understand context as the relevant settings for text. So then he decides that the context is really Marxism (already a very debatable proposition) and that the context of Marxism is really--religion. In Russia, it's an idea whose time--or at least whose sell-by date--has come: all of Soviet history is now being re-evaluated by Russians in highly religious terms. But how to repackage this idea in America? It turns out that Slezkine's model of Marxism is based on Marx's work on the "Jewish Question", probably the most vociferously decontextualized thing poor Marx ever wrote (it is invariably cited in discussions which 'prove' that Marx was anti-semitic). It also turns out that Slezkine's model of Judaism has an uncanny resemblance to the work of Amy Chua on "model minorities" like Chinese-Americans and Mormons; Slezkine thinks that Jews are a "Mercurial" people, who thrive on going to places in the economy where angels and "Apollonian" gentiles dare not tread. Slezkine is not an idiot; he's just a very repetitious, redundant, and wordy writer (caveat emptor until the paperback comes out!). But my reading of "Marx and Der Judenfrage" is very different. First of all, I took it for granted that Marx is writing as a Jew himself--as someone who would, like Mendelsohn, have been recognized as part of the "self-emancipated" Jewry (the Jews who had sought franchise by renouncing religion). Secondly, I thought that Marx is really making the same argument that Andy made. It is one of the cardinal and most overlooked points of the Quranic revelation: in religion, and matters of philosophy quite generally, compulsion (and French style state atheism) is quite beside the point. But maybe I am an idiot. (If so, the least I can do is to try to avoid repetition, redundancy, and ...) David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190609/00caf1d5/attachment.html From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sat Jun 8 16:34:11 2019 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 16:34:11 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Marx and Der Judenfrage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Perhaps a bit picky, but it is "die Judenfrage," for Frage (question) is a feminine noun. Michael On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 3:04 PM David Kellogg wrote: > I am ploughing through an enormous tome by Yuri Slezkine, called "The > House of Government". Slezkine sets out to give us a kind of historical > ethnography of Soviet times in the form of an autobiography of "the > Swamp"--an area of Moscow across the river from the Kremlin. To his credit, > he soon realizes that when you do this, you cannot have a "bricks and > mortar" model of context (what Ruqaiya Hasan called 'material situational > settings'); you need to understand context as the relevant settings for > text. So then he decides that the context is really Marxism (already a very > debatable proposition) and that the context of Marxism is really--religion. > > In Russia, it's an idea whose time--or at least whose sell-by date--has > come: all of Soviet history is now being re-evaluated by Russians in highly > religious terms. But how to repackage this idea in America? It turns out > that Slezkine's model of Marxism is based on Marx's work on the "Jewish > Question", probably the most vociferously decontextualized thing poor Marx > ever wrote (it is invariably cited in discussions which 'prove' that Marx > was anti-semitic). It also turns out that Slezkine's model of Judaism has > an uncanny resemblance to the work of Amy Chua on "model minorities" like > Chinese-Americans and Mormons; Slezkine thinks that Jews are > a "Mercurial" people, who thrive on going to places in the economy where > angels and "Apollonian" gentiles dare not tread. > > Slezkine is not an idiot; he's just a very repetitious, redundant, and > wordy writer (caveat emptor until the paperback comes out!). But my reading > of "Marx and Der Judenfrage" is very different. First of all, I took it for > granted that Marx is writing as a Jew himself--as someone who would, like > Mendelsohn, have been recognized as part of the "self-emancipated" Jewry > (the Jews who had sought franchise by renouncing religion). Secondly, I > thought that Marx is really making the same argument that Andy made. It is > one of the cardinal and most overlooked points of the Quranic revelation: > in religion, and matters of philosophy quite generally, compulsion (and > French style state atheism) is quite beside the point. But maybe I am an > idiot. (If so, the least I can do is to try to avoid repetition, > redundancy, and ...) > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in > understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190608/f9fef0fa/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Jun 8 16:43:17 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 08:43:17 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Marx and Der Judenfrage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Wolff-Michael (I think Marx's actual name for his pamphlet was "Zur Judenfrage". But then why is Heydrich's infamous "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" called *Endl?sung der Judenfrage?* (My grasp of German grammar is highly tenuous, as you can see!) David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 8:37 AM Wolff-Michael Roth < wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps a bit picky, but it is "die Judenfrage," for Frage (question) is > a feminine noun. Michael > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 3:04 PM David Kellogg wrote: > >> I am ploughing through an enormous tome by Yuri Slezkine, called "The >> House of Government". Slezkine sets out to give us a kind of historical >> ethnography of Soviet times in the form of an autobiography of "the >> Swamp"--an area of Moscow across the river from the Kremlin. To his credit, >> he soon realizes that when you do this, you cannot have a "bricks and >> mortar" model of context (what Ruqaiya Hasan called 'material situational >> settings'); you need to understand context as the relevant settings for >> text. So then he decides that the context is really Marxism (already a very >> debatable proposition) and that the context of Marxism is really--religion. >> >> In Russia, it's an idea whose time--or at least whose sell-by date--has >> come: all of Soviet history is now being re-evaluated by Russians in highly >> religious terms. But how to repackage this idea in America? It turns out >> that Slezkine's model of Marxism is based on Marx's work on the "Jewish >> Question", probably the most vociferously decontextualized thing poor Marx >> ever wrote (it is invariably cited in discussions which 'prove' that Marx >> was anti-semitic). It also turns out that Slezkine's model of Judaism has >> an uncanny resemblance to the work of Amy Chua on "model minorities" like >> Chinese-Americans and Mormons; Slezkine thinks that Jews are >> a "Mercurial" people, who thrive on going to places in the economy where >> angels and "Apollonian" gentiles dare not tread. >> >> Slezkine is not an idiot; he's just a very repetitious, redundant, and >> wordy writer (caveat emptor until the paperback comes out!). But my reading >> of "Marx and Der Judenfrage" is very different. First of all, I took it for >> granted that Marx is writing as a Jew himself--as someone who would, like >> Mendelsohn, have been recognized as part of the "self-emancipated" Jewry >> (the Jews who had sought franchise by renouncing religion). Secondly, I >> thought that Marx is really making the same argument that Andy made. It is >> one of the cardinal and most overlooked points of the Quranic revelation: >> in religion, and matters of philosophy quite generally, compulsion (and >> French style state atheism) is quite beside the point. But maybe I am an >> idiot. (If so, the least I can do is to try to avoid repetition, >> redundancy, and ...) >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New Article: >> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >> understanding narratives by >> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> Some e-prints available at: >> >> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190609/d18e0b54/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Jun 8 18:54:03 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 18:54:03 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Marx and Der Judenfrage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It was I who inflicted *The House of Government* on David. For those interested, I would also welcoming your views on the work. Here is what a blurb on the book says gets at my interest. I think that David choice of "autobiography" as description of the method gets at my interest. A simple characterization of the book stolen from William Taubman on the book flat: THe House of Government traces the public and personal lives of residents of a unique, elite Moscow housing complex as they evolve from fanatic Bolshevik revolutionaries to victims of Stalin's terror. The book is based on diaries, letters, memoirs and interviews featuring hundreds of rare photos and combining history biography and social theory. Alexander Luria's apartment was just across the bridge from it, and a member of Luria's research group in the 50's lived there. Across the river was the Kremlin. I have been trying to imaging the circumstances that Vygotsky encountered in the period of his active engagement of what we call the cultural historical project. All the Russian historians I know, older people to be sure, think highly of this book while disputing the kinds of thing that David and Michael can appreciate. So if there is interest in taking the time and effort, I would be glad very interested in your thoughts. My own experience in the USSR was deeply affected by these very events *in which they participated*. It was not an easy environment when your life's work on a new science of human development becomes the title word in a government decree that is life threatening. I so the contents of the book are of special concern. mike mike On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 4:47 PM David Kellogg wrote: > Thanks, Wolff-Michael (I think Marx's actual name for his pamphlet was > "Zur Judenfrage". > > But then why is Heydrich's infamous "Final Solution to the Jewish > Question" called *Endl?sung der Judenfrage?* > > (My grasp of German grammar is highly tenuous, as you can see!) > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in > understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 8:37 AM Wolff-Michael Roth < > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Perhaps a bit picky, but it is "die Judenfrage," for Frage (question) is >> a feminine noun. Michael >> >> On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 3:04 PM David Kellogg >> wrote: >> >>> I am ploughing through an enormous tome by Yuri Slezkine, called "The >>> House of Government". Slezkine sets out to give us a kind of historical >>> ethnography of Soviet times in the form of an autobiography of "the >>> Swamp"--an area of Moscow across the river from the Kremlin. To his credit, >>> he soon realizes that when you do this, you cannot have a "bricks and >>> mortar" model of context (what Ruqaiya Hasan called 'material situational >>> settings'); you need to understand context as the relevant settings for >>> text. So then he decides that the context is really Marxism (already a very >>> debatable proposition) and that the context of Marxism is really--religion. >>> >>> In Russia, it's an idea whose time--or at least whose sell-by date--has >>> come: all of Soviet history is now being re-evaluated by Russians in highly >>> religious terms. But how to repackage this idea in America? It turns out >>> that Slezkine's model of Marxism is based on Marx's work on the "Jewish >>> Question", probably the most vociferously decontextualized thing poor Marx >>> ever wrote (it is invariably cited in discussions which 'prove' that Marx >>> was anti-semitic). It also turns out that Slezkine's model of Judaism has >>> an uncanny resemblance to the work of Amy Chua on "model minorities" like >>> Chinese-Americans and Mormons; Slezkine thinks that Jews are >>> a "Mercurial" people, who thrive on going to places in the economy where >>> angels and "Apollonian" gentiles dare not tread. >>> >>> Slezkine is not an idiot; he's just a very repetitious, redundant, and >>> wordy writer (caveat emptor until the paperback comes out!). But my reading >>> of "Marx and Der Judenfrage" is very different. First of all, I took it for >>> granted that Marx is writing as a Jew himself--as someone who would, like >>> Mendelsohn, have been recognized as part of the "self-emancipated" Jewry >>> (the Jews who had sought franchise by renouncing religion). Secondly, I >>> thought that Marx is really making the same argument that Andy made. It is >>> one of the cardinal and most overlooked points of the Quranic revelation: >>> in religion, and matters of philosophy quite generally, compulsion (and >>> French style state atheism) is quite beside the point. But maybe I am an >>> idiot. (If so, the least I can do is to try to avoid repetition, >>> redundancy, and ...) >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> New Article: >>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >>> understanding narratives by >>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> >>> Some e-prints available at: >>> >>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> >>> -- We become ourselves through others -L.S.Vygotsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190608/2d3fe867/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Jun 8 19:11:35 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 12:11:35 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Marx and Der Judenfrage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <995e7a29-a014-521b-4439-934232b54c2f@marxists.org> Mike, I read the first 120 pages - the days of revolutionary agitation - but I got swamped by other things. Right now I am reading The English Patient. In mitigation of my omission, Mike, like David I think, I have had other personal experiences such that I am all too familiar with the processes described in the book. 1. As a Trotskyist, I have never harboured illusions in the Soviet bureaucracy, 2. Also as a Trotskyist I have personally experienced that kind of relations between people which supplants revolutionary fanaticism when the tide of revolution ebbs. 3. My parents were both enthusiastic members of the CPA, my mother died a dedicated supporter of "the Chinese people" and I know how powerful this kind of illusion can be, and yet compatible with bottomless humanism. Fortunately, my personal experience was only miniature-scale, so I have survived intact. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 9/06/2019 11:54 am, mike cole wrote: > It was I who inflicted /The House of Government/ on > David.? For those interested, I would also > welcoming your views on the work. Here is what a blurb on > the book says gets at my interest. > I think that David choice of "autobiography" as > description of the method gets at my interest. > > A simple characterization of the book stolen from William > Taubman on the book flat: > THe House of Government traces the public?and personal > lives of residents of a unique, elite Moscow housing > complex as they evolve from fanatic Bolshevik > revolutionaries to victims of Stalin's terror. > The book is based on diaries, letters, memoirs and > interviews featuring hundreds of rare photos and combining > history biography and social theory. > > Alexander Luria's apartment was just across the bridge > from it, and a member of Luria's research > group in the 50's lived there. Across the river was the > Kremlin. > > I have been trying to imaging the circumstances that > Vygotsky encountered in the period of his active > engagement of what we call the cultural historical > project. All the Russian historians I know, older people > to be sure, think highly of this book while disputing the > kinds of thing that David and Michael can appreciate. > > So if there is interest in taking the time and effort, I > would be glad very interested in your thoughts. > My own experience in the USSR was deeply affected by these > very events /in which they participated/. > It was not an easy environment when your life's work on a > new science of human development becomes > the title word in a government decree that is life > threatening. I so the contents of the book are of special > concern. > > mike > > mike > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 4:47 PM David Kellogg > > wrote: > > Thanks, Wolff-Michael (I think Marx's actual name for > his pamphlet was "Zur Judenfrage". > > But then why is Heydrich's infamous "Final Solution to > the Jewish Question" called /Endl?sung der Judenfrage?/ > // > > (My grasp of German grammar is highly tenuous, as you > can see!) > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without > SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s > construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 8:37 AM Wolff-Michael Roth > > wrote: > > Perhaps a bit? picky, but it is "die Judenfrage," > for Frage (question) is a feminine noun. Michael > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 3:04 PM David Kellogg > > wrote: > > I am ploughing through an enormous tome by > Yuri Slezkine, called "The House of > Government". Slezkine sets out to give us a > kind of historical ethnography of Soviet times > in the form of an autobiography of "the > Swamp"--an area of Moscow across the river > from the Kremlin. To his credit, he soon > realizes that when you do this, you cannot > have a "bricks and mortar" model of context > (what Ruqaiya Hasan called 'material > situational settings'); you need to understand > context as the relevant settings for text. So > then he decides that the context is really > Marxism (already a very debatable proposition) > and that the context of Marxism is > really--religion. > > In Russia, it's an idea whose time--or at > least whose sell-by date--has come:?all of > Soviet history is now being re-evaluated by > Russians in highly religious terms. But how to > repackage this idea in America? It turns out > that Slezkine's model of Marxism is based on > Marx's work on the "Jewish Question", probably > the most vociferously decontextualized thing > poor Marx ever wrote (it is invariably cited > in discussions which 'prove' that Marx was > anti-semitic). It also turns out that > Slezkine's model of Judaism has an uncanny > resemblance to?the work of Amy Chua on "model > minorities" like Chinese-Americans and > Mormons; Slezkine thinks that Jews are > a?"Mercurial"?people, who thrive on going to > places in the economy where angels and > "Apollonian" gentiles dare not tread. > > Slezkine is not an idiot; he's just a > very?repetitious, redundant, and? wordy?writer > (caveat emptor until the paperback comes > out!). But my reading of "Marx and Der > Judenfrage" is very different. First of all, I > took it for granted that Marx is writing as a > Jew himself--as someone who would, like > Mendelsohn,?have been recognized as part of > the "self-emancipated" Jewry (the Jews who had > sought franchise by renouncing > religion).?Secondly, I thought that Marx is > really making the same argument that > Andy?made. It is one of the cardinal and most > overlooked ?points of the Quranic revelation: > in religion, and matters of philosophy quite > generally, compulsion (and French style state > atheism)?is quite beside the point. But maybe > I am an idiot. (If so, the least I can do is > to?try to avoid repetition, redundancy, and ...) > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story > without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and > Halliday?s construalism in understanding > narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > -- > We become ourselves through others -L.S.Vygotsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190609/a394f2fb/attachment.html From anamshane@gmail.com Sun Jun 9 17:55:50 2019 From: anamshane@gmail.com (Ana Marjanovic-Shane) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 00:55:50 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: A new book: Dialogic Pedagogy and Polyphonic Research Art: Bakhtin by and for Educators In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Greg, Yes, it is interesting and exciting to ?accomplish? dialogue in a medium like this ? but in a way isn?t it the most natural medium for a dialogue? I remember when I first got an internet connection (back in the 80?s!!) and was able to exchange e-mails with so many people all over the world, it felt like a beginning of an era of real dialogue ? ?involving a plurality of unique and opaque consciousnesses with equal rights and each authoring and living in its own dialogically bounded world (cf. Bakhtin, 1999 , p. 6).? (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, p. 275). I remember distinctly how exciting it was to address people and be addressed by them in the email ? as pure voices, unburdened by their physical appearance that could betray their age, gender, speech dialect that could reveal their nationality (at the times of the civil wars in Yugoslavia), etc. Everyone could be addressed by ?Thou? (in Serbo-Croatian, it is an egalitarian pronoun, treating the interlocutor as an equal, and also as someone with whom one can be direct and open, as opposed to ?You?, that like French ?Vou?, Spanish ?Usted? German ?Sie? ? shows deference to a hierarchical authority of the older and/or wiser, or merely institutionally superiors or authorities). It eliminated sexism to a large extent too, and it eliminated boundaries between different circles of people: everyone and anyone could join a dialogue! In fact, I think that group lists like this one are the natural medium for a true dialogue. As for the issues that you feel important for our discussion: ?sustainability? and ?subjectivity? ? let?s discuss them further. Sustainability of EOD: You wrote: ?My question is more of an ecological one: is it sustainable in the sense that you can put it out into the world and it will be able to be taken up by teachers and others and practiced, and that this can be ongoing? Now, granted, the ecologies that I'm talking about are human ones. Hence my other question: what would need to change in order to make it sustainable? (and, relatedly, what is keeping it from being sustainable?). I like your suggestions and agree that standardized testing is a major impediment to the kind of EOD practice that you describe (as well as many other kinds of good pedagogical practices!).? In my view, an ecology that would promote (although not guarantee) Ethical Ontological Dialogism, could only be conceptualized if and when the intrinsic, rather than instrumental, sphere of education, as a basic human need and right, can be legitimized as the main, or at least one of the main purposes of education. It is a basic human need to be educated for her/his own reasons, on her/his own terms, at the time and in the manner that is most suitable to her/his own unique life trajectory, etc. If education is truly to be owned by the learner as his/her unalienated right of becoming, a legitimate right of pursuing a journey toward him/her-self, it would mean to completely change what today is the dominant purpose of education: to serve various other social, cultural and even personal needs. Such education, that serves other non-educational spheres is instrumental. It is a tool to help develop social goals of economy, science, technology, politics, legislature, medicine, etc. or to help a person get a better paid job, advance the position of her/his family; gain a social status, etc. These different social, cultural and personal goals can be defined and standardized, and they can be built into an educational system. They can shape education into a fully predefined activity (conceptualized as an activity system), regardless of who are the actual students or the teachers, who will be ?put through? this activity. In such educational system (as we have now), individual subjectivity is irrelevant! Any particular ?acter? in the system can be replaced ? because it is the system that defines what each position in it should ideally mean. Standardized tests are just a tip of the ice-berg of such activity system that is predefined and preconceptualized ? in other words a system that Aristotle would describe as ?po?esis? ? a practice which structure, form and content are predefined, and its outcomes known in advance. In contrast, the main purpose and premise of Education based on Ethical Ontological Dialogism is the support of the unique trajectory of each individual learning journey, which is not known in advance, and cannot be assumed to exist apart from the particular unique learner and/or teacher. Such a practice would be a ?praxis? in terms of Aristotle, a practice whose purposes, goals, forms and trajectories evolve from itself and are based on the uniqueness of the involved participants, serendipity of the moment-to-moment events, the availability of the cultural, historical, economic, political, and other social ?resources? (artefacts, ideas, concepts, means that can ?fuel? educational inquiries). In such praxis, there exist a plurality of purposes for education, including its instrumental potentials for the society and for the individuals, and its non-instrumental values (to learn something ?just because it is interesting and important to me, and I like it?). What is important is the legitimacy of each learner?s and teacher?s subjectivity. Such education is not based on replaceable individuals and does not aim to produce ?replaceable? individuals. Ethical Ontological Dialogism, in fact, requires acknowledgement of the uniqueness of each person her/his education. And that would require many changes. In that sense, ?sustainability? should be not about content and form of education (curriculum, instruction, organization, even relationships), but about values and purposes of education. Of course, ecology for EOD depends on various economic and societal conditions that either make EOD more possible and more valuable, or make it less possible and less valuable. Eugene Matusov is working on a new book in which he claims that instrumental education in the past and the present is a result of the economic and societal necessities: we need people who are trained to do many jobs in which they function as parts of large activity systems (economy, health, legal and judiciary spheres, technology, maintenance of infra-structures, etc.). Under such circumstances, human unique, unpredictable, transcending subjectivity is not only irrelevant, but can be dangerously undermining and destructive for the activity system. However, the more predictable and the more standardized is a particular activity system, the more chance that it will be possible to develop smart machines (robots) that can do such jobs. The current development of technology, especially technology based on artificial intelligence, will enable our societies to replace many humans with real smart machines, even for highly professional jobs ? in the near future. This will free many people from the necessity to act as a smart machine and create circumstances in which a society would be able to afford what today is affordable only to the very wealthy: a lot of time for true leisure, a kind of leisure that in the ancient Greek was called ?skhole? (Greek: skhole "spare time, leisure, rest, ease; idleness; that in which leisure is employed; learned discussion;" ? Online Etymology Dictionary: https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=school). These circumstances would much better support creation of educational ecology that promotes EOD. And that leads us to the issue #2 ? Subjectivity and EOD In our book, we argue that human subjectivity, in fact, has to be considered in a dualistic way ? both as something given i.e., objective subjectivity, studied by conventional psychology (including sociocultural one), and also as something that is in continuous dialogic authorial subjectivity, and thus, unfinalizable, unpredictable (even for the person in question), unique and transcending her/his prior self. We claim that ?human subjectivity always has simultaneously an objective aspect (i.e., ?consciousness-as-it?) and an authorial aspect (i.e., ?consciousness-as-you?) (Matusov, 2015, p. 401), we think that both positivist and dialogic paradigms are legitimate in social sciences. This dualistic science epistemology for social sciences and humanities was unapologetically proposed by Bakhtin (1986). Bakhtin seemed to accept the objectification of human subjectivity promoted by positivist social sciences as legitimate under certain conditions when personal human uniqueness, personal authorial authorship, and personal voice do not dominate a phenomenon.? (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, p. 277). It is this dual mode of existence, that is the source of what you call ?emphasizing different sides of the argument?. It is quite possible and often necessary to objectify subjectivity of the other and the self. But it is also necessary to keep in mind that the subjectivity, in its very core, actually emerges in the process of dialogic meaning-making, and thus, its source, essence and actual life as subjectivity is unfinalizable, transcendent, unique and unpredictable. In the book we identified two main sources of objectification of human subjectivity. One main source is rooted in objective ways of how a person feels, thinks, acts, and behaves due to physical, chemical, biological, psychological, cultural, social, economic, political, historical, and institutional pressures that make human subjectivity predictable and replaceable. For example, a cognitive study shows that when some people are primed to remember words depicting old people, they might tend to walk slowly (Kahneman, 2013). Here, priming?the preexisting objectivity of human subjectivity?is revealed by the positivist research? (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, p. 278). The other source of objectifying human subjectivity is ?when people are treated as objects of other people?s or their own actions. For example, in conventional schools, students are often treated as objects of teachers? pedagogical actions to make them predictably and systematically arrive at preset curricular endpoints, to be measured by educational tests, quizzes, and exams. Alternatively, some people consciously want to limit their own uniqueness and authorial authorship in some areas to save their creative efforts for other areas. Thus, famous physicist Albert Einstein and former US President Barak Obama deliberately made their choice of everyday dress cyclical and predictable, while other people may find a choice of their everyday dress a part of their creative self-expression. Here, the objective subjectivity is new and actively constructed by other people or by the people themselves? (p. 278, italics added now). In fact, objectifying human subjectivity is quite successfully done in all forms of behavioristic shaping of others? behavior. There are extensive psychological, sociological and educational studies based on positivist objective and objectifying approach to human sciences. One could argue that these approaches have been successful and that a lot has been learned about the objectifiable aspects of human subjectivity. In our book, we make a particular point in defense of objectivism of the positivist research of the given ? because it studies the objective subjectivity. We do not argue that dialogism is a ?better? approach, nor an ?ultimate? approach. Rather, we argue that both the positivist, objective science approach to capture the givens of the subjectivity, human relations, social practices, etc., and dialogic approach to the unfinalizable, meaning-making, unique and transcendent subjectivity ? are legitimate in their own right, and that it is important to find boundaries of each one?s legitimacy. We wrote, ?We argue that both positivist science and dialogic science have their legitimacy and limitations. Thus, it is legitimate for positivist science to study objective things and objective subjectivities. For example, we praise (see Matusov, 2017) cognitive psychologist Daniel Kahneman who studied flaws of human gut subjectivity (Kahneman, 2013). However, when positivist science tries to study authorial subjectivity, live voices, dialogic meaning making, or ethical responsibility, it kills what it studies in its process. In essence, we both agree and disagree with the postmodernist critique of positivism (see, for example, Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). We agree with the critique of its limitations and of its inappropriateness in some areas of research. But, we respectfully disagree that positivism is wrong in each and every case and that it has to be eliminated. Similarly, dialogic science has its own limitations and applicability. When dialogic science tries to study the objective world (and objective subjectivity), at best it generates good poetry, metaphors, or fiction prose, anthropologizing and ventriloquizing voiceless things, and at worst it creates new oppressive religious mysticisms or ?alternative facts.? It can be legitimate for dialogic researchers to study astronomers involved in a positivist study of stars by addressing and responding to astronomers, but it is not legitimate for these dialogic researchers to try to address and respond to stars or talk with trees (see a debate on that here: Matusov & Wegerif, 2014)?. (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, Dialogic pedagogy and polyphonic research art: Bakhtin by and for educators, Palgrave, pp. 226-7) It seems that your question is in regard of a possibility for coexistence of two legitimate educational modes: a conventional, objectifying, instrumental educational mode in which education is conceptualized as a ?po?esis? ? i.e. the curriculum, instruction, evaluation and its other aspects are predefined, and based on the ?best practices? discovered through objectifying positivist approach to subjectivity; and at the same time, existence of the sustainable ethical ontological dialogism in which both subjectivities and education itself are deemed ?praxis? that creates ecologies in which emergence of unfinalizable, transcendent, unique and unpredictable subjectivities is possible. Ultimately, for me, Ethical Ontological Dialogism is about legitimizing the fact that this question is to be answered by the educational participant, i.e. the learner and /or the teacher (and possibly other relevant parties, like parents). In other words, ethical ontological dialogism in education should start with addressing this question to every participant: ?What is the purpose of education for me? Why?? and having this dialogue be critically analyzed ? and illuminating every educational decision along the way. What do you think? Ana -- Ana Marjanovic-Shane Phone: 267-334-2905 Email: anamshane@gmail.com From: "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu" on behalf of Greg Thompson Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Friday, May 31, 2019 at 3:25 PM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Cc: Eugene Matusov , "mikhail.gradovski@uis.no" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: A new book: Dialogic Pedagogy and Polyphonic Research Art: Bakhtin by and for Educators Ana, Isn't it delightful to try to accomplish "dialogue" in a medium such as this? I think I'll have to respond in toto rather than as proper conversational second parts as you have done - for fear that things will get too messy and difficult to track (much different from if we were having this conversation in person - or, at least, a different kind of messiness!). Regarding the issue of universality, as an anthropologist, this is an occupational hazard. I should be clear that my question is different from the concern with "scaling up" (or "mechanization") which seeks to identify teaching practices that can be simply applied to all teaching encounters. My concern is precisely that there may be some places where this might not be the most ethical approach - or perhaps that it might need some further specification and/or modifications. As for "sustainability", yes I have a slightly different understanding from what you are describing (what you are describing seems to be more like the "scaling up" issue I've mentioned above - i.e., how to mass produce education). My question is more of an ecological one: is it sustainable in the sense that you can put it out into the world and it will be able to be taken up by teachers and others and practiced, and that this can be ongoing? Now, granted, the ecologies that I'm talking about are human ones. Hence my other question: what would need to change in order to make it sustainable? (and, relatedly, what is keeping it from being sustainable?). I like your suggestions and agree that standardized testing is a major impediment to the kind of EOD practice that you describe (as well as many other kinds of good pedagogical practices!). On the issue of the pre-existing nature of the subject, we may have to agree to disagree. Whether or not that is the case may, in part, depend on whether or not you equate "unfinalizable" with "undefined". I'm no expert in Bakhtin and I'm a bit out of touch, but from what I recall of my reading of him, the point is that we are consummated by the recognition of others and that is central to our emerging definitions of who we are. There is a subject here. The ethical caution that I see Bakhtin offering is that this moment of recognition (and hence this subject) should not be final - i.e., that is who we have come to be, not as finalized subjects, but as subjects-in-the-making, subjects abuilding (bildung?). Thus, for example, one doesn't wake each morning with a clean slate in one's relationship with one's partner as if their subject-hood is undefined. In other words, I don't think Bakthin is being ahistorical about subjects. Rather, in my reading of B, if one loves one's partner, one wakes each morning with a clean slate of who they can BECOME (unfinalized) but without neglecting who they have been to oneself (since to recognize them as "partner" is to already begin from an understanding of their subject-hood prior to your subsequent encounters with them that day). That's just my take. And note that we may in fact be in total agreement on this but just emphasizing different sides of the argument? As for the comment about Martin Packer's book, I should have clarified that it is not about studying subjectivity "objectively" but rather is a critique of this entire enterprise. If you get a chance to have a read of it, I think you'll find some strong resonances. Apologies to Martin for mischaracterizing his work in my initial comment ("that's not what I meant!"). As for how this is "ontological", I like the direction that you propose - this is about the constitution of subjects (and, perhaps, about the constitution of reality and the worlds that we inhabit?). That's some big stuff. Anyway, thanks much for the engagement (which I'm happy to continue - although maybe there are more productive directions than those I have taken thus far?). And to this point of possibility and becoming, I thought I'd offer a favorite quote of mine from Lloyd Alexander's book The Castly Llyr. This is Lord Dalben's parting advice to the young Princess Eilonwy as she sets out on an adventure and is rather unsure of her ability to handle the challenges that this adventure will entail. It captures the challenge of allowing others' becoming (even if it is in spite of themselves): Dalben says to Eilonwy: "For each of us comes a time when we must become more than what we are." Cheers, greg On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:51 AM Ana Marjanovic-Shane > wrote: Dear Greg, David and all, Thanks, David, for another thoughtful and provoking email. Although I am faster this time in my reply, I would still like to count it in the ?slow dialogue?! :) Thanks for the opportunity for having a very thoughtful Saturday morning. See my responses between your lines below (in red). Ana -- Ana Marjanovic-Shane Phone: 267-334-2905 Email: anamshane@gmail.com From: "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu" > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Friday, May 24, 2019 at 3:33 PM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Eugene Matusov >, "mikhail.gradovski@uis.no" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: A new book: Dialogic Pedagogy and Polyphonic Research Art: Bakhtin by and for Educators Ana, Thank you so much for your very thoughtful description/explanation of Ethical Ontological Dialogism. I know that by now you probably thought I was avoiding your answer, but I've been trying to figure how to offer a reasonable response to the feast that you put forward in your email and trying to figure out how I might respond to your post in a manner consonant with ethical ontological dialogism. I'm pretty sure I'll fail at the latter, but feast I did. ANA: Thanks I'm also curious if a medium like a listserve can brook the challenge of slow replies - replies that don't come for days or even weeks. I'm always surprised to see how quickly conversations come and go even in a (virtual) place as thoughtful as XMCA. Perhaps this is a sign of the times; you can find "dialogue" everywhere but seldom does it amount to much - whether ethically (cf. the dialogical fires that regularly erupt in social media) or ontologically (cf. the "dialogue" of talking heads on just about any media outlet who are expected to instantly opine on subjects about which they've had little time to think). The dialogues on XMCA are perhaps a bit slower than some of these other "dialogues" but even here on XMCA it seems the half-life of a comment is about 24 hours. So I'm wondering what a slower listserve might look like and whether slow replies might perhaps be a step toward what you have outlined as ethical ontological dialogism. ANA: I think that we should try to do slow dialogues among other dialogues. It is true that your original email and a simple question on elaborating Ethical Ontological Dialogism (EOD), made me slow down and start to think about what I see as an essence that can be somehow described in a concentrated way but without loss of life and subjectivity. It was me, first who slowed down the discussion. And I liked the time it took to think about the issue. That's all just to say that I was delighted by your response (and the fact that you took some time to respond) and I hope you'll forgive me for multiplying that time in my response (and, of course, that last paragraph could be seen as just an attempt to rationalize my failure to be a responsible partner in dialogue...). Anyway, as for the project itself, I find it quite exciting and invigorating. It is a wonderfully interesting project to tease out the implications of Bakhtin's work for teachers' practice and the way you have outlined this in your email really sings to me. If I were to ask questions about the project (and maybe some of these answers are contained in the book - I've asked our library to order it), I have two major questions that stand out. One has to do with sustainability of these principles and the other has to do with the universality of them. ANA: Before I reply to any one of them below ? you may notice that both questions are about issues important in a different, more prevalent, monologic approach of searching the ?universal? and erasing the uniqueness of subjectivity by the notion of ?sustainability? ? which implies that teaching should strive to be something that can be replicated by others. (just a quick comment ? which ties into your next paragraph) With regard to sustainability, along with David Kirshner's question: "Do you not tremble at the selflessness that this posture demands?", I wonder if this is the kind of thing that teachers in major public school systems can easily sustain? Or is there something else that is needed in order to be able to enable teachers to realize this kind of practice? What things might need to change? ANA: Sustainability, in my interpretation, (correct me if I am wrong), runs directly in contradiction to dialogicity! Sustainability means basing teaching on ?the best practices? ? or replicating past ?models,? that seem to be working good. That very process in its nature is monologic, introducing something that is above and erases the uniqueness of each person?s subjectivity, and thus each teacher?s striving to create and be surprised by new moment-to-moment evolving meanings in dialogic relationships with the equally unique and unpredictable students. That cannot be ?sustained?, because such a process cannot be guaranteed, as it is different for each participant. Yes, you, Greg and David Kirschner might say ?I tremble at the selflessness that this posture demands? but this trembling for me is the sign of a pulse of life. Pulse of life that can live freed of the mechanization through which the contemporary education attempts to process the participants in education. What needs to change to enable teachers this kind of practice? A lot of things! But some countries may be timidly starting on this path (For instance New Zealand removed national educational standards https://education.govt.nz/news/national-standards-removed/ !) Of course, removing national standards is just a first step. There are for sure many more things that will have to be changed ? and not all the same things for all the people in education. But I also think that the changes need to be broadly directed at creating ecologies of education in which teaching and learning can take a lot more authorial and creative turn than it is possible now. What exactly would that mean ? will probably be very different for each teacher and each student. With regard to universalizability, I wonder if you have thought much about the ideology of the subject that underlies this project? As much as the project sings to me, I wonder how much of that is because it is based on an ideology of the subject that resonates with me (I'm a fan of Bakhtin's notion of the subject as articulated in Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity). As an anthropologist I have to ask the question: what if the culture that you are working in requires acknowledgment of some fixed characteristics of the subject being addressed, perhaps even as finalized and finished categories? Relatedly, I wonder if there might not be need for some awareness of patterns of difference whether developmental differences, cultural differences, and other differences that are important to engage with in order to engage in an EOD manner with others? ANA: You ask ?what if the culture that you are working in requires acknowledgment of some fixed characteristics of the subject being addressed, perhaps even as finalized and finished categories?? I think that when a culture requires acknowledgement of some fixed characteristics of the subject being addressed, that culture in itself has a non-dialogic ideology ? ideology that requires and counts on suppressing the uniqueness of subjectivity and, thus, suppressing the meaning-making practices. So, yes, if the ideology of a culture is monologic, a project to fully dialogize teaching would be hard, potentially impossible, and would have to be ?smuggled? under the radar of what the educational authorities demand. This is, in fact, what happens today in most conventional schools that are governed in a strictly hierarchical, authoritarian way, demanding reproduction of culture, ideology and dogma by setting these ideologies, standards and dogmas as the only legitimate ones, and enforcing them with standardized testing. Even the recognition of differences in the form of the talk about developmental differences (developmentally appropriate curriculum), cultural differences (culturally sensitive curriculum), individual differences in special education (various accommodations specified in the Individual Service Plans (ISPs), etc. ? this recognition is still about how to strive toward, aim at, and somehow reach the prescribed standardized and pre-set educational end-points, despite the special circumstances of diversity, which are all perceived as forms of an educational handicap! In my view, Bakhtin inspired dialogism does not recognize any preexisting subject, nor any pre-existing fixed characteristics of the subject. Dialogicity is a stance that assumes that subjectivity is born in dialogue ? it is not a given, not even for the person her/him-self. Rather, one?s subjectivity is constantly being born in one?s own dialogic project of becoming a person, in dialogue, where one discovers pregnant possibilities for ?I? to become ?ME?. Put slightly differently, is it possible that recognizing pre-existing persons as part of (fixed) pre-existing categories might be a necessary part of an ethical ontological dialogism. ANA: For me: No! (see above). In other words, is there some other end of the spectrum opposite of a total rejection of these positive categories and patterns that is necessary for an ethical ontological dialogism? ANA: You assume that the opposite of not recognizing unique individual subjectivity of others ? is ?recognition of preexisting person as part of (fixed) pre-existing categories?. This assumption is a trap ? as it stays in the same realm of the given (positive), i.e. given in the world as such. However, the question is not whether the uniqueness of the subjectivity is given or not, the question is about whether our subjectivity is a given or our subjectivity emerges in a continuing transcendence of the given. It seems that this positive categorization is a part of ethical dialogical practice in much of our intimate encounters - whether the mother anticipating the needs of a nursing child, a child anticipating their parent's wishes (in Korea there is a term "nunchi" which is one of the most fundamental ethical values of certain kinds of relationships and involves the anticipation of the needs of significant others; importantly, these are often in hierarchical relationships), a teacher designing a curriculum for incoming students based on what little is known of their developmental age, or the anticipatory removal of images of snakes by a man whose spouse is ophidiophobic. Prediction as part of the anticipation of needs hardly seems ethically problematic in these cases and, in fact, it seems to be exactly the opposite. ANA: It is very important, in my view that you notice that a mother (caregiver) keeps anticipating the needs (and the subjectivity) of a child ? i.e. that an ethical thing is to anticipate someone?s subjectivity!! I think that this is the core of an ethical approach ? to anticipate someone?s subjectivity ? and yet not to assume that one can know it, or that subjectivity is (fully) knowable. To me, that means what Bakhtin conceptualized as ?unfinalizability?. I would think that this would also mean that the goal of psychology -understanding others - has the potential to be a deeply ethical practice in the EOD sense. The one caveat is that it shouldn't be seen as the final word on any one subject - i.e., you can never fully "know" a person via the categories that they might fit into. If I may anticipate(!) your response, I assume that an EOD approach would not avoid this but would simply be to emphasize that this is NOT the same as using one's knowledge of the Other as a final determination - as a determination of the Other's "essence and potential". That seems a critical point. ANA: No. EOD approach is different for me. EOD approach is in anticipating surprises from oneself and the others, inviting oneself and the others to further transcend the given and making opportunities for such transcendence; rather than simply being aware that one should not finalize the other. And to develop it further, ?anticipation? of the other?s subjectivity is about being genuinely interested in the other. This genuine interests opens a door for the other to join the dialogue ? in which all the participants can have an opportunity for discovering/constructing and transcending their subjectivities. A few other thoughts: I can't help but see strong parallels between your critique of social science research and the critique offered by Martin Packer in his book The Science of Qualitative Research. Latour seems to be one of the main common touchpoints, but thematically you are engaged in very similar projects - the question of how to study "subjectivity" "objectively". ANA: In fact, NO. The Ethical Ontological Dialogism is not about studying subjectivity ?objectively?, but is about providing opportunities for and inviting people?s subjectivities to start/continue emerging in all the unpredictable and intrepid ways imaginable (and unimaginable) transcendence. The major difference is that where you turn to Bakhtin's notion of unfinalizability, he turns to Foucault's notion of an "historical ontology of ourselves". Regardless of that, I see huge resonances between your work. And regardless of those resonances, I imagine that bringing EOD to social science research would be another angle to develop more substantially (if you haven't already!). Oh, and a question: what is "ontological" about EOD? ANA: Ahh, the most important question!?. To say it quickly ? to me the ?ontological? means that for the dialogic participants the dialogue matters on the level of their dialogic subjectivity! It matters for who they are! It matters for their ideas about the world, the others and themselves. It matters for what they desire, what they fear, what they think they can?t live with or without, etc. ?Ontologically? engaged dialogue makes a difference for the continuing transcendence of the given ? it can and does change big and/or small things relevant for the person and her/his personhood. But, of course, this question requires a lot more analysis. I have more thoughts but I think I've already said too much... ANA: ??. Me too. Once again, many thanks for your thoughtful and lengthy response. I look forward to reading more. Very best, Greg -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190610/ba89d3c3/attachment-0001.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Jun 10 00:58:01 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:58:01 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] The House of Government Message-ID: (I'm changing the name of this thread, both to reflect the content and because I don't think that Wolff-Michael's comment on the gender of "Frage" in German is picky at all.) I think that "The House of Government" is not really an instance of ethnography of speech; that is only what in the seventeenth century was called a "conceit"--an instance of wit that involves unlikely juxtaposition, like fleabites and romantic love. It's really a sustained argument about two propositions that the author finds utterly contradictory: that the future is somehow in some way already programmed and that its realization is still somehow in some way contingent on your participation. Both propositions seem very poorly framed to me, but I do recognize that frame of mind that likes to frame historical problems in these inexplicable, inextricable muddles (for example: my sister has just sent me an urgent link urging me to give up chocolate in order to struggle against child labor in the Ivory Coast--not, mind you, in order to lower the price of chocolate!) Early on, the author points out how some authors tried their best to write revolutionary epics but could not resist the lure of irony. This was actually two paths, and not one. For the early generation of artists (Mayakovsky, Babel), what was involved was adherance to the revolutionary camp, a sudden consciousness of the religious element of that zeal, and then a very different moment of "campiness", a reflective moment we might almost call revolutionary perezhivanie. As if through a looking glass, the later generation of artists (Shokolov, Ostrovsky) took the opposite path: a certain aloofness from the events of the revolution, a sudden interest in intensive realism, in "permeating art with life", and as a result the kind of cynicism that became very explicit and very profitable (and which is quite typical of Chinese art today). Something of the sort could also be said about psychology: there was a first generation for whom the revolution was the moment when humans could exercise rational free will over everything from economics to child development, and there was a later generation which proceeded the other way around, working on lie detectors and programmed learning that would allow us to plan the human. Perhaps the real dividing line in generations is not when you are born but rather when and how you died. I think of Vygotsky (and Trotsky) as belonging to the first generation, while Luria (and Leontiev) belonged to the second. (Wolff-Michael: I am still wondering about "der Frage", but let me guess--In *Endl?sung der Judenfrage,*"der" actually doesn't mean the masculine article, but a preposition + article combination like "de la" in French.) David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190610/d6372c7e/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Mon Jun 10 01:11:14 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 18:11:14 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The House of Government In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Die = feminine gender, nominative or accusative case Der = feminine gender, genitive case (or dative) ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 10/06/2019 5:58 pm, David Kellogg wrote: > (I'm changing the name of this thread, both to reflect the > content and because I don't think that Wolff-Michael's > comment on the gender of "Frage" in German is picky at all.) > > I think that "The House of Government" is not really an > instance of ethnography of speech; that is only what in > the seventeenth century was called a "conceit"--an > instance of wit that involves unlikely juxtaposition, like > fleabites and romantic love. > > It's really a sustained argument about two propositions > that the author finds utterly contradictory: that?the > future is somehow in some way already programmed and that > its realization is still somehow in some way contingent on > your participation. Both propositions seem very poorly > framed to me, but I do recognize that frame of mind that > likes to?frame historical problems in these?inexplicable, > inextricable muddles?(for example: my sister has just sent > me an urgent link urging me to?give up chocolate in order > to struggle against child labor in the Ivory Coast--not, > mind you, in order to lower the price of chocolate!) > > Early on, the author points out how some authors tried > their best to write revolutionary epics but could not > resist the lure of?irony. This was actually two paths, and > not one. For the early generation of artists > (Mayakovsky,?Babel), what was involved was?adherance to > the revolutionary camp, a sudden consciousness of the > religious element of that zeal, and then a very different > moment of?"campiness", a reflective moment we might almost > call revolutionary perezhivanie. As if through a looking > glass, the later generation of artists (Shokolov, > Ostrovsky) took?the opposite path: a certain aloofness > from the events of the revolution, a sudden interest in > intensive realism, in?"permeating art with life", and as a > result?the kind of?cynicism that?became very explicit and > very profitable (and which is quite typical of Chinese art > today). > > Something of the sort could also be said about psychology: > there was a first generation for whom the revolution was > the moment when humans could exercise rational free will > over everything from?economics to child development, and > there was a later generation which proceeded the other way > around, working on lie detectors and programmed learning > that would allow us to plan the human. Perhaps the real > dividing line in generations is not when you are born but > rather when and how you died. I?think of Vygotsky (and > Trotsky)?as belonging to the first generation, while Luria > (and Leontiev) belonged to the second. > > (Wolff-Michael: I am still wondering about "der Frage", > but let me guess--In /Endl?sung der Judenfrage,/"der" > actually doesn't mean the masculine article, but a > preposition + article?combination like "de la" in French.) > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without > SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s > construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190610/a2df140c/attachment.html From helen.beetham@gmail.com Mon Jun 10 01:27:28 2019 From: helen.beetham@gmail.com (Helen Beetham) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 09:27:28 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: A new book: Dialogic Pedagogy and Polyphonic Research Art: Bakhtin by and for Educators In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0DBA5AC4-22D7-48A5-8769-528624A7FBB1@gmail.com> Dear Ana I?ve followed XMCA for many years but rarely feel I have anything to contribute. However, this extended piece arrived at a pivotal moment in my thinking about research methodology - in relation to a study on critical digital literacies, so centrally concerned with the kinds of subjectivity that could or could not be replaced by intelligent machines. Thank you for sharing your clear analysis of this core issue in educational research. You come directly at what most methodology texts only circle around - the need to identify the scope and the limitations of positivity - and of dialogicity - and to recruit participants in helping to define the boundaries, which are not fixed but depend on individual and collective purpose. I am guessing that the ?right answer? to the methodological question in any research context will be provisional, and intersubjective between the researcher?s own poeisis/praxis and those of participants?? I?m delighted to have found the book and look forward to reading more. Helen Helen Beetham, Researcher and Consultant @helenbeetham helenb33 helen.beetham@gmail.com h.a.beetham@wlv.ac.uk digitalthinking.org.uk > On 10 Jun 2019, at 01:55, Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote: > > <>Dear Greg, <> > > Yes, it is interesting and exciting to ?accomplish? dialogue in a medium like this ? but in a way isn?t it the most natural medium for a dialogue? I remember when I first got an internet connection (back in the 80?s!!) and was able to exchange e-mails with so many people all over the world, it felt like a beginning of an era of real dialogue ? ?involving a plurality of unique and opaque consciousnesses with equal rights and each authoring and living in its own dialogically bounded world (cf. Bakhtin, 1999 , p. 6).? (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, p. 275). I remember distinctly how exciting it was to address people and be addressed by them in the email ? as pure voices, unburdened by their physical appearance that could betray their age, gender, speech dialect that could reveal their nationality (at the times of the civil wars in Yugoslavia), etc. Everyone could be addressed by ?Thou? (in Serbo-Croatian, it is an egalitarian pronoun, treating the interlocutor as an equal, and also as someone with whom one can be direct and open, as opposed to ?You?, that like French ?Vou?, Spanish ?Usted? German ?Sie? ? shows deference to a hierarchical authority of the older and/or wiser, or merely institutionally superiors or authorities). It eliminated sexism to a large extent too, and it eliminated boundaries between different circles of people: everyone and anyone could join a dialogue! > > In fact, I think that group lists like this one are the natural medium for a true dialogue. > > As for the issues that you feel important for our discussion: ?sustainability? and ?subjectivity? ? let?s discuss them further. > > Sustainability of EOD: > > You wrote: ?My question is more of an ecological one: is it sustainable in the sense that you can put it out into the world and it will be able to be taken up by teachers and others and practiced, and that this can be ongoing? Now, granted, the ecologies that I'm talking about are human ones. Hence my other question: what would need to change in order to make it sustainable? (and, relatedly, what is keeping it from being sustainable?). I like your suggestions and agree that standardized testing is a major impediment to the kind of EOD practice that you describe (as well as many other kinds of good pedagogical practices!).? > > In my view, an ecology that would promote (although not guarantee) Ethical Ontological Dialogism, could only be conceptualized if and when the intrinsic, rather than instrumental,sphere of education, as a basic human need and right, can be legitimized as the main, or at least one of the main purposes of education. It is a basic human need to be educated for her/his own reasons, on her/his own terms, at the time and in the manner that is most suitable to her/his own unique life trajectory, etc. > > If education is truly to be owned by the learner as his/her unalienated right of becoming, a legitimate right of pursuing a journey toward him/her-self, it would mean to completely change what today is the dominant purpose of education: to serve various other social, cultural and even personal needs. Such education, that serves other non-educational spheres is instrumental. It is a tool to help develop social goals of economy, science, technology, politics, legislature, medicine, etc. or to help a person get a better paid job, advance the position of her/his family; gain a social status, etc. > > These different social, cultural and personal goals can be defined and standardized, and they can be built into an educational system. They can shape education into a fully predefined activity (conceptualized as an activity system), regardless of who are the actual students or the teachers, who will be ?put through? this activity. In such educational system (as we have now), individual subjectivity is irrelevant! Any particular ?acter? in the system can be replaced ? because it is the system that defines what each position in it should ideally mean. Standardized tests are just a tip of the ice-berg of such activity system that is predefined and preconceptualized ? in other words a system that Aristotle would describe as ?po?esis? ? a practice which structure, form and content are predefined, and its outcomes known in advance. > > In contrast, the main purpose and premise of Education based on Ethical Ontological Dialogism is the support of the unique trajectory of each individual learning journey, which is not known in advance, and cannot be assumed to exist apart from the particular unique learner and/or teacher. Such a practice would be a ?praxis? in terms of Aristotle, a practice whose purposes, goals, forms and trajectories evolve from itself and are based on the uniqueness of the involved participants, serendipity of the moment-to-moment events, the availability of the cultural, historical, economic, political, and other social ?resources? (artefacts, ideas, concepts, means that can ?fuel? educational inquiries). In such praxis, there exist a plurality of purposes for education, including its instrumental potentials for the society and for the individuals, and its non-instrumental values (to learn something ?just because it is interesting and important to me, and I like it?). What is important is the legitimacy of each learner?s and teacher?s subjectivity. Such education is not based on replaceable individuals and does not aim to produce ?replaceable? individuals. > > Ethical Ontological Dialogism, in fact, requires acknowledgement of the uniqueness of each person her/his education. And that would require many changes. In that sense, ?sustainability? should be not about content and form of education (curriculum, instruction, organization, even relationships), but about values and purposes of education. > > Of course, ecology for EOD depends on various economic and societal conditions that either make EOD more possible and more valuable, or make it less possible and less valuable. Eugene Matusov is working on a new book in which he claims that instrumental education in the past and the present is a result of the economic and societal necessities: we need people who are trained to do many jobs in which they function as parts of large activity systems (economy, health, legal and judiciary spheres, technology, maintenance of infra-structures, etc.). Under such circumstances, human unique, unpredictable, transcending subjectivity is not only irrelevant, but can be dangerously undermining and destructive for the activity system. > > However, the more predictable and the more standardized is a particular activity system, the more chance that it will be possible to develop smart machines (robots) that can do such jobs. The current development of technology, especially technology based on artificial intelligence, will enable our societies to replace many humans with real smart machines, even for highly professional jobs ? in the near future. This will free many people from the necessity to act as a smart machine and create circumstances in which a society would be able to afford what today is affordable only to the very wealthy: a lot of time for true leisure, a kind of leisure that in the ancient Greek was called ?skhole? (Greek: skhole "spare time, leisure, rest, ease; idleness; that in which leisure is employed; learned discussion;" ? Online Etymology Dictionary: https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=school ). These circumstances would much better support creation of educational ecology that promotes EOD. > > And that leads us to the issue #2 ? > > Subjectivity and EOD > > In our book, we argue that human subjectivity, in fact, has to be considered in a dualistic way ? both as something given i.e., objective subjectivity, studied by conventional psychology (including sociocultural one), and also as something that is in continuous dialogic authorial subjectivity, and thus, unfinalizable, unpredictable (even for the person in question), unique and transcending her/his prior self. > We claim that > ?human subjectivity always has simultaneously an objective aspect (i.e., ?consciousness-as-it?) and an authorial aspect (i.e., ?consciousness-as-you?) (Matusov, 2015, p. 401), we think that both positivist and dialogic paradigms are legitimate in social sciences. This dualistic science epistemology for social sciences and humanities was unapologetically proposed by Bakhtin (1986). Bakhtin seemed to accept the objectification of human subjectivity promoted by positivist social sciences as legitimate under certain conditions when personal human uniqueness, personal authorial authorship, and personal voice do not dominate a phenomenon.? (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, p. 277). > > > It is this dual mode of existence, that is the source of what you call ?emphasizing different sides of the argument?. It is quite possible and often necessary to objectify subjectivity of the other and the self. But it is also necessary to keep in mind that the subjectivity, in its very core, actually emerges in the process of dialogic meaning-making, and thus, its source, essence and actual life as subjectivity is unfinalizable, transcendent, unique and unpredictable. > > In the book we identified two main sources of objectification of human subjectivity. > One main source is rooted in objective ways of how a person feels, thinks, acts, and behaves due to physical, chemical, biological, psychological, cultural, social, economic, political, historical, and institutional pressures that make human subjectivity predictable and replaceable. For example, a cognitive study shows that when some people are primed to remember words depicting old people, they might tend to walk slowly (Kahneman, 2013). Here, priming?the preexisting objectivity of human subjectivity?is revealed by the positivist research? (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, p. 278). > > > The other source of objectifying human subjectivity is > ?when people are treated as objects of other people?s or their own actions. For example, in conventional schools, students are often treated as objects of teachers? pedagogical actions to make them predictably and systematically arrive at preset curricular endpoints, to be measured by educational tests, quizzes, and exams. Alternatively, some people consciously want to limit their own uniqueness and authorial authorship in some areas to save their creative efforts for other areas. Thus, famous physicist Albert Einstein and former US President Barak Obama deliberately made their choice of everyday dress cyclical and predictable, while other people may find a choice of their everyday dress a part of their creative self-expression. Here, the objective subjectivity is new and actively constructed by other people or by the people themselves? (p. 278, italics added now). > > > In fact, objectifying human subjectivity is quite successfully done in all forms of behavioristic shaping of others? behavior. There are extensive psychological, sociological and educational studies based on positivist objective and objectifying approach to human sciences. One could argue that these approaches have been successful and that a lot has been learned about the objectifiable aspects of human subjectivity. > > In our book, we make a particular point in defense of objectivism of the positivist research of the given ? because it studies the objective subjectivity. We do not argue that dialogism is a ?better? approach, nor an ?ultimate? approach. Rather, we argue that both the positivist, objective science approach to capture the givens of the subjectivity, human relations, social practices, etc., and dialogic approach to the unfinalizable, meaning-making, unique and transcendent subjectivity ? are legitimate in their own right, and that it is important to find boundaries of each one?s legitimacy. We wrote, > > ?We argue that both positivist science and dialogic science have their legitimacy and limitations. Thus, it is legitimate for positivist science to study objective things and objective subjectivities. For example, we praise (see Matusov, 2017) cognitive psychologist Daniel Kahneman who studied flaws of human gut subjectivity (Kahneman, 2013). However, when positivist science tries to study authorial subjectivity, live voices, dialogic meaning making, or ethical responsibility, it kills what it studies in its process. In essence, we both agree and disagree with the postmodernist critique of positivism (see, for example, Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). We agree with the critique of its limitations and of its inappropriateness in some areas of research. But, we respectfully disagree that positivism is wrong in each and every case and that it has to be eliminated. > > Similarly, dialogic science has its own limitations and applicability. When dialogic science tries to study the objective world (and objective subjectivity), at best it generates good poetry, metaphors, or fiction prose, anthropologizing and ventriloquizing voiceless things, and at worst it creates new oppressive religious mysticisms or ?alternative facts.? It can be legitimate for dialogic researchers to study astronomers involved in a positivist study of stars by addressing and responding to astronomers, but it is not legitimate for these dialogic researchers to try to address and respond to stars or talk with trees (see a debate on that here: Matusov & Wegerif, 2014)?. (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, Dialogic pedagogy and polyphonic research art: Bakhtin by and for educators, Palgrave, pp. 226-7) > > It seems that your question is in regard of a possibility for coexistence of two legitimate educational modes: a conventional, objectifying, instrumental educational mode in which education is conceptualized as a ?po?esis? ? i.e. the curriculum, instruction, evaluation and its other aspects are predefined, and based on the ?best practices? discovered through objectifying positivist approach to subjectivity; and at the same time, existence of the sustainable ethical ontological dialogism in which both subjectivities and education itself are deemed ?praxis? that creates ecologies in which emergence of unfinalizable, transcendent, unique and unpredictable subjectivities is possible. > > Ultimately, for me, Ethical Ontological Dialogism is about legitimizing the fact that this question is to be answered by the educational participant, i.e. the learner and /or the teacher (and possibly other relevant parties, like parents). In other words, ethical ontological dialogism in education should start with addressing this question to every participant: ?What is the purpose of education for me? Why?? and having this dialogue be critically analyzed ? and illuminating every educational decision along the way. > > What do you think? > > Ana > > > -- > Ana Marjanovic-Shane > Phone: 267-334-2905 > Email: anamshane@gmail.com > > > From: "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu " > on behalf of Greg Thompson > > Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Date: Friday, May 31, 2019 at 3:25 PM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Cc: Eugene Matusov >, "mikhail.gradovski@uis.no " > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: A new book: Dialogic Pedagogy and Polyphonic Research Art: Bakhtin by and for Educators > > Ana, > > Isn't it delightful to try to accomplish "dialogue" in a medium such as this? I think I'll have to respond in toto rather than as proper conversational second parts as you have done - for fear that things will get too messy and difficult to track (much different from if we were having this conversation in person - or, at least, a different kind of messiness!). > > Regarding the issue of universality, as an anthropologist, this is an occupational hazard. I should be clear that my question is different from the concern with "scaling up" (or "mechanization") which seeks to identify teaching practices that can be simply applied to all teaching encounters. My concern is precisely that there may be some places where this might not be the most ethical approach - or perhaps that it might need some further specification and/or modifications. > > As for "sustainability", yes I have a slightly different understanding from what you are describing (what you are describing seems to be more like the "scaling up" issue I've mentioned above - i.e., how to mass produce education). My question is more of an ecological one: is it sustainable in the sense that you can put it out into the world and it will be able to be taken up by teachers and others and practiced, and that this can be ongoing? Now, granted, the ecologies that I'm talking about are human ones. Hence my other question: what would need to change in order to make it sustainable? (and, relatedly, what is keeping it from being sustainable?). I like your suggestions and agree that standardized testing is a major impediment to the kind of EOD practice that you describe (as well as many other kinds of good pedagogical practices!). > > On the issue of the pre-existing nature of the subject, we may have to agree to disagree. Whether or not that is the case may, in part, depend on whether or not you equate "unfinalizable" with "undefined". I'm no expert in Bakhtin and I'm a bit out of touch, but from what I recall of my reading of him, the point is that we are consummated by the recognition of others and that is central to our emerging definitions of who we are. There is a subject here. The ethical caution that I see Bakhtin offering is that this moment of recognition (and hence this subject) should not be final - i.e., that is who we have come to be, not as finalized subjects, but as subjects-in-the-making, subjects abuilding (bildung?). Thus, for example, one doesn't wake each morning with a clean slate in one's relationship with one's partner as if their subject-hood is undefined. In other words, I don't think Bakthin is being ahistorical about subjects. Rather, in my reading of B, if one loves one's partner, one wakes each morning with a clean slate of who they can BECOME (unfinalized) but without neglecting who they have been to oneself (since to recognize them as "partner" is to already begin from an understanding of their subject-hood prior to your subsequent encounters with them that day). That's just my take. And note that we may in fact be in total agreement on this but just emphasizing different sides of the argument? > > As for the comment about Martin Packer's book, I should have clarified that it is not about studying subjectivity "objectively" but rather is a critique of this entire enterprise. If you get a chance to have a read of it, I think you'll find some strong resonances. Apologies to Martin for mischaracterizing his work in my initial comment ("that's not what I meant!"). > > As for how this is "ontological", I like the direction that you propose - this is about the constitution of subjects (and, perhaps, about the constitution of reality and the worlds that we inhabit?). That's some big stuff. > > Anyway, thanks much for the engagement (which I'm happy to continue - although maybe there are more productive directions than those I have taken thus far?). > > And to this point of possibility and becoming, I thought I'd offer a favorite quote of mine from Lloyd Alexander's book The Castly Llyr. This is Lord Dalben's parting advice to the young Princess Eilonwy as she sets out on an adventure and is rather unsure of her ability to handle the challenges that this adventure will entail. It captures the challenge of allowing others' becoming (even if it is in spite of themselves): Dalben says to Eilonwy: "For each of us comes a time when we must become more than what we are." > > Cheers, > greg > > > > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:51 AM Ana Marjanovic-Shane > wrote: > Dear Greg, David and all, > > Thanks, David, for another thoughtful and provoking email. Although I am faster this time in my reply, I would still like to count it in the ?slow dialogue?! J > > Thanks for the opportunity for having a very thoughtful Saturday morning. > > See my responses between your lines below (in red). > > > Ana > > > -- > Ana Marjanovic-Shane > Phone: 267-334-2905 > Email: anamshane@gmail.com > > > From: "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu " > on behalf of Greg Thompson > > Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Date: Friday, May 24, 2019 at 3:33 PM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Cc: Eugene Matusov >, "mikhail.gradovski@uis.no " > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: A new book: Dialogic Pedagogy and Polyphonic Research Art: Bakhtin by and for Educators > > Ana, > > Thank you so much for your very thoughtful description/explanation of Ethical Ontological Dialogism. I know that by now you probably thought I was avoiding your answer, but I've been trying to figure how to offer a reasonable response to the feast that you put forward in your email and trying to figure out how I might respond to your post in a manner consonant with ethical ontological dialogism. I'm pretty sure I'll fail at the latter, but feast I did. > > ANA: Thanks > > I'm also curious if a medium like a listserve can brook the challenge of slow replies - replies that don't come for days or even weeks. I'm always surprised to see how quickly conversations come and go even in a (virtual) place as thoughtful as XMCA. Perhaps this is a sign of the times; you can find "dialogue" everywhere but seldom does it amount to much - whether ethically (cf. the dialogical fires that regularly erupt in social media) or ontologically (cf. the "dialogue" of talking heads on just about any media outlet who are expected to instantly opine on subjects about which they've had little time to think). The dialogues on XMCA are perhaps a bit slower than some of these other "dialogues" but even here on XMCA it seems the half-life of a comment is about 24 hours. So I'm wondering what a slower listserve might look like and whether slow replies might perhaps be a step toward what you have outlined as ethical ontological dialogism. > > ANA: I think that we should try to do slow dialogues among other dialogues. It is true that your original email and a simple question on elaborating Ethical Ontological Dialogism (EOD), made me slow down and start to think about what I see as an essence that can be somehow described in a concentrated way but without loss of life and subjectivity. It was me, first who slowed down the discussion. And I liked the time it took to think about the issue. > > > That's all just to say that I was delighted by your response (and the fact that you took some time to respond) and I hope you'll forgive me for multiplying that time in my response (and, of course, that last paragraph could be seen as just an attempt to rationalize my failure to be a responsible partner in dialogue...). > > Anyway, as for the project itself, I find it quite exciting and invigorating. It is a wonderfully interesting project to tease out the implications of Bakhtin's work for teachers' practice and the way you have outlined this in your email really sings to me. > > If I were to ask questions about the project (and maybe some of these answers are contained in the book - I've asked our library to order it), I have two major questions that stand out. One has to do with sustainability of these principles and the other has to do with the universality of them. > > ANA: Before I reply to any one of them below ? you may notice that both questions are about issues important in a different, more prevalent, monologic approach of searching the ?universal? and erasing the uniqueness of subjectivity by the notion of ?sustainability? ? which implies that teaching should strive to be something that can be replicated by others. (just a quick comment ? which ties into your next paragraph) > > With regard to sustainability, along with David Kirshner's question: "Do you not tremble at the selflessness that this posture demands?", I wonder if this is the kind of thing that teachers in major public school systems can easily sustain? Or is there something else that is needed in order to be able to enable teachers to realize this kind of practice? What things might need to change? > > > ANA: Sustainability, in my interpretation, (correct me if I am wrong), runs directly in contradiction to dialogicity! Sustainability means basing teaching on ?the best practices? ? or replicating past ?models,? that seem to be working good. That very process in its nature is monologic, introducing something that is above and erases the uniqueness of each person?s subjectivity, and thus each teacher?s striving to create and be surprised by new moment-to-moment evolving meanings in dialogic relationships with the equally unique and unpredictable students. That cannot be ?sustained?, because such a process cannot be guaranteed, as it is different for each participant. > > Yes, you, Greg and David Kirschner might say ?I tremble at the selflessness that this posture demands? but this trembling for me is the sign of a pulse of life. Pulse of life that can live freed of the mechanization through which the contemporary education attempts to process the participants in education. > > What needs to change to enable teachers this kind of practice? A lot of things! But some countries may be timidly starting on this path (For instance New Zealand removed national educational standards https://education.govt.nz/news/national-standards-removed/ !) Of course, removing national standards is just a first step. There are for sure many more things that will have to be changed ? and not all the same things for all the people in education. But I also think that the changes need to be broadly directed at creating ecologies of education in which teaching and learning can take a lot more authorial and creative turn than it is possible now. What exactly would that mean ? will probably be very different for each teacher and each student. > > With regard to universalizability, I wonder if you have thought much about the ideology of the subject that underlies this project? As much as the project sings to me, I wonder how much of that is because it is based on an ideology of the subject that resonates with me (I'm a fan of Bakhtin's notion of the subject as articulated in Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity). As an anthropologist I have to ask the question: what if the culture that you are working in requires acknowledgment of some fixed characteristics of the subject being addressed, perhaps even as finalized and finished categories? Relatedly, I wonder if there might not be need for some awareness of patterns of difference whether developmental differences, cultural differences, and other differences that are important to engage with in order to engage in an EOD manner with others? > > ANA: You ask ?what if the culture that you are working in requires acknowledgment of some fixed characteristics of the subject being addressed, perhaps even as finalized and finished categories?? > I think that when a culture requires acknowledgement of some fixed characteristics of the subject being addressed, that culture in itself has a non-dialogic ideology ? ideology that requires and counts on suppressing the uniqueness of subjectivity and, thus, suppressing the meaning-making practices. So, yes, if the ideology of a culture is monologic, a project to fully dialogize teaching would be hard, potentially impossible, and would have to be ?smuggled? under the radar of what the educational authorities demand. This is, in fact, what happens today in most conventional schools that are governed in a strictly hierarchical, authoritarian way, demanding reproduction of culture, ideology and dogma by setting these ideologies, standards and dogmas as the only legitimate ones, and enforcing them with standardized testing. > > Even the recognition of differences in the form of the talk about developmental differences (developmentally appropriate curriculum), cultural differences (culturally sensitive curriculum), individual differences in special education (various accommodations specified in the Individual Service Plans (ISPs), etc. ? this recognition is still about how to strive toward, aim at, and somehow reach the prescribed standardized and pre-set educational end-points, despite the special circumstances of diversity, which are all perceived as forms of an educational handicap! > > In my view, Bakhtin inspired dialogism does not recognize any preexisting subject, nor any pre-existing fixed characteristics of the subject. > > Dialogicity is a stance that assumes that subjectivity is born in dialogue ? it is not a given, not even for the person her/him-self. Rather, one?s subjectivity is constantly being born in one?s own dialogic project of becoming a person, in dialogue, where one discovers pregnant possibilities for ?I? to become ?ME?. > > Put slightly differently, is it possible that recognizing pre-existing persons as part of (fixed) pre-existing categories might be a necessary part of an ethical ontological dialogism. > > ANA: For me: No! (see above). > > In other words, is there some other end of the spectrum opposite of a total rejection of these positive categories and patterns that is necessary for an ethical ontological dialogism? > > ANA: You assume that the opposite of not recognizing unique individual subjectivity of others ? is ?recognition of preexisting person as part of (fixed) pre-existing categories?. This assumption is a trap ? as it stays in the same realm of the given (positive), i.e. given in the world as such. However, the question is not whether the uniqueness of the subjectivity is given or not, the question is about whether our subjectivity is a given or our subjectivity emerges in a continuing transcendence of the given. > > It seems that this positive categorization is a part of ethical dialogical practice in much of our intimate encounters - whether the mother anticipating the needs of a nursing child, a child anticipating their parent's wishes (in Korea there is a term "nunchi" which is one of the most fundamental ethical values of certain kinds of relationships and involves the anticipation of the needs of significant others; importantly, these are often in hierarchical relationships), a teacher designing a curriculum for incoming students based on what little is known of their developmental age, or the anticipatory removal of images of snakes by a man whose spouse is ophidiophobic. Prediction as part of the anticipation of needs hardly seems ethically problematic in these cases and, in fact, it seems to be exactly the opposite. > > ANA: It is very important, in my view that you notice that a mother (caregiver) keeps anticipating the needs (and the subjectivity) of a child ? i.e. that an ethical thing is to anticipate someone?s subjectivity!! I think that this is the core of an ethical approach ? to anticipate someone?s subjectivity ? and yet not to assume that one can know it, or that subjectivity is (fully) knowable. To me, that means what Bakhtin conceptualized as ?unfinalizability?. > > I would think that this would also mean that the goal of psychology -understanding others - has the potential to be a deeply ethical practice in the EOD sense. The one caveat is that it shouldn't be seen as the final word on any one subject - i.e., you can never fully "know" a person via the categories that they might fit into. > > If I may anticipate(!) your response, I assume that an EOD approach would not avoid this but would simply be to emphasize that this is NOT the same as using one's knowledge of the Other as a final determination - as a determination of the Other's "essence and potential". That seems a critical point. > > ANA: No. EOD approach is different for me. EOD approach is in anticipating surprises from oneself and the others, inviting oneself and the others to further transcend the given and making opportunities for such transcendence; rather than simply being aware that one should not finalize the other. And to develop it further, ?anticipation? of the other?s subjectivity is about being genuinely interested in the other. This genuine interests opens a door for the other to join the dialogue ? in which all the participants can have an opportunity for discovering/constructing and transcending their subjectivities. > > A few other thoughts: > > I can't help but see strong parallels between your critique of social science research and the critique offered by Martin Packer in his book The Science of Qualitative Research. Latour seems to be one of the main common touchpoints, but thematically you are engaged in very similar projects - the question of how to study "subjectivity" "objectively". > > ANA: In fact, NO. The Ethical Ontological Dialogism is not about studying subjectivity ?objectively?, but is about providing opportunities for and inviting people?s subjectivities to start/continue emerging in all the unpredictable and intrepid ways imaginable (and unimaginable) transcendence. > > The major difference is that where you turn to Bakhtin's notion of unfinalizability, he turns to Foucault's notion of an "historical ontology of ourselves". Regardless of that, I see huge resonances between your work. And regardless of those resonances, I imagine that bringing EOD to social science research would be another angle to develop more substantially (if you haven't already!). > > > Oh, and a question: what is "ontological" about EOD? > > ANA: Ahh, the most important question!?. > > To say it quickly ? to me the ?ontological? means that for the dialogic participants the dialogue matters on the level of their dialogic subjectivity! It matters for who they are! It matters for their ideas about the world, the others and themselves. It matters for what they desire, what they fear, what they think they can?t live with or without, etc. ?Ontologically? engaged dialogue makes a difference for the continuing transcendence of the given ? it can and does change big and/or small things relevant for the person and her/his personhood. > > But, of course, this question requires a lot more analysis. > > I have more thoughts but I think I've already said too much... > > ANA: ?. Me too. > > > Once again, many thanks for your thoughtful and lengthy response. I look forward to reading more. > > Very best, > Greg > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190610/621406a7/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Mon Jun 10 18:00:14 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 11:00:14 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Lektorsky & Bykova: Philosophical Thought in Russia in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century Message-ID: May be of interest: https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviews/16966_philosophical-thought-in-russia-in-the-second-half-of-the-twentieth-century-a-contemporary-view-from-russia-and-abroad-by-vladislav-lektorsky-marina-f-bykova-ed-reviewed-by-corinna-lotz/ -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190611/79c2f788/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Tue Jun 11 09:33:01 2019 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:33:01 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: A new book: Dialogic Pedagogy and Polyphonic Research Art: Bakhtin by and for Educators In-Reply-To: <0DBA5AC4-22D7-48A5-8769-528624A7FBB1@gmail.com> References: <0DBA5AC4-22D7-48A5-8769-528624A7FBB1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <30D5CA70-D298-4719-B439-EF5D465E32D1@gmail.com> Ana, David and Helen, Whereas Helen?s response to the extended dialog between And and David resonates with a current pivotal moment , for me, it resonates with a memory of an argument between a professor and myself in a class on the reading process in the mid 80?s. The issue was what constitutes a good reader and a good reading of a text. I remember that moment and cringe at how self righteous I came off. If I had read this wonderful dialg twixt the three of you, and understood it, I think I would have been able to understand the two totally credible perspectives Ana so nicely construes, I could have saved a lot of face those many years ago and and the discomfort I experience even now when I think of it. It?s not even necessary to say which side each of us were on. Today, I think I constantly flip on the issue. Great read, guys! Henry > On Jun 10, 2019, at 2:27 AM, Helen Beetham wrote: > > Dear Ana > > I?ve followed XMCA for many years but rarely feel I have anything to contribute. However, this extended piece arrived at a pivotal moment in my thinking about research methodology - in relation to a study on critical digital literacies, so centrally concerned with the kinds of subjectivity that could or could not be replaced by intelligent machines. > > Thank you for sharing your clear analysis of this core issue in educational research. You come directly at what most methodology texts only circle around - the need to identify the scope and the limitations of positivity - and of dialogicity - and to recruit participants in helping to define the boundaries, which are not fixed but depend on individual and collective purpose. I am guessing that the ?right answer? to the methodological question in any research context will be provisional, and intersubjective between the researcher?s own poeisis/praxis and those of participants?? > > I?m delighted to have found the book and look forward to reading more. > Helen > > Helen Beetham, Researcher and Consultant > @helenbeetham helenb33 > helen.beetham@gmail.com > h.a.beetham@wlv.ac.uk > digitalthinking.org.uk > > > > > >> On 10 Jun 2019, at 01:55, Ana Marjanovic-Shane > wrote: >> >> <>Dear Greg, <> >> >> Yes, it is interesting and exciting to ?accomplish? dialogue in a medium like this ? but in a way isn?t it the most natural medium for a dialogue? I remember when I first got an internet connection (back in the 80?s!!) and was able to exchange e-mails with so many people all over the world, it felt like a beginning of an era of real dialogue ? ?involving a plurality of unique and opaque consciousnesses with equal rights and each authoring and living in its own dialogically bounded world (cf. Bakhtin, 1999 , p. 6).? (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, p. 275). I remember distinctly how exciting it was to address people and be addressed by them in the email ? as pure voices, unburdened by their physical appearance that could betray their age, gender, speech dialect that could reveal their nationality (at the times of the civil wars in Yugoslavia), etc. Everyone could be addressed by ?Thou? (in Serbo-Croatian, it is an egalitarian pronoun, treating the interlocutor as an equal, and also as someone with whom one can be direct and open, as opposed to ?You?, that like French ?Vou?, Spanish ?Usted? German ?Sie? ? shows deference to a hierarchical authority of the older and/or wiser, or merely institutionally superiors or authorities). It eliminated sexism to a large extent too, and it eliminated boundaries between different circles of people: everyone and anyone could join a dialogue! >> >> In fact, I think that group lists like this one are the natural medium for a true dialogue. >> >> As for the issues that you feel important for our discussion: ?sustainability? and ?subjectivity? ? let?s discuss them further. >> >> Sustainability of EOD: >> >> You wrote: ?My question is more of an ecological one: is it sustainable in the sense that you can put it out into the world and it will be able to be taken up by teachers and others and practiced, and that this can be ongoing? Now, granted, the ecologies that I'm talking about are human ones. Hence my other question: what would need to change in order to make it sustainable? (and, relatedly, what is keeping it from being sustainable?). I like your suggestions and agree that standardized testing is a major impediment to the kind of EOD practice that you describe (as well as many other kinds of good pedagogical practices!).? >> >> In my view, an ecology that would promote (although not guarantee) Ethical Ontological Dialogism, could only be conceptualized if and when the intrinsic, rather than instrumental,sphere of education, as a basic human need and right, can be legitimized as the main, or at least one of the main purposes of education. It is a basic human need to be educated for her/his own reasons, on her/his own terms, at the time and in the manner that is most suitable to her/his own unique life trajectory, etc. >> >> If education is truly to be owned by the learner as his/her unalienated right of becoming, a legitimate right of pursuing a journey toward him/her-self, it would mean to completely change what today is the dominant purpose of education: to serve various other social, cultural and even personal needs. Such education, that serves other non-educational spheres is instrumental. It is a tool to help develop social goals of economy, science, technology, politics, legislature, medicine, etc. or to help a person get a better paid job, advance the position of her/his family; gain a social status, etc. >> >> These different social, cultural and personal goals can be defined and standardized, and they can be built into an educational system. They can shape education into a fully predefined activity (conceptualized as an activity system), regardless of who are the actual students or the teachers, who will be ?put through? this activity. In such educational system (as we have now), individual subjectivity is irrelevant! Any particular ?acter? in the system can be replaced ? because it is the system that defines what each position in it should ideally mean. Standardized tests are just a tip of the ice-berg of such activity system that is predefined and preconceptualized ? in other words a system that Aristotle would describe as ?po?esis? ? a practice which structure, form and content are predefined, and its outcomes known in advance. >> >> In contrast, the main purpose and premise of Education based on Ethical Ontological Dialogism is the support of the unique trajectory of each individual learning journey, which is not known in advance, and cannot be assumed to exist apart from the particular unique learner and/or teacher. Such a practice would be a ?praxis? in terms of Aristotle, a practice whose purposes, goals, forms and trajectories evolve from itself and are based on the uniqueness of the involved participants, serendipity of the moment-to-moment events, the availability of the cultural, historical, economic, political, and other social ?resources? (artefacts, ideas, concepts, means that can ?fuel? educational inquiries). In such praxis, there exist a plurality of purposes for education, including its instrumental potentials for the society and for the individuals, and its non-instrumental values (to learn something ?just because it is interesting and important to me, and I like it?). What is important is the legitimacy of each learner?s and teacher?s subjectivity. Such education is not based on replaceable individuals and does not aim to produce ?replaceable? individuals. >> >> Ethical Ontological Dialogism, in fact, requires acknowledgement of the uniqueness of each person her/his education. And that would require many changes. In that sense, ?sustainability? should be not about content and form of education (curriculum, instruction, organization, even relationships), but about values and purposes of education. >> >> Of course, ecology for EOD depends on various economic and societal conditions that either make EOD more possible and more valuable, or make it less possible and less valuable. Eugene Matusov is working on a new book in which he claims that instrumental education in the past and the present is a result of the economic and societal necessities: we need people who are trained to do many jobs in which they function as parts of large activity systems (economy, health, legal and judiciary spheres, technology, maintenance of infra-structures, etc.). Under such circumstances, human unique, unpredictable, transcending subjectivity is not only irrelevant, but can be dangerously undermining and destructive for the activity system. >> >> However, the more predictable and the more standardized is a particular activity system, the more chance that it will be possible to develop smart machines (robots) that can do such jobs. The current development of technology, especially technology based on artificial intelligence, will enable our societies to replace many humans with real smart machines, even for highly professional jobs ? in the near future. This will free many people from the necessity to act as a smart machine and create circumstances in which a society would be able to afford what today is affordable only to the very wealthy: a lot of time for true leisure, a kind of leisure that in the ancient Greek was called ?skhole? (Greek: skhole "spare time, leisure, rest, ease; idleness; that in which leisure is employed; learned discussion;" ? Online Etymology Dictionary: https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=school ). These circumstances would much better support creation of educational ecology that promotes EOD. >> >> And that leads us to the issue #2 ? >> >> Subjectivity and EOD >> >> In our book, we argue that human subjectivity, in fact, has to be considered in a dualistic way ? both as something given i.e., objective subjectivity, studied by conventional psychology (including sociocultural one), and also as something that is in continuous dialogic authorial subjectivity, and thus, unfinalizable, unpredictable (even for the person in question), unique and transcending her/his prior self. >> We claim that >> ?human subjectivity always has simultaneously an objective aspect (i.e., ?consciousness-as-it?) and an authorial aspect (i.e., ?consciousness-as-you?) (Matusov, 2015, p. 401), we think that both positivist and dialogic paradigms are legitimate in social sciences. This dualistic science epistemology for social sciences and humanities was unapologetically proposed by Bakhtin (1986). Bakhtin seemed to accept the objectification of human subjectivity promoted by positivist social sciences as legitimate under certain conditions when personal human uniqueness, personal authorial authorship, and personal voice do not dominate a phenomenon.? (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, p. 277). >> >> >> It is this dual mode of existence, that is the source of what you call ?emphasizing different sides of the argument?. It is quite possible and often necessary to objectify subjectivity of the other and the self. But it is also necessary to keep in mind that the subjectivity, in its very core, actually emerges in the process of dialogic meaning-making, and thus, its source, essence and actual life as subjectivity is unfinalizable, transcendent, unique and unpredictable. >> >> In the book we identified two main sources of objectification of human subjectivity. >> One main source is rooted in objective ways of how a person feels, thinks, acts, and behaves due to physical, chemical, biological, psychological, cultural, social, economic, political, historical, and institutional pressures that make human subjectivity predictable and replaceable. For example, a cognitive study shows that when some people are primed to remember words depicting old people, they might tend to walk slowly (Kahneman, 2013). Here, priming?the preexisting objectivity of human subjectivity?is revealed by the positivist research? (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, p. 278). >> >> >> The other source of objectifying human subjectivity is >> ?when people are treated as objects of other people?s or their own actions. For example, in conventional schools, students are often treated as objects of teachers? pedagogical actions to make them predictably and systematically arrive at preset curricular endpoints, to be measured by educational tests, quizzes, and exams. Alternatively, some people consciously want to limit their own uniqueness and authorial authorship in some areas to save their creative efforts for other areas. Thus, famous physicist Albert Einstein and former US President Barak Obama deliberately made their choice of everyday dress cyclical and predictable, while other people may find a choice of their everyday dress a part of their creative self-expression. Here, the objective subjectivity is new and actively constructed by other people or by the people themselves? (p. 278, italics added now). >> >> >> In fact, objectifying human subjectivity is quite successfully done in all forms of behavioristic shaping of others? behavior. There are extensive psychological, sociological and educational studies based on positivist objective and objectifying approach to human sciences. One could argue that these approaches have been successful and that a lot has been learned about the objectifiable aspects of human subjectivity. >> >> In our book, we make a particular point in defense of objectivism of the positivist research of the given ? because it studies the objective subjectivity. We do not argue that dialogism is a ?better? approach, nor an ?ultimate? approach. Rather, we argue that both the positivist, objective science approach to capture the givens of the subjectivity, human relations, social practices, etc., and dialogic approach to the unfinalizable, meaning-making, unique and transcendent subjectivity ? are legitimate in their own right, and that it is important to find boundaries of each one?s legitimacy. We wrote, >> >> ?We argue that both positivist science and dialogic science have their legitimacy and limitations. Thus, it is legitimate for positivist science to study objective things and objective subjectivities. For example, we praise (see Matusov, 2017) cognitive psychologist Daniel Kahneman who studied flaws of human gut subjectivity (Kahneman, 2013). However, when positivist science tries to study authorial subjectivity, live voices, dialogic meaning making, or ethical responsibility, it kills what it studies in its process. In essence, we both agree and disagree with the postmodernist critique of positivism (see, for example, Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). We agree with the critique of its limitations and of its inappropriateness in some areas of research. But, we respectfully disagree that positivism is wrong in each and every case and that it has to be eliminated. >> >> Similarly, dialogic science has its own limitations and applicability. When dialogic science tries to study the objective world (and objective subjectivity), at best it generates good poetry, metaphors, or fiction prose, anthropologizing and ventriloquizing voiceless things, and at worst it creates new oppressive religious mysticisms or ?alternative facts.? It can be legitimate for dialogic researchers to study astronomers involved in a positivist study of stars by addressing and responding to astronomers, but it is not legitimate for these dialogic researchers to try to address and respond to stars or talk with trees (see a debate on that here: Matusov & Wegerif, 2014)?. (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, Dialogic pedagogy and polyphonic research art: Bakhtin by and for educators, Palgrave, pp. 226-7) >> >> It seems that your question is in regard of a possibility for coexistence of two legitimate educational modes: a conventional, objectifying, instrumental educational mode in which education is conceptualized as a ?po?esis? ? i.e. the curriculum, instruction, evaluation and its other aspects are predefined, and based on the ?best practices? discovered through objectifying positivist approach to subjectivity; and at the same time, existence of the sustainable ethical ontological dialogism in which both subjectivities and education itself are deemed ?praxis? that creates ecologies in which emergence of unfinalizable, transcendent, unique and unpredictable subjectivities is possible. >> >> Ultimately, for me, Ethical Ontological Dialogism is about legitimizing the fact that this question is to be answered by the educational participant, i.e. the learner and /or the teacher (and possibly other relevant parties, like parents). In other words, ethical ontological dialogism in education should start with addressing this question to every participant: ?What is the purpose of education for me? Why?? and having this dialogue be critically analyzed ? and illuminating every educational decision along the way. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Ana >> >> >> -- >> Ana Marjanovic-Shane >> Phone: 267-334-2905 >> Email: anamshane@gmail.com >> >> >> From: "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu " > on behalf of Greg Thompson > >> Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >> Date: Friday, May 31, 2019 at 3:25 PM >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >> Cc: Eugene Matusov >, "mikhail.gradovski@uis.no " > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: A new book: Dialogic Pedagogy and Polyphonic Research Art: Bakhtin by and for Educators >> >> Ana, >> >> Isn't it delightful to try to accomplish "dialogue" in a medium such as this? I think I'll have to respond in toto rather than as proper conversational second parts as you have done - for fear that things will get too messy and difficult to track (much different from if we were having this conversation in person - or, at least, a different kind of messiness!). >> >> Regarding the issue of universality, as an anthropologist, this is an occupational hazard. I should be clear that my question is different from the concern with "scaling up" (or "mechanization") which seeks to identify teaching practices that can be simply applied to all teaching encounters. My concern is precisely that there may be some places where this might not be the most ethical approach - or perhaps that it might need some further specification and/or modifications. >> >> As for "sustainability", yes I have a slightly different understanding from what you are describing (what you are describing seems to be more like the "scaling up" issue I've mentioned above - i.e., how to mass produce education). My question is more of an ecological one: is it sustainable in the sense that you can put it out into the world and it will be able to be taken up by teachers and others and practiced, and that this can be ongoing? Now, granted, the ecologies that I'm talking about are human ones. Hence my other question: what would need to change in order to make it sustainable? (and, relatedly, what is keeping it from being sustainable?). I like your suggestions and agree that standardized testing is a major impediment to the kind of EOD practice that you describe (as well as many other kinds of good pedagogical practices!). >> >> On the issue of the pre-existing nature of the subject, we may have to agree to disagree. Whether or not that is the case may, in part, depend on whether or not you equate "unfinalizable" with "undefined". I'm no expert in Bakhtin and I'm a bit out of touch, but from what I recall of my reading of him, the point is that we are consummated by the recognition of others and that is central to our emerging definitions of who we are. There is a subject here. The ethical caution that I see Bakhtin offering is that this moment of recognition (and hence this subject) should not be final - i.e., that is who we have come to be, not as finalized subjects, but as subjects-in-the-making, subjects abuilding (bildung?). Thus, for example, one doesn't wake each morning with a clean slate in one's relationship with one's partner as if their subject-hood is undefined. In other words, I don't think Bakthin is being ahistorical about subjects. Rather, in my reading of B, if one loves one's partner, one wakes each morning with a clean slate of who they can BECOME (unfinalized) but without neglecting who they have been to oneself (since to recognize them as "partner" is to already begin from an understanding of their subject-hood prior to your subsequent encounters with them that day). That's just my take. And note that we may in fact be in total agreement on this but just emphasizing different sides of the argument? >> >> As for the comment about Martin Packer's book, I should have clarified that it is not about studying subjectivity "objectively" but rather is a critique of this entire enterprise. If you get a chance to have a read of it, I think you'll find some strong resonances. Apologies to Martin for mischaracterizing his work in my initial comment ("that's not what I meant!"). >> >> As for how this is "ontological", I like the direction that you propose - this is about the constitution of subjects (and, perhaps, about the constitution of reality and the worlds that we inhabit?). That's some big stuff. >> >> Anyway, thanks much for the engagement (which I'm happy to continue - although maybe there are more productive directions than those I have taken thus far?). >> >> And to this point of possibility and becoming, I thought I'd offer a favorite quote of mine from Lloyd Alexander's book The Castly Llyr. This is Lord Dalben's parting advice to the young Princess Eilonwy as she sets out on an adventure and is rather unsure of her ability to handle the challenges that this adventure will entail. It captures the challenge of allowing others' becoming (even if it is in spite of themselves): Dalben says to Eilonwy: "For each of us comes a time when we must become more than what we are." >> >> Cheers, >> greg >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:51 AM Ana Marjanovic-Shane > wrote: >> Dear Greg, David and all, >> >> Thanks, David, for another thoughtful and provoking email. Although I am faster this time in my reply, I would still like to count it in the ?slow dialogue?! J >> >> Thanks for the opportunity for having a very thoughtful Saturday morning. >> >> See my responses between your lines below (in red). >> >> >> Ana >> >> >> -- >> Ana Marjanovic-Shane >> Phone: 267-334-2905 >> Email: anamshane@gmail.com >> >> >> From: "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu " > on behalf of Greg Thompson > >> Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >> Date: Friday, May 24, 2019 at 3:33 PM >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >> Cc: Eugene Matusov >, "mikhail.gradovski@uis.no " > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: A new book: Dialogic Pedagogy and Polyphonic Research Art: Bakhtin by and for Educators >> >> Ana, >> >> Thank you so much for your very thoughtful description/explanation of Ethical Ontological Dialogism. I know that by now you probably thought I was avoiding your answer, but I've been trying to figure how to offer a reasonable response to the feast that you put forward in your email and trying to figure out how I might respond to your post in a manner consonant with ethical ontological dialogism. I'm pretty sure I'll fail at the latter, but feast I did. >> >> ANA: Thanks >> >> I'm also curious if a medium like a listserve can brook the challenge of slow replies - replies that don't come for days or even weeks. I'm always surprised to see how quickly conversations come and go even in a (virtual) place as thoughtful as XMCA. Perhaps this is a sign of the times; you can find "dialogue" everywhere but seldom does it amount to much - whether ethically (cf. the dialogical fires that regularly erupt in social media) or ontologically (cf. the "dialogue" of talking heads on just about any media outlet who are expected to instantly opine on subjects about which they've had little time to think). The dialogues on XMCA are perhaps a bit slower than some of these other "dialogues" but even here on XMCA it seems the half-life of a comment is about 24 hours. So I'm wondering what a slower listserve might look like and whether slow replies might perhaps be a step toward what you have outlined as ethical ontological dialogism. >> >> ANA: I think that we should try to do slow dialogues among other dialogues. It is true that your original email and a simple question on elaborating Ethical Ontological Dialogism (EOD), made me slow down and start to think about what I see as an essence that can be somehow described in a concentrated way but without loss of life and subjectivity. It was me, first who slowed down the discussion. And I liked the time it took to think about the issue. >> >> >> That's all just to say that I was delighted by your response (and the fact that you took some time to respond) and I hope you'll forgive me for multiplying that time in my response (and, of course, that last paragraph could be seen as just an attempt to rationalize my failure to be a responsible partner in dialogue...). >> >> Anyway, as for the project itself, I find it quite exciting and invigorating. It is a wonderfully interesting project to tease out the implications of Bakhtin's work for teachers' practice and the way you have outlined this in your email really sings to me. >> >> If I were to ask questions about the project (and maybe some of these answers are contained in the book - I've asked our library to order it), I have two major questions that stand out. One has to do with sustainability of these principles and the other has to do with the universality of them. >> >> ANA: Before I reply to any one of them below ? you may notice that both questions are about issues important in a different, more prevalent, monologic approach of searching the ?universal? and erasing the uniqueness of subjectivity by the notion of ?sustainability? ? which implies that teaching should strive to be something that can be replicated by others. (just a quick comment ? which ties into your next paragraph) >> >> With regard to sustainability, along with David Kirshner's question: "Do you not tremble at the selflessness that this posture demands?", I wonder if this is the kind of thing that teachers in major public school systems can easily sustain? Or is there something else that is needed in order to be able to enable teachers to realize this kind of practice? What things might need to change? >> >> >> ANA: Sustainability, in my interpretation, (correct me if I am wrong), runs directly in contradiction to dialogicity! Sustainability means basing teaching on ?the best practices? ? or replicating past ?models,? that seem to be working good. That very process in its nature is monologic, introducing something that is above and erases the uniqueness of each person?s subjectivity, and thus each teacher?s striving to create and be surprised by new moment-to-moment evolving meanings in dialogic relationships with the equally unique and unpredictable students. That cannot be ?sustained?, because such a process cannot be guaranteed, as it is different for each participant. >> >> Yes, you, Greg and David Kirschner might say ?I tremble at the selflessness that this posture demands? but this trembling for me is the sign of a pulse of life. Pulse of life that can live freed of the mechanization through which the contemporary education attempts to process the participants in education. >> >> What needs to change to enable teachers this kind of practice? A lot of things! But some countries may be timidly starting on this path (For instance New Zealand removed national educational standards https://education.govt.nz/news/national-standards-removed/ !) Of course, removing national standards is just a first step. There are for sure many more things that will have to be changed ? and not all the same things for all the people in education. But I also think that the changes need to be broadly directed at creating ecologies of education in which teaching and learning can take a lot more authorial and creative turn than it is possible now. What exactly would that mean ? will probably be very different for each teacher and each student. >> >> With regard to universalizability, I wonder if you have thought much about the ideology of the subject that underlies this project? As much as the project sings to me, I wonder how much of that is because it is based on an ideology of the subject that resonates with me (I'm a fan of Bakhtin's notion of the subject as articulated in Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity). As an anthropologist I have to ask the question: what if the culture that you are working in requires acknowledgment of some fixed characteristics of the subject being addressed, perhaps even as finalized and finished categories? Relatedly, I wonder if there might not be need for some awareness of patterns of difference whether developmental differences, cultural differences, and other differences that are important to engage with in order to engage in an EOD manner with others? >> >> ANA: You ask ?what if the culture that you are working in requires acknowledgment of some fixed characteristics of the subject being addressed, perhaps even as finalized and finished categories?? >> I think that when a culture requires acknowledgement of some fixed characteristics of the subject being addressed, that culture in itself has a non-dialogic ideology ? ideology that requires and counts on suppressing the uniqueness of subjectivity and, thus, suppressing the meaning-making practices. So, yes, if the ideology of a culture is monologic, a project to fully dialogize teaching would be hard, potentially impossible, and would have to be ?smuggled? under the radar of what the educational authorities demand. This is, in fact, what happens today in most conventional schools that are governed in a strictly hierarchical, authoritarian way, demanding reproduction of culture, ideology and dogma by setting these ideologies, standards and dogmas as the only legitimate ones, and enforcing them with standardized testing. >> >> Even the recognition of differences in the form of the talk about developmental differences (developmentally appropriate curriculum), cultural differences (culturally sensitive curriculum), individual differences in special education (various accommodations specified in the Individual Service Plans (ISPs), etc. ? this recognition is still about how to strive toward, aim at, and somehow reach the prescribed standardized and pre-set educational end-points, despite the special circumstances of diversity, which are all perceived as forms of an educational handicap! >> >> In my view, Bakhtin inspired dialogism does not recognize any preexisting subject, nor any pre-existing fixed characteristics of the subject. >> >> Dialogicity is a stance that assumes that subjectivity is born in dialogue ? it is not a given, not even for the person her/him-self. Rather, one?s subjectivity is constantly being born in one?s own dialogic project of becoming a person, in dialogue, where one discovers pregnant possibilities for ?I? to become ?ME?. >> >> Put slightly differently, is it possible that recognizing pre-existing persons as part of (fixed) pre-existing categories might be a necessary part of an ethical ontological dialogism. >> >> ANA: For me: No! (see above). >> >> In other words, is there some other end of the spectrum opposite of a total rejection of these positive categories and patterns that is necessary for an ethical ontological dialogism? >> >> ANA: You assume that the opposite of not recognizing unique individual subjectivity of others ? is ?recognition of preexisting person as part of (fixed) pre-existing categories?. This assumption is a trap ? as it stays in the same realm of the given (positive), i.e. given in the world as such. However, the question is not whether the uniqueness of the subjectivity is given or not, the question is about whether our subjectivity is a given or our subjectivity emerges in a continuing transcendence of the given. >> >> It seems that this positive categorization is a part of ethical dialogical practice in much of our intimate encounters - whether the mother anticipating the needs of a nursing child, a child anticipating their parent's wishes (in Korea there is a term "nunchi" which is one of the most fundamental ethical values of certain kinds of relationships and involves the anticipation of the needs of significant others; importantly, these are often in hierarchical relationships), a teacher designing a curriculum for incoming students based on what little is known of their developmental age, or the anticipatory removal of images of snakes by a man whose spouse is ophidiophobic. Prediction as part of the anticipation of needs hardly seems ethically problematic in these cases and, in fact, it seems to be exactly the opposite. >> >> ANA: It is very important, in my view that you notice that a mother (caregiver) keeps anticipating the needs (and the subjectivity) of a child ? i.e. that an ethical thing is to anticipate someone?s subjectivity!! I think that this is the core of an ethical approach ? to anticipate someone?s subjectivity ? and yet not to assume that one can know it, or that subjectivity is (fully) knowable. To me, that means what Bakhtin conceptualized as ?unfinalizability?. >> >> I would think that this would also mean that the goal of psychology -understanding others - has the potential to be a deeply ethical practice in the EOD sense. The one caveat is that it shouldn't be seen as the final word on any one subject - i.e., you can never fully "know" a person via the categories that they might fit into. >> >> If I may anticipate(!) your response, I assume that an EOD approach would not avoid this but would simply be to emphasize that this is NOT the same as using one's knowledge of the Other as a final determination - as a determination of the Other's "essence and potential". That seems a critical point. >> >> ANA: No. EOD approach is different for me. EOD approach is in anticipating surprises from oneself and the others, inviting oneself and the others to further transcend the given and making opportunities for such transcendence; rather than simply being aware that one should not finalize the other. And to develop it further, ?anticipation? of the other?s subjectivity is about being genuinely interested in the other. This genuine interests opens a door for the other to join the dialogue ? in which all the participants can have an opportunity for discovering/constructing and transcending their subjectivities. >> >> A few other thoughts: >> >> I can't help but see strong parallels between your critique of social science research and the critique offered by Martin Packer in his book The Science of Qualitative Research. Latour seems to be one of the main common touchpoints, but thematically you are engaged in very similar projects - the question of how to study "subjectivity" "objectively". >> >> ANA: In fact, NO. The Ethical Ontological Dialogism is not about studying subjectivity ?objectively?, but is about providing opportunities for and inviting people?s subjectivities to start/continue emerging in all the unpredictable and intrepid ways imaginable (and unimaginable) transcendence. >> >> The major difference is that where you turn to Bakhtin's notion of unfinalizability, he turns to Foucault's notion of an "historical ontology of ourselves". Regardless of that, I see huge resonances between your work. And regardless of those resonances, I imagine that bringing EOD to social science research would be another angle to develop more substantially (if you haven't already!). >> >> >> Oh, and a question: what is "ontological" about EOD? >> >> ANA: Ahh, the most important question!?. >> >> To say it quickly ? to me the ?ontological? means that for the dialogic participants the dialogue matters on the level of their dialogic subjectivity! It matters for who they are! It matters for their ideas about the world, the others and themselves. It matters for what they desire, what they fear, what they think they can?t live with or without, etc. ?Ontologically? engaged dialogue makes a difference for the continuing transcendence of the given ? it can and does change big and/or small things relevant for the person and her/his personhood. >> >> But, of course, this question requires a lot more analysis. >> >> I have more thoughts but I think I've already said too much... >> >> ANA: ?. Me too. >> >> >> Once again, many thanks for your thoughtful and lengthy response. I look forward to reading more. >> >> Very best, >> Greg >> >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190611/f8acf9d0/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jun 11 13:41:56 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 05:41:56 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Translation or Paraphrase? Message-ID: Andy: On Vygotsky Internet Archive version of T&S Chapter Five, Section Five, second paragraph, we've got this. "Nevertheless, this mode of uniting concrete objects in a common group differs from that based on thinking in concepts or conceptual thinking. First, the nature of the connections that are established among the objects in the group differs from that characteristic of concepts. Second, as defined by the relationship of each object in the group to the group as a whole, the structure of the unified group differs profoundly in type and mode of activity from that based on conceptual thinking." The Russian, in both the first 1934 edition and the 1982 Russian CW edition is this: ?? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ? ????? ??????, ???????? ??????????????? ??? ???? ??????, ????????? ??????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????, ????????????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????, ????????? ? ?????? ??????, ?? ???? ?????? ? ?????, ? ??? ??? ??????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ???? ? ?? ??????? ???????????? ?? ???????? ? ????????, ????????????? ?????? ? ????? ???????? ??????????. The 1994 Vygotsky Reader, edited by Rene van der Veer and Jaan Valsiner, uses the 1931 "Pedology of the Adolescent" version of this study for its Chapter Nine. On p. 218, it's got this: "But the manner of the unification of different real objects into general groups, the character of the connections which becomes established during th is process, the structure of the affinities which arise on the basis of such thinking, which is characterized by the relationship of each individual object having become part of the composition of the group, to the group as a whole - all th is is fundamentally different by its nature and the manner of its operation from thinking in concepts, which only develops at the time of puberty." This Vygotsky Reader version is an actual translation, but the version we have for T&S Chapter Five, which I assume is an accurate transcription of Norris Minick's version in the English CW, seems little more than a paraphrase. What gives? David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190612/e1c80256/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Jun 11 15:40:36 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:40:36 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: A new book: Dialogic Pedagogy and Polyphonic Research Art: Bakhtin by and for Educators In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ana, I'm afraid I got stuck on your first comment and feel the need to respond there before moving on since this is both highly relevant to this very listserve and since it also provides us with an opportunity to rise to the concrete (and the best kind of concrete, the "here" and "now" of this very listserve!). Regarding these digital online spaces, yes, they are interesting and exciting, at times. But I'm not entirely convinced that "equal rights" in dialogue necessarily inhere in these spaces. Regarding the relative anonymity of participants that you noted in your experience of the early-going internet days, it turns out that, simply from the words and name of the author, it is possible to suss out characteristics of the subjects participating in online dialogue (there is a lot that can be "read" off of language). Certainly, if you take efforts as an author, you can hide your identity or create a false account and be heard as someone other than who you are in your first life. But that's hardly the basis for EOD (unless, of course, it is in your first life that you are hiding who you really are and it is only in your second life that you can say these things - e.g., I recently had a student who wrote her thesis on closeted LGBTQ women living here in Utah who are "out" in their online identities; they did indeed find it liberating to be able to be "out" online in their second lives, but they also found it only partially liberating since they had to live most of their lives closeted in their first life). If you are going to naturally participate in these internet exchanges in the way that you do in your first life, then it is usually easy enough for others to figure out a great deal about who you are as an author - probably more so today than ever before. With the digital traces that we all leave today (and don't forget that these conversations we are having right now are one such trace! since they are archived online so that people can access them - people including one's employer!), you can quickly find even more details about the person authoring the words than you ever could have before the internet days. Then it would have taken a lot more work to locate basic information about people and so one would have to rely on word of mouth. It sounds like perhaps in the early days there may have been a moment (historically speaking) in which the kind of pure engagement that you speak of was possible, but I have some trouble seeing that today. Perhaps this is a story about how structures of power (and the powerful) will recuperate their standing in new communicative ecologies. But perhaps it takes some time for that to fully shake out. What you saw early on was those structure of power being caught flat-footed by this new technology. And what we are now starting to see is sexism, heterosexism, cisgenderism, racism, classism, etc. recuperating the means of reproducing power in this new communicative ecology? (didn't take long for that to happen, did it?). And of course here I would include this very medium of XMCA. I have heard a number of people comment that they do not feel that this is a space of real dialogue for precisely the kinds of reasons that you noted had fallen away in the early days of the internet/email/listserve ecology - sexism being at the top of the list! So how might we square that? Can we apply EOD principles to this listserve in order to (re)make it into a space where EOD can happen? Where people don't feel excluded? Where it isn't sexist? What would need to happen for that to happen? Sorry, that's a lot. But it's real, ahem, "concrete". In solidarity, greg p.s., I hope to respond to some of the rest of your delightful message as soon as time permits (although some of those issues are wrapped up in this one...). On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 6:57 PM Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote: > Dear Greg, > > > > Yes, it is interesting and exciting to ?accomplish? dialogue in a medium > like this ? but in a way isn?t it the most natural medium for a dialogue? I > remember when I first got an internet connection (back in the 80?s!!) and > was able to exchange e-mails with so many people all over the world, it > felt like a beginning of an era of real dialogue ? ?involving a plurality > of unique and opaque consciousnesses with equal rights and each authoring > and living in its own dialogically bounded world (cf. Bakhtin, 1999 , p. > 6).? (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, p. 275). I remember > distinctly how exciting it was to address people and be addressed by them > in the email ? as pure voices, unburdened by their physical appearance > that could betray their age, gender, speech dialect that could reveal their > nationality (at the times of the civil wars in Yugoslavia), etc. Everyone > could be addressed by ?Thou? (in Serbo-Croatian, it is an egalitarian > pronoun, treating the interlocutor as an equal, and also as someone with > whom one can be direct and open, as opposed to ?You?, that like French > ?Vou?, Spanish ?Usted? German ?Sie? ? shows deference to a hierarchical > authority of the older and/or wiser, or merely institutionally superiors or > authorities). It eliminated sexism to a large extent too, and it eliminated > boundaries between different circles of people: everyone and anyone could > join a dialogue! > > > > In fact, I think that group lists like this one are the natural medium for > a true dialogue. > > > > As for the issues that you feel important for our discussion: > ?sustainability? and ?subjectivity? ? let?s discuss them further. > > > > *Sustainability of EOD:* > > > > You wrote: ?My question is more of an ecological one: is it sustainable in > the sense that you can put it out into the world and it will be able to be > taken up by teachers and others and practiced, and that this can be > ongoing? Now, granted, the ecologies that I'm talking about are human ones. > Hence my other question: what would need to change in order to make it > sustainable? (and, relatedly, what is keeping it from being sustainable?). > I like your suggestions and agree that standardized testing is a major > impediment to the kind of EOD practice that you describe (as well as many > other kinds of good pedagogical practices!).? > > > > In my view, an ecology that would promote (although not guarantee) Ethical > Ontological Dialogism, could only be conceptualized if and when the > *intrinsic*, rather than instrumental, sphere of education, as a basic > human need and right, can be legitimized as the main, or at least one of > the main purposes of education. It is a basic human need to be educated for > her/his own reasons, on her/his own terms, at the time and in the manner > that is most suitable to her/his own unique life trajectory, etc. > > > > If education is truly to be owned by the learner as his/her unalienated > right of becoming, a legitimate right of pursuing a journey toward > him/her-self, it would mean to completely change what today is the dominant > purpose of education: to serve various other social, cultural and even > personal needs. Such education, that serves other non-educational spheres > is instrumental. It is a tool to help develop social goals of economy, > science, technology, politics, legislature, medicine, etc. or to help a > person get a better paid job, advance the position of her/his family; gain > a social status, etc. > > > > These different social, cultural and personal goals can be defined and > standardized, and they can be built into an educational system. They can > shape education into a fully predefined activity (conceptualized as an > activity system), regardless of who are the actual students or the > teachers, who will be ?put through? this activity. In such educational > system (as we have now), individual subjectivity is irrelevant! Any > particular ?acter? in the system can be replaced ? because it is the system > that defines what each position in it should ideally mean. Standardized > tests are just a tip of the ice-berg of such activity system that is > predefined and preconceptualized ? in other words a system that Aristotle > would describe as ?po?esis? ? a practice which structure, form and content > are predefined, and its outcomes known in advance. > > > > In contrast, the main purpose and premise of Education based on Ethical > Ontological Dialogism is the support of the unique trajectory of each > individual learning journey, which is not known in advance, and cannot be > assumed to exist apart from the particular unique learner and/or teacher. > Such a practice would be a ?praxis? in terms of Aristotle, a practice whose > purposes, goals, forms and trajectories evolve from itself and are based on > the uniqueness of the involved participants, serendipity of the > moment-to-moment events, the availability of the cultural, historical, > economic, political, and other social ?resources? (artefacts, ideas, > concepts, means that can ?fuel? educational inquiries). In such praxis, > there exist a plurality of purposes for education, including its > instrumental potentials for the society and for the individuals, and its > non-instrumental values (to learn something ?just because it is interesting > and important to me, and I like it?). What is important is the legitimacy > of each learner?s and teacher?s subjectivity. Such education is not based > on replaceable individuals and does not aim to produce ?replaceable? > individuals. > > > > Ethical Ontological Dialogism, in fact, requires acknowledgement of the > uniqueness of each person her/his education. And that would require many > changes. In that sense, ?sustainability? should be not about content and > form of education (curriculum, instruction, organization, even > relationships), but about values and purposes of education. > > > > Of course, ecology for EOD depends on various economic and societal > conditions that either make EOD more possible and more valuable, or make it > less possible and less valuable. Eugene Matusov is working on a new book in > which he claims that instrumental education in the past and the present is > a result of the economic and societal necessities: we need people who are > trained to do many jobs in which they function as parts of large activity > systems (economy, health, legal and judiciary spheres, technology, > maintenance of infra-structures, etc.). Under such circumstances, human > unique, unpredictable, transcending subjectivity is not only irrelevant, > but can be dangerously undermining and destructive for the activity system. > > > > However, the more predictable and the more standardized is a particular > activity system, the more chance that it will be possible to develop smart > machines (robots) that can do such jobs. The current development of > technology, especially technology based on artificial intelligence, will > enable our societies to replace many humans with real smart machines, even > for highly professional jobs ? in the near future. This will free many > people from the necessity to act as a smart machine and create > circumstances in which a society would be able to afford what today is > affordable only to the very wealthy: a lot of time for true leisure, a kind > of leisure that in the ancient Greek was called ?skhole? (Greek: skhole > "spare time, leisure, rest, ease; idleness; that in which leisure is > employed; learned discussion;" ? Online Etymology Dictionary: > https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=school). These circumstances would > much better support creation of educational ecology that promotes EOD. > > > > And that leads us to the issue #2 ? > > > > *Subjectivity and EOD* > > > > In our book, we argue that human subjectivity, in fact, has to be > considered in a dualistic way ? both as something *given *i.e., objective > subjectivity, studied by conventional psychology (including sociocultural > one), and also as something that is in continuous *dialogic authorial** > subjectivity*, and thus, unfinalizable, unpredictable (even for the > person in question), unique and transcending her/his prior self. > > We claim that > > ?human subjectivity always has simultaneously an objective aspect (i.e., > ?consciousness-as-it?) and an authorial aspect (i.e., > ?consciousness-as-you?) (Matusov, 2015, p. 401), we think that both > positivist and dialogic paradigms are legitimate in social sciences. This > dualistic science epistemology for social sciences and humanities was > unapologetically proposed by Bakhtin (1986). Bakhtin seemed to accept the > objectification of human subjectivity promoted by positivist social > sciences as legitimate under certain conditions when personal human > uniqueness, personal authorial authorship, and personal voice do not > dominate a phenomenon.? (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, p. > 277). > > > > It is this dual mode of existence, that is the source of what you call > ?emphasizing different sides of the argument?. It is quite possible and > often necessary to objectify subjectivity of the other and the self. But > it is also necessary to keep in mind that the subjectivity, in its very > core, actually emerges in the process of dialogic meaning-making, and thus, > its source, essence and actual life as subjectivity is unfinalizable, > transcendent, unique and unpredictable. > > > > In the book we identified two main sources of objectification of human > subjectivity. > > One main source is rooted in objective ways of how a person feels, thinks, > acts, and behaves due to physical, chemical, biological, psychological, > cultural, social, economic, political, historical, and institutional > pressures that make human subjectivity predictable and replaceable. For > example, a cognitive study shows that when some people are primed to > remember words depicting old people, they might tend to walk slowly > (Kahneman, 2013). Here, priming?the preexisting objectivity of human > subjectivity?is revealed by the positivist research? (Matusov, > Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, p. 278). > > > > The other source of objectifying human subjectivity is > > ?when people are treated as objects of other people?s or their own > actions. For example, in conventional schools, students are often treated > as objects of teachers? pedagogical actions to make them predictably and > systematically arrive at preset curricular endpoints, to be measured by > educational tests, quizzes, and exams. Alternatively, some people > consciously want to limit their own uniqueness and authorial authorship in > some areas to save their creative efforts for other areas. Thus, famous > physicist Albert Einstein and former US President Barak Obama deliberately > made their choice of everyday dress cyclical and predictable, while other > people may find a choice of their everyday dress a part of their creative > self-expression. Here, the *objective subjectivity is new and actively > constructed by other people or by the people themselves*? (p. 278, > italics added now). > > > > In fact, objectifying human subjectivity is quite successfully done in all > forms of behavioristic shaping of others? behavior. There are extensive > psychological, sociological and educational studies based on positivist > objective and objectifying approach to human sciences. One could argue that > these approaches have been successful and that a lot has been learned about > the objectifiable aspects of human subjectivity. > > > > In our book, we make a particular point in defense of objectivism of the > positivist research of the given ? because it studies the objective > subjectivity. We do not argue that dialogism is a ?better? approach, nor an > ?ultimate? approach. Rather, we argue that both the positivist, objective > science approach to capture the givens of the subjectivity, human > relations, social practices, etc., and dialogic approach to the > unfinalizable, meaning-making, unique and transcendent subjectivity ? are > legitimate in their own right, and that it is important to find boundaries > of each one?s legitimacy. We wrote, > > > > ?We argue that both positivist science and dialogic science have their > legitimacy and limitations. Thus, it is legitimate for positivist science > to study objective things and objective subjectivities. For example, we > praise (see Matusov, 2017) cognitive psychologist Daniel Kahneman who > studied flaws of human gut subjectivity (Kahneman, 2013). However, when > positivist science tries to study authorial subjectivity, live voices, > dialogic meaning making, or ethical responsibility, it kills what it > studies in its process. In essence, we both agree and disagree with the > postmodernist critique of positivism (see, for example, Denzin & Lincoln, > 2005). We agree with the critique of its limitations and of its > inappropriateness in some areas of research. But, we respectfully disagree > that positivism is wrong in each and every case and that it has to be > eliminated. > > Similarly, dialogic science has its own limitations and applicability. > When dialogic science tries to study the objective world (and objective > subjectivity), at best it generates good poetry, metaphors, or fiction > prose, anthropologizing and ventriloquizing voiceless things, and at worst > it creates new oppressive religious mysticisms or ?alternative facts.? It > can be legitimate for dialogic researchers to study astronomers involved in > a positivist study of stars by addressing and responding to astronomers, > but it is not legitimate for these dialogic researchers to try to address > and respond to stars or talk with trees (see a debate on that here: Matusov > & Wegerif, 2014)?. (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Gradovski, 2019, Dialogic > pedagogy and polyphonic research art: Bakhtin by and for educators, > Palgrave, pp. 226-7) > > It seems that your question is in regard of a possibility for coexistence > of two legitimate educational modes: a conventional, objectifying, > instrumental educational mode in which education is conceptualized as a > ?po?esis? ? i.e. the curriculum, instruction, evaluation and its other > aspects are predefined, and based on the ?best practices? discovered > through objectifying positivist approach to subjectivity; and at the same > time, existence of the sustainable ethical ontological dialogism in which > both subjectivities and education itself are deemed ?praxis? that creates > ecologies in which emergence of unfinalizable, transcendent, unique and > unpredictable subjectivities is possible. > > > > Ultimately, for me, Ethical Ontological Dialogism is about legitimizing > the fact that this question is to be answered by the educational > participant, i.e. the learner and /or the teacher (and possibly other > relevant parties, like parents). In other words, ethical ontological > dialogism in education should start with addressing this question to every > participant: ?What is the purpose of education for me? Why?? and having > this dialogue be critically analyzed ? and illuminating every educational > decision along the way. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Ana > > > > > > -- > > *Ana Marjanovic-Shane* > > Phone: 267-334-2905 > > Email: anamshane@gmail.com > > > > > > *From: *"xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu" > on behalf of Greg Thompson > *Reply-To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Friday, May 31, 2019 at 3:25 PM > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Cc: *Eugene Matusov , "mikhail.gradovski@uis.no" < > mikhail.gradovski@uis.no> > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: A new book: Dialogic Pedagogy and Polyphonic > Research Art: Bakhtin by and for Educators > > > > Ana, > > > > Isn't it delightful to try to accomplish "dialogue" in a medium such as > this? I think I'll have to respond in toto rather than as proper > conversational second parts as you have done - for fear that things will > get too messy and difficult to track (much different from if we were having > this conversation in person - or, at least, a different kind of messiness!). > > > > Regarding the issue of universality, as an anthropologist, this is an > occupational hazard. I should be clear that my question is different from > the concern with "scaling up" (or "mechanization") which seeks to identify > teaching practices that can be simply applied to all teaching encounters. > My concern is precisely that there may be some places where this might not > be the most ethical approach - or perhaps that it might need some further > specification and/or modifications. > > > > As for "sustainability", yes I have a slightly different understanding > from what you are describing (what you are describing seems to be more like > the "scaling up" issue I've mentioned above - i.e., how to mass produce > education). My question is more of an ecological one: is it sustainable in > the sense that you can put it out into the world and it will be able to be > taken up by teachers and others and practiced, and that this can be > ongoing? Now, granted, the ecologies that I'm talking about are human ones. > Hence my other question: what would need to change in order to make it > sustainable? (and, relatedly, what is keeping it from being sustainable?). > I like your suggestions and agree that standardized testing is a major > impediment to the kind of EOD practice that you describe (as well as many > other kinds of good pedagogical practices!). > > > > On the issue of the pre-existing nature of the subject, we may have to > agree to disagree. Whether or not that is the case may, in part, depend on > whether or not you equate "unfinalizable" with "undefined". I'm no expert > in Bakhtin and I'm a bit out of touch, but from what I recall of my reading > of him, the point is that we are consummated by the recognition of others > and that is central to our emerging definitions of who we are. There is a > subject here. The ethical caution that I see Bakhtin offering is that this > moment of recognition (and hence this subject) should not be final - i.e., > that is who we have come to be, not as finalized subjects, but as > subjects-in-the-making, subjects abuilding (bildung?). Thus, for example, > one doesn't wake each morning with a clean slate in one's relationship with > one's partner as if their subject-hood is undefined. In other words, I > don't think Bakthin is being ahistorical about subjects. Rather, in my > reading of B, if one loves one's partner, one wakes each morning with a > clean slate of who they can BECOME (unfinalized) but without neglecting who > they have been to oneself (since to recognize them as "partner" is to > already begin from an understanding of their subject-hood prior to your > subsequent encounters with them that day). That's just my take. And note > that we may in fact be in total agreement on this but just emphasizing > different sides of the argument? > > > > As for the comment about Martin Packer's book, I should have clarified > that it is not about studying subjectivity "objectively" but rather is a > critique of this entire enterprise. If you get a chance to have a read of > it, I think you'll find some strong resonances. Apologies to Martin for > mischaracterizing his work in my initial comment ("that's not what I > meant!"). > > > > As for how this is "ontological", I like the direction that you propose - > this is about the constitution of subjects (and, perhaps, about the > constitution of reality and the worlds that we inhabit?). That's some big > stuff. > > > > Anyway, thanks much for the engagement (which I'm happy to continue - > although maybe there are more productive directions than those I have taken > thus far?). > > > > And to this point of possibility and becoming, I thought I'd offer a > favorite quote of mine from Lloyd Alexander's book *The Castly Llyr.* This > is Lord Dalben's parting advice to the young Princess Eilonwy as she sets > out on an adventure and is rather unsure of her ability to handle the > challenges that this adventure will entail. It captures the challenge of > allowing others' becoming (even if it is in spite of themselves): Dalben > says to Eilonwy: "For each of us comes a time when we must become more than > what we are." > > > > Cheers, > > greg > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:51 AM Ana Marjanovic-Shane > wrote: > > Dear Greg, David and all, > > > > Thanks, David, for another thoughtful and provoking email. Although I am > faster this time in my reply, I would still like to count it in the ?slow > dialogue?! J > > > > Thanks for the opportunity for having a very thoughtful Saturday morning. > > > > See my responses between your lines below (in red). > > > > > > Ana > > > > > > -- > > *Ana Marjanovic-Shane* > > Phone: 267-334-2905 > > Email: anamshane@gmail.com > > > > > > *From: *"xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu" > on behalf of Greg Thompson > *Reply-To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Friday, May 24, 2019 at 3:33 PM > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Cc: *Eugene Matusov , "mikhail.gradovski@uis.no" < > mikhail.gradovski@uis.no> > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: A new book: Dialogic Pedagogy and Polyphonic > Research Art: Bakhtin by and for Educators > > > > Ana, > > > > Thank you so much for your very thoughtful description/explanation of > Ethical Ontological Dialogism. I know that by now you probably thought I > was avoiding your answer, but I've been trying to figure how to offer a > reasonable response to the feast that you put forward in your email and > trying to figure out how I might respond to your post in a manner consonant > with ethical ontological dialogism. I'm pretty sure I'll fail at the > latter, but feast I did. > > > > *ANA:* Thanks > > > > I'm also curious if a medium like a listserve can brook the challenge of > slow replies - replies that don't come for days or even weeks. I'm always > surprised to see how quickly conversations come and go even in a (virtual) > place as thoughtful as XMCA. Perhaps this is a sign of the times; you can > find "dialogue" everywhere but seldom does it amount to much - whether > ethically (cf. the dialogical fires that regularly erupt in social media) > or ontologically (cf. the "dialogue" of talking heads on just about any > media outlet who are expected to instantly opine on subjects about which > they've had little time to think). The dialogues on XMCA are perhaps a bit > slower than some of these other "dialogues" but even here on XMCA it seems > the half-life of a comment is about 24 hours. So I'm wondering what a > slower listserve might look like and whether slow replies might perhaps be > a step toward what you have outlined as ethical ontological dialogism. > > > > *ANA:* I think that we should try to do slow dialogues among other > dialogues. It is true that your original email and a simple question on > elaborating Ethical Ontological Dialogism (EOD), made me slow down and > start to think about what I see as an essence that can be somehow described > in a concentrated way but without loss of life and subjectivity. It was me, > first who slowed down the discussion. And I liked the time it took to think > about the issue. > > > > > > That's all just to say that I was delighted by your response (and the fact > that you took some time to respond) and I hope you'll forgive me for > multiplying that time in my response (and, of course, that last paragraph > could be seen as just an attempt to rationalize my failure to be a > responsible partner in dialogue...). > > > > Anyway, as for the project itself, I find it quite exciting and > invigorating. It is a wonderfully interesting project to tease out the > implications of Bakhtin's work for teachers' practice and the way you have > outlined this in your email really sings to me. > > > > If I were to ask questions about the project (and maybe some of these > answers are contained in the book - I've asked our library to order it), I > have two major questions that stand out. One has to do with sustainability > of these principles and the other has to do with the universality of them. > > > > *ANA:* Before I reply to any one of them below ? you may notice that both > questions are about issues important in a different, more prevalent, > monologic approach of searching the ?universal? and erasing the uniqueness > of subjectivity by the notion of ?sustainability? ? which implies that > teaching should strive to be something that can be replicated by others. > (just a quick comment ? which ties into your next paragraph) > > > > With regard to sustainability, along with David Kirshner's question: "Do > you not tremble at the selflessness that this posture demands?", I wonder > if this is the kind of thing that teachers in major public school systems > can easily sustain? Or is there something else that is needed in order to > be able to enable teachers to realize this kind of practice? What things > might need to change? > > > > > > *ANA:* Sustainability, in my interpretation, (correct me if I am wrong), > runs directly in contradiction to dialogicity! Sustainability means basing > teaching on ?the best practices? ? or replicating past ?models,? that seem > to be working good. That very process in its nature is monologic, > introducing something that is above and erases the uniqueness of each > person?s subjectivity, and thus each teacher?s striving to create and be > surprised by new moment-to-moment evolving meanings in dialogic > relationships with the equally unique and unpredictable students. That > cannot be ?sustained?, because such a process cannot be guaranteed, as it > is different for each participant. > > > > Yes, you, Greg and David Kirschner might say ?I tremble at the > selflessness that this posture demands? but this trembling for me is the > sign of a pulse of life. Pulse of life that can live freed of the > mechanization through which the contemporary education attempts to process > the participants in education. > > > > What needs to change to enable teachers this kind of practice? A lot of > things! But some countries may be timidly starting on this path (For > instance New Zealand removed national educational standards > https://education.govt.nz/news/national-standards-removed/ !) Of course, > removing national standards is just a first step. There are for sure many > more things that will have to be changed ? and not all the same things for > all the people in education. But I also think that the changes need to be > broadly directed at creating ecologies of education in which teaching and > learning can take a lot more authorial and creative turn than it is > possible now. What exactly would that mean ? will probably be very > different for each teacher and each student. > > > > With regard to universalizability, I wonder if you have thought much about > the ideology of the subject that underlies this project? As much as the > project sings to me, I wonder how much of that is because it is based on an > ideology of the subject that resonates with me (I'm a fan of Bakhtin's > notion of the subject as articulated in Author and Hero in Aesthetic > Activity). As an anthropologist I have to ask the question: what if the > culture that you are working in requires acknowledgment of some fixed > characteristics of the subject being addressed, perhaps even as finalized > and finished categories? Relatedly, I wonder if there might not be need for > some awareness of patterns of difference whether developmental differences, > cultural differences, and other differences that are important to engage > with in order to engage in an EOD manner with others? > > > > *ANA:* You ask ?what if the culture that you are working in requires > acknowledgment of some fixed characteristics of the subject being > addressed, perhaps even as finalized and finished categories?? > > I think that when a culture requires acknowledgement of some fixed > characteristics of the subject being addressed, that culture in itself has > a non-dialogic ideology ? ideology that requires and counts on suppressing > the uniqueness of subjectivity and, thus, suppressing the meaning-making > practices. So, yes, if the ideology of a culture is monologic, a project to > fully dialogize teaching would be hard, potentially impossible, and would > have to be ?smuggled? under the radar of what the educational authorities > demand. This is, in fact, what happens today in most conventional schools > that are governed in a strictly hierarchical, authoritarian way, demanding > reproduction of culture, ideology and dogma by setting these ideologies, > standards and dogmas as the only legitimate ones, and enforcing them with > standardized testing. > > > > Even the recognition of differences in the form of the talk about > developmental differences (developmentally appropriate curriculum), > cultural differences (culturally sensitive curriculum), individual > differences in special education (various accommodations specified in the > Individual Service Plans (ISPs), etc. ? this recognition is still about how > to strive toward, aim at, and somehow reach the prescribed standardized and > pre-set educational end-points, despite the special circumstances of > diversity, which are all perceived as forms of an educational handicap! > > > > In my view, Bakhtin inspired dialogism does not recognize any preexisting > subject, nor any pre-existing fixed characteristics of the subject. > > > > Dialogicity is a stance that assumes that subjectivity is born in dialogue > ? it is not a given, not even for the person her/him-self. Rather, one?s > subjectivity is constantly being born in one?s own dialogic project of > becoming a person, in dialogue, where one discovers pregnant possibilities > for ?I? to become ?ME?. > > > > Put slightly differently, is it possible that recognizing pre-existing > persons as part of (fixed) pre-existing categories might be a necessary > part of an ethical ontological dialogism. > > > > *ANA:* For me: No! (see above). > > > > In other words, is there some other end of the spectrum opposite of a > total rejection of these positive categories and patterns that is necessary > for an ethical ontological dialogism? > > > > *ANA:* You assume that the opposite of not recognizing unique individual > subjectivity of others ? is ?recognition of preexisting person as part of > (fixed) pre-existing categories?. This assumption is a trap ? as it stays > in the same realm of the given (positive), i.e. given in the world as such. > However, the question is not whether the uniqueness of the subjectivity is > given or not, the question is about whether our subjectivity is a given or > our subjectivity emerges in a continuing transcendence of the given. > > > > It seems that this positive categorization is a part of ethical dialogical > practice in much of our intimate encounters - whether the mother > anticipating the needs of a nursing child, a child anticipating their > parent's wishes (in Korea there is a term "nunchi" which is one of the most > fundamental ethical values of certain kinds of relationships and involves > the anticipation of the needs of significant others; importantly, these are > often in hierarchical relationships), a teacher designing a curriculum for > incoming students based on what little is known of their developmental age, > or the anticipatory removal of images of snakes by a man whose spouse is > ophidiophobic. Prediction as part of the anticipation of needs hardly seems > ethically problematic in these cases and, in fact, it seems to be exactly > the opposite. > > > > *ANA:* It is very important, in my view that you notice that a mother > (caregiver) keeps anticipating the needs (and the subjectivity) of a child > ? i.e. that an ethical thing is to anticipate someone?s subjectivity!! I > think that this is the core of an ethical approach ? to *anticipate* > someone?s subjectivity ? and yet not to assume that one can know it, or > that subjectivity is (fully) knowable. To me, that means what Bakhtin > conceptualized as ?unfinalizability?. > > > > I would think that this would also mean that the goal of psychology > -understanding others - has the potential to be a deeply ethical practice > in the EOD sense. The one caveat is that it shouldn't be seen as the final > word on any one subject - i.e., you can never fully "know" a person via the > categories that they might fit into. > > > > If I may anticipate(!) your response, I assume that an EOD approach would > not avoid this but would simply be to emphasize that this is NOT the same > as using one's knowledge of the Other as a final determination - as a > determination of the Other's "essence and potential". That seems a critical > point. > > > > *ANA:* No. EOD approach is different for me. EOD approach is in > anticipating surprises from oneself and the others, inviting oneself and > the others to further transcend the given and making opportunities for such > transcendence; rather than simply being aware that one should not finalize > the other. And to develop it further, ?anticipation? of the other?s > subjectivity is about being genuinely interested in the other. This genuine > interests opens a door for the other to join the dialogue ? in which all > the participants can have an opportunity for discovering/constructing and > transcending their subjectivities. > > > > A few other thoughts: > > > > I can't help but see strong parallels between your critique of social > science research and the critique offered by Martin Packer in his book The > Science of Qualitative Research. Latour seems to be one of the main common > touchpoints, but thematically you are engaged in very similar projects - > the question of how to study "subjectivity" "objectively". > > > > *ANA:* In fact, NO. The Ethical Ontological Dialogism is not about > studying subjectivity ?objectively?, but is about providing opportunities > for and inviting people?s subjectivities to start/continue emerging in all > the unpredictable and intrepid ways imaginable (and unimaginable) > transcendence. > > > > The major difference is that where you turn to Bakhtin's notion of > unfinalizability, he turns to Foucault's notion of an "historical ontology > of ourselves". Regardless of that, I see huge resonances between your work. > And regardless of those resonances, I imagine that bringing EOD to social > science research would be another angle to develop more substantially (if > you haven't already!). > > > > > > Oh, and a question: what is "ontological" about EOD? > > > > *ANA:* Ahh, the most important question!?. > > > > To say it quickly ? to me the ?ontological? means that for the dialogic > participants the dialogue matters on the level of their dialogic > subjectivity! It matters for who they are! It matters for their ideas about > the world, the others and themselves. It matters for what they desire, what > they fear, what they think they can?t live with or without, etc. > ?Ontologically? engaged dialogue makes a difference for the continuing > transcendence of the given ? it can and does change big and/or small things > relevant for the person and her/his personhood. > > > > But, of course, this question requires a lot more analysis. > > > > I have more thoughts but I think I've already said too much... > > > > *ANA: *?. Me too. > > > > > > Once again, many thanks for your thoughtful and lengthy response. I look > forward to reading more. > > > > Very best, > > Greg > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190611/954a115f/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jun 11 17:14:06 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:14:06 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The House of Government In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi All -- If anyone remains interested in reading "the house of government," let me know. Maybe a summer reading project. David could be correct that it is a trivial conceit. Great to see that Anna and Eugene's work resonates. Mike PS- Some may be interested in this interview with Vladimir Lubovsky who was a key player in the Institute of Defectology that sheltered Luria in the mid-1950's. David's note brought it to mind. http://luria.ucsd.edu/AudioVideo/index.html On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 1:12 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > Die = feminine gender, nominative or accusative case > > Der = feminine gender, genitive case (or dative) > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 10/06/2019 5:58 pm, David Kellogg wrote: > > (I'm changing the name of this thread, both to reflect the content and > because I don't think that Wolff-Michael's comment on the gender of "Frage" > in German is picky at all.) > > I think that "The House of Government" is not really an instance of > ethnography of speech; that is only what in the seventeenth century was > called a "conceit"--an instance of wit that involves unlikely > juxtaposition, like fleabites and romantic love. > > It's really a sustained argument about two propositions that the author > finds utterly contradictory: that the future is somehow in some way already > programmed and that its realization is still somehow in some way contingent > on your participation. Both propositions seem very poorly framed to me, but > I do recognize that frame of mind that likes to frame historical problems > in these inexplicable, inextricable muddles (for example: my sister has > just sent me an urgent link urging me to give up chocolate in order to > struggle against child labor in the Ivory Coast--not, mind you, in order to > lower the price of chocolate!) > > Early on, the author points out how some authors tried their best to write > revolutionary epics but could not resist the lure of irony. This was > actually two paths, and not one. For the early generation of artists > (Mayakovsky, Babel), what was involved was adherance to the revolutionary > camp, a sudden consciousness of the religious element of that zeal, and > then a very different moment of "campiness", a reflective moment we might > almost call revolutionary perezhivanie. As if through a looking glass, the > later generation of artists (Shokolov, Ostrovsky) took the opposite path: a > certain aloofness from the events of the revolution, a sudden interest in > intensive realism, in "permeating art with life", and as a result the kind > of cynicism that became very explicit and very profitable (and which is > quite typical of Chinese art today). > > Something of the sort could also be said about psychology: there was a > first generation for whom the revolution was the moment when humans could > exercise rational free will over everything from economics to child > development, and there was a later generation which proceeded the other way > around, working on lie detectors and programmed learning that would allow > us to plan the human. Perhaps the real dividing line in generations is not > when you are born but rather when and how you died. I think of Vygotsky > (and Trotsky) as belonging to the first generation, while Luria (and > Leontiev) belonged to the second. > > (Wolff-Michael: I am still wondering about "der Frage", but let me > guess--In *Endl?sung der Judenfrage,*"der" actually doesn't mean the > masculine article, but a preposition + article combination like "de la" in > French.) > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in > understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > -- We become ourselves through others -L.S.Vygotsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190611/a00a1ed2/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Jun 11 17:31:42 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:31:42 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translation or Paraphrase? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1af287ba-d566-9730-42c3-649883590374@marxists.org> Firstly, I have checked the transcription, and it is indeed true to the /LSVCW/ version. Originally, the old "Thought and Language" translation had been used here, but a few years ago I replaced it with Minick's. My initial reaction is that Minick's rendering of the sentence is much easier to read and understand. What is the issue for you? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 12/06/2019 6:41 am, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy: > > On Vygotsky Internet Archive? version of T&S Chapter Five, > Section Five, second paragraph,?we've got this. > > "Nevertheless, this mode of uniting concrete objects in a > common group differs from that based on thinking in > concepts or conceptual thinking. First, the nature of the > connections that are established among the objects in the > group differs from that characteristic of concepts. > Second, as defined by the relationship of each object in > the group to the group as a whole, the structure of the > unified group differs profoundly in type and mode of > activity from that based on conceptual thinking." > > The Russian, in both the first 1934 edition and the 1982 > Russian CW edition is this: > > > ?? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ? > ????? ??????, ???????? ??????????????? ??? ???? ??????, > ????????? ??????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????, > ????????????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????, > ????????? ? ?????? ??????, ?? ???? ?????? ? ?????, ? ??? > ??? ??????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ???? ? ?? ??????? > ???????????? ?? ???????? ? ????????, ????????????? ?????? > ? ????? ???????? ??????????. > > The 1994?Vygotsky Reader, edited by Rene van der Veer and > Jaan Valsiner, uses the 1931 "Pedology of the Adolescent" > version of this study?for its Chapter Nine. On p. 218, > it's got this: > > "But the manner of the unification of different real > objects into general groups, the character of the > connections which becomes established during th is > process, the structure of the affinities which arise on > the basis of such thinking, which is characterized by the > relationship of each individual object having become part > of the composition of the group, to the group as a whole - > all th is is fundamentally different by its nature and the > manner of its operation from thinking in concepts, which > only develops at the time of puberty." > > > This Vygotsky Reader version is an actual?translation, but > the version we have for T&S Chapter Five, which I assume > is an accurate transcription of Norris Minick's version in > the English CW, seems little more than?a paraphrase. What > gives? > > > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without > SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s > construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190612/ad3ab1c3/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jun 11 20:26:28 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:26:28 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The House of Government In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh, I am very interested, Mike--and I wouldn't have said you inflicted the book on me; it is a challenge on all kinds of levels. I meant "conceit" in the seventeenth-century sense--a bit of wit, like John Donne's poem about the flea (which I am trying to figure out how to use to teach sex education). But taking the House of Government as the eponymous main character has a lot of disadvantages. For one thing, the main character shows up pretty late (p. 318). For another, there isn't an obvious connection with the eschatological theme. Yes, the building, filling and gradual emptying of a house is a little like the creation, population and destruction of a world. Having sex is also a little like being bitten by a flea, but it is not easy to teach that to young people. I think the biggest disadvantage of trying to cram the whole of the Russian Revolution into one building is the very artificial barriers to context. If we know just a bit of world history, we know that the "great disappointment" refers not to the Second Coming (as the author claims) but very concretely to contemporaneous news: the failure of the German Revolution in 1923 and the failure of the Chinese Revolution in 1927. The former meant that Russia had to go ahead and develop its own ersatz industry; the latter that agriculture had to resume forced requisitions of grain in order to feed the cities. On p. 310 we get just a glimpse of the Left Opposition critique that would make real sense of what is happening. Tania Miagkova, who has adhered to the Left Opposition, has been forced to leave her husband, who is in charge of Ukrainian econmic planning and sent into exile in Kazakhstan. She learns Kazakh and camel riding, writes passionate love letters to her faraway husband, and begs him to visit her and bring her a copy of the new five-year-plan. He does--and she is crushed, and immediately capitulates. But why? Because from the five-year plan she sees that Stalin has stolen the critique of the opposition and is using it to crush Bukharin. She can now rejoin the party. But her husband probably knows enough about what is happening in the Ukraine so that she knows that she is joining a party bent on Holdomor. Instead of explaining this much needed context, the author at last introduces the long awaited House of Government, telling us it combined primus stoves with parquet floors despite the obvious fire hazard. But even the abolition and sudden reinstatement of the primus stove and the parquet floors is connected to Stalin's sudden zig to the left and zag to the right (and so, by the way, is the abolition of the complex system of education and Vygotsky's sudden introduction of instruction based on concepts in Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech. The ZPD is, in many ways, Vygotsky's response to the Five Year Plan, just as rejoining the party was that of Tania Miagkova...) David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:16 AM mike cole wrote: > Hi All -- > > If anyone remains interested in reading "the house of government," let me > know. Maybe a summer > reading project. David could be correct that it is a trivial conceit. > > Great to see that Anna and Eugene's work resonates. > Mike > PS- Some may be interested in this interview with Vladimir Lubovsky who > was a key player in the Institute of Defectology that sheltered Luria in > the mid-1950's. David's note brought it to mind. > http://luria.ucsd.edu/AudioVideo/index.html > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 1:12 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Die = feminine gender, nominative or accusative case >> >> Der = feminine gender, genitive case (or dative) >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 10/06/2019 5:58 pm, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> (I'm changing the name of this thread, both to reflect the content and >> because I don't think that Wolff-Michael's comment on the gender of "Frage" >> in German is picky at all.) >> >> I think that "The House of Government" is not really an instance of >> ethnography of speech; that is only what in the seventeenth century was >> called a "conceit"--an instance of wit that involves unlikely >> juxtaposition, like fleabites and romantic love. >> >> It's really a sustained argument about two propositions that the author >> finds utterly contradictory: that the future is somehow in some way already >> programmed and that its realization is still somehow in some way contingent >> on your participation. Both propositions seem very poorly framed to me, but >> I do recognize that frame of mind that likes to frame historical problems >> in these inexplicable, inextricable muddles (for example: my sister has >> just sent me an urgent link urging me to give up chocolate in order to >> struggle against child labor in the Ivory Coast--not, mind you, in order to >> lower the price of chocolate!) >> >> Early on, the author points out how some authors tried their best to >> write revolutionary epics but could not resist the lure of irony. This was >> actually two paths, and not one. For the early generation of artists >> (Mayakovsky, Babel), what was involved was adherance to the revolutionary >> camp, a sudden consciousness of the religious element of that zeal, and >> then a very different moment of "campiness", a reflective moment we might >> almost call revolutionary perezhivanie. As if through a looking glass, the >> later generation of artists (Shokolov, Ostrovsky) took the opposite path: a >> certain aloofness from the events of the revolution, a sudden interest in >> intensive realism, in "permeating art with life", and as a result the kind >> of cynicism that became very explicit and very profitable (and which is >> quite typical of Chinese art today). >> >> Something of the sort could also be said about psychology: there was a >> first generation for whom the revolution was the moment when humans could >> exercise rational free will over everything from economics to child >> development, and there was a later generation which proceeded the other way >> around, working on lie detectors and programmed learning that would allow >> us to plan the human. Perhaps the real dividing line in generations is not >> when you are born but rather when and how you died. I think of Vygotsky >> (and Trotsky) as belonging to the first generation, while Luria (and >> Leontiev) belonged to the second. >> >> (Wolff-Michael: I am still wondering about "der Frage", but let me >> guess--In *Endl?sung der Judenfrage,*"der" actually doesn't mean the >> masculine article, but a preposition + article combination like "de la" in >> French.) >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New Article: >> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >> understanding narratives by >> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> Some e-prints available at: >> >> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> > > -- > We become ourselves through others -L.S.Vygotsky > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190612/d2243db0/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jun 11 20:27:15 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:27:15 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translation or Paraphrase? In-Reply-To: <1af287ba-d566-9730-42c3-649883590374@marxists.org> References: <1af287ba-d566-9730-42c3-649883590374@marxists.org> Message-ID: Oh, it's the same issue that Minick himself and others had with the Hanfmann and Vakar translation, Andy. It's a paraphrase. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:34 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > Firstly, I have checked the transcription, and it is indeed true to the > *LSVCW* version. Originally, the old "Thought and Language" translation > had been used here, but a few years ago I replaced it with Minick's. > > My initial reaction is that Minick's rendering of the sentence is much > easier to read and understand. What is the issue for you? > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/06/2019 6:41 am, David Kellogg wrote: > > Andy: > > On Vygotsky Internet Archive version of T&S Chapter Five, Section Five, > second paragraph, we've got this. > > "Nevertheless, this mode of uniting concrete objects in a common group > differs from that based on thinking in concepts or conceptual thinking. > First, the nature of the connections that are established among the objects > in the group differs from that characteristic of concepts. Second, as > defined by the relationship of each object in the group to the group as a > whole, the structure of the unified group differs profoundly in type and > mode of activity from that based on conceptual thinking." > > The Russian, in both the first 1934 edition and the 1982 Russian CW > edition is this: > > > ?? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ? ????? ??????, > ???????? ??????????????? ??? ???? ??????, ????????? ??????????? ?? ?????? > ?????? ???????? ???????, ????????????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? > ????????, ????????? ? ?????? ??????, ?? ???? ?????? ? ?????, ? ??? ??? > ??????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ???? ? ?? ??????? ???????????? ?? ???????? ? > ????????, ????????????? ?????? ? ????? ???????? ??????????. > > > > The 1994 Vygotsky Reader, edited by Rene van der Veer and Jaan Valsiner, > uses the 1931 "Pedology of the Adolescent" version of this study for its > Chapter Nine. On p. 218, it's got this: > > > > "But the manner of the unification of different real objects into general > groups, the character of the connections which becomes established during th > is process, the structure of the affinities which arise on the basis of such > thinking, which is characterized by the relationship of each individual > object having become part of the composition of the group, to the group > as a whole - all th is is fundamentally different by its nature and the > manner of its operation from thinking in concepts, which only develops at > the time of puberty." > > > This Vygotsky Reader version is an actual translation, but the version we > have for T&S Chapter Five, which I assume is an accurate transcription of > Norris Minick's version in the English CW, seems little more than a > paraphrase. What gives? > > > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in > understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190612/dea953cc/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Jun 11 20:53:22 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:53:22 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translation or Paraphrase? In-Reply-To: References: <1af287ba-d566-9730-42c3-649883590374@marxists.org> Message-ID: Well, I think a "literal" translation is as capable of misrepresenting the meaning of the original as what you call a paraphrase. When you read a translation, without access to the original, this is a huge act of trust. But if the translator is worthy of this trust, I appreciate a "paraphrase" which better conveys the meaning than a "literal" translation. At the same time, I am on the record as objecting loudly to missing definite and indefinite articles in translation from the Russian, or the mixing up of "unit" and "unity" which Nikolai Veresov has drawn attention to. But a good paraphrase I am happy with. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 12/06/2019 1:27 pm, David Kellogg wrote: > Oh, it's the same issue that Minick himself and others had > with the Hanfmann and Vakar translation, Andy. It's a > paraphrase. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without > SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s > construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:34 AM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Firstly, I have checked the transcription, and it is > indeed true to the /LSVCW/ version. Originally, the > old "Thought and Language" translation had been used > here, but a few years ago I replaced it with Minick's. > > My initial reaction is that Minick's rendering of the > sentence is much easier to read and understand. What > is the issue for you? > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/06/2019 6:41 am, David Kellogg wrote: >> Andy: >> >> On Vygotsky Internet Archive? version of T&S Chapter >> Five, Section Five, second paragraph,?we've got this. >> >> "Nevertheless, this mode of uniting concrete objects >> in a common group differs from that based on thinking >> in concepts or conceptual thinking. First, the nature >> of the connections that are established among the >> objects in the group differs from that characteristic >> of concepts. Second, as defined by the relationship >> of each object in the group to the group as a whole, >> the structure of the unified group differs profoundly >> in type and mode of activity from that based on >> conceptual thinking." >> >> The Russian, in both the first 1934 edition and the >> 1982 Russian CW edition is this: >> >> >> ?? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? >> ? ????? ??????, ???????? ??????????????? ??? ???? >> ??????, ????????? ??????????? ?? ?????? ?????? >> ???????? ???????, ????????????????? ?????????? >> ??????? ?????????? ????????, ????????? ? ?????? >> ??????, ?? ???? ?????? ? ?????, ? ??? ??? ??????? >> ?????????? ?? ?????? ???? ? ?? ??????? ???????????? >> ?? ???????? ? ????????, ????????????? ?????? ? ????? >> ???????? ??????????. >> >> The 1994?Vygotsky Reader, edited by Rene van der Veer >> and Jaan Valsiner, uses the 1931 "Pedology of the >> Adolescent" version of this study?for its Chapter >> Nine. On p. 218, it's got this: >> >> "But the manner of the unification of different real >> objects into general groups, the character of the >> connections which becomes established during th is >> process, the structure of the affinities which arise >> on the basis of such thinking, which is characterized >> by the relationship of each individual object having >> become part of the composition of the group, to the >> group as a whole - all th is is fundamentally >> different by its nature and the manner of its >> operation from thinking in concepts, which only >> develops at the time of puberty." >> >> >> This Vygotsky Reader version is an >> actual?translation, but the version we have for T&S >> Chapter Five, which I assume is an accurate >> transcription of Norris Minick's version in the >> English CW, seems little more than?a paraphrase. What >> gives? >> >> >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New Article: >> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without >> SELF: Vygotsky?s >> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s >> construalism in understanding narratives by >> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> To link to this article: >> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> Some e-prints available at: >> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190612/a42c1a46/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Jun 12 17:00:36 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:00:36 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translation or Paraphrase? In-Reply-To: References: <1af287ba-d566-9730-42c3-649883590374@marxists.org> Message-ID: Andy-- Prout is a little bit too literal for my own taste too. But as I said, I am a sloppy translator, and I need people like Nikolai to get it right. This is how I would translate the passage. Notice that it DOES have material that differs from the Minick translation and which is present but lost in details in the Vygotsky Reader translation. "However, this mode of bringing together different concrete objects into general groupings, the character of the links established within it, the structure emerging on the basis of such thinking and characterized by relationships of each separate object as part of the group to the group as a whole--all of this profoundly differs in type and in mode of activity to the thinking in concepts that develops in the epoch of sexual maturation." I admit that the Minick translation fits better on a PPT slide. But the Vygotsky original is not designed for bullet points: it is designed to highlight THREE characteristics (not two as in the Minick): the method of grouping, the character of links, and the structure as a whole, with emphasis placed on the last through an elaboration which links it to the previous two. But the real problem with the paraphrase is what is left entirely out of Minick and collapsed to the single, biologizing word 'puberty' in the Vygotsky Reader: the words "in the epoch of sexual maturation". This passage is part of a chapter-long argument between Vygotsky and the Buhlers in Vienna. The Buhlers haver argued that there are no new elementary functions emerging in adolescence (Freud casts a certain shadow here, since for all the Viennese sexuality is not a new formation in adolescence at all). There is no second sight, no second smell, no second hearing, or taste, or touch, no second thinking arising out of the top-knot of the child like a second head from the skull of the Buddha. So the wherewithal of concept formation is present and accounted for in a three year old. Why don't concepts emerge in three-year-olds? Well, in Vienna, the answer is simple--they do. The difference between a three-year-old and a thirteen-year-old is emotion and not intellect; the difference between complexes of objects and abstract concepts is quantitative and not qualitative. I think your own work (the Critical Approach to Concepts) handles this problem beautifully--it is the novel social projects that adolescents get involved in (including social projects that include others who are now of sexual interest) that really account for the novel mode of bringing together, the novel character of the links, and the novel structure of the whole that emerges from these. Vygotsky is trying to provide, as always, a pedological scheme in which that approach to concept formation can make sense--he's giving us the inner pedology, complete with now-unpopular periodization, of the process you have described as a novel social project. The unpopularity of the periodization scheme in our present intellectual climate is, however, no deterrent; on the contrary, for me it very much adds to the attractiveness of the argument. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:55 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > Well, I think a "literal" translation is as capable of misrepresenting the > meaning of the original as what you call a paraphrase. When you read a > translation, without access to the original, this is a huge act of trust. > But if the translator is worthy of this trust, I appreciate a "paraphrase" > which better conveys the meaning than a "literal" translation. At the same > time, I am on the record as objecting loudly to missing definite and > indefinite articles in translation from the Russian, or the mixing up of > "unit" and "unity" which Nikolai Veresov has drawn attention to. > > But a good paraphrase I am happy with. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/06/2019 1:27 pm, David Kellogg wrote: > > Oh, it's the same issue that Minick himself and others had with the > Hanfmann and Vakar translation, Andy. It's a paraphrase. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in > understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:34 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Firstly, I have checked the transcription, and it is indeed true to the >> *LSVCW* version. Originally, the old "Thought and Language" translation >> had been used here, but a few years ago I replaced it with Minick's. >> >> My initial reaction is that Minick's rendering of the sentence is much >> easier to read and understand. What is the issue for you? >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 12/06/2019 6:41 am, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> Andy: >> >> On Vygotsky Internet Archive version of T&S Chapter Five, Section Five, >> second paragraph, we've got this. >> >> "Nevertheless, this mode of uniting concrete objects in a common group >> differs from that based on thinking in concepts or conceptual thinking. >> First, the nature of the connections that are established among the objects >> in the group differs from that characteristic of concepts. Second, as >> defined by the relationship of each object in the group to the group as a >> whole, the structure of the unified group differs profoundly in type and >> mode of activity from that based on conceptual thinking." >> >> The Russian, in both the first 1934 edition and the 1982 Russian CW >> edition is this: >> >> >> ?? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ? ????? ??????, >> ???????? ??????????????? ??? ???? ??????, ????????? ??????????? ?? ?????? >> ?????? ???????? ???????, ????????????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? >> ????????, ????????? ? ?????? ??????, ?? ???? ?????? ? ?????, ? ??? ??? >> ??????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ???? ? ?? ??????? ???????????? ?? ???????? ? >> ????????, ????????????? ?????? ? ????? ???????? ??????????. >> >> >> >> The 1994 Vygotsky Reader, edited by Rene van der Veer and Jaan Valsiner, >> uses the 1931 "Pedology of the Adolescent" version of this study for its >> Chapter Nine. On p. 218, it's got this: >> >> >> >> "But the manner of the unification of different real objects into >> general groups, the character of the connections which becomes >> established during th is process, the structure of the affinities which >> arise on the basis of such thinking, which is characterized by the >> relationship of each individual object having become part of the composition >> of the group, to the group as a whole - all th is is fundamentally different >> by its nature and the manner of its operation from thinking in concepts, >> which only develops at the time of puberty." >> >> >> This Vygotsky Reader version is an actual translation, but the version >> we have for T&S Chapter Five, which I assume is an accurate transcription >> of Norris Minick's version in the English CW, seems little more than a >> paraphrase. What gives? >> >> >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New Article: >> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >> understanding narratives by >> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> Some e-prints available at: >> >> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190613/a0a24ff2/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Wed Jun 12 19:22:09 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 12:22:09 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translation or Paraphrase? In-Reply-To: References: <1af287ba-d566-9730-42c3-649883590374@marxists.org> Message-ID: <8ad10bf8-ab79-3759-0345-5ddab9653bde@marxists.org> You are dead right that Minick's omission of the phrase at the end of the paragraph, referring to the point at which thinking in concepts begins to appear, is a material omission and should be corrected. And yes, it is only conditionally and indirectly a biological basis. This links up interestingly with an issue which Jen Vadeboncoeur has been wrestling with: should we say "in the epoch of sexual maturation," or "after puberty" or "in adolescence" or "as youths" or "as teenagers"? We discussed once before what happens in pathological social situations (recruitment as a child soldier, the death or disability of both parents, revolutionary upheavals) when young people are thrown into the affairs of the adult world when they have not yet reached the point in their biological development when the social formation would normally expect them to begin to grasp conceptual thinking and operate in the wider world outside of the protection of the family? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 13/06/2019 10:00 am, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy-- > > Prout is a little bit too literal for my own taste too. > But as I said, I am a sloppy translator, and I need people > like Nikolai to get it right. This is how I would > translate the passage. Notice that it DOES have material > that differs from the Minick translation and which is > present but lost in details in the Vygotsky Reader > translation. > > "However, this mode of bringing together different > concrete objects into?general groupings, the character of > the links established within it,?the structure emerging on > the basis of such thinking and characterized by > relationships of each separate object as part of the?group > to the group as a whole--all of this?profoundly differs in > type and in mode of activity to the?thinking in concepts > that develops in the epoch of sexual maturation." > > I admit that the Minick translation fits better on a PPT > slide. But the Vygotsky original is not designed for > bullet points: it is designed to highlight THREE > characteristics (not two as in the Minick): the method of > grouping, the character of links, and the structure as a > whole, with emphasis placed on the last through > an?elaboration which links it to the previous two. > > But the real problem with the paraphrase is what is left > entirely out of Minick and collapsed to the single, > biologizing word 'puberty' in the Vygotsky Reader: the > words "in the epoch of sexual maturation". This passage is > part of a chapter-long argument between Vygotsky and the > Buhlers in Vienna. The Buhlers haver argued that?there are > no new elementary functions emerging in adolescence?(Freud > casts a certain shadow here, since for all the Viennese > sexuality is not a new formation in adolescence at all). > There is no second sight, no second smell, no second > hearing, or taste, or touch, no second thinking arising > out of the top-knot of the child like a second head from > the skull of the Buddha. So?the wherewithal of concept > formation is present and accounted for in a three year > old. Why don't concepts emerge in three-year-olds? Well, > in Vienna, the answer is simple--they do. The?difference > between a three-year-old and a thirteen-year-old is > emotion and not intellect; the difference between > complexes of objects and abstract concepts is quantitative > and not qualitative. > > I think your own work (the Critical Approach to Concepts) > handles this problem beautifully--it is the novel?social > projects that adolescents get involved in (including > social projects that include others who are now of sexual > interest) that really account for the novel mode of > bringing together, the novel character of the links, and > the novel structure of the whole that emerges from these. > Vygotsky is trying to provide, as always, a pedological > scheme in which that approach to concept formation can > make sense--he's giving us the inner pedology, complete > with now-unpopular periodization,?of the process you have > described as a novel?social project. The unpopularity of > the periodization scheme in our present intellectual > climate is, however, no deterrent; on the contrary, for me > it very much adds to the attractiveness of the argument. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without > SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s > construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:55 PM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Well, I think a "literal" translation is as capable of > misrepresenting the meaning of the original as what > you call a paraphrase. When you read a translation, > without access to the original, this is a huge act of > trust. But if the translator is worthy of this trust, > I appreciate a "paraphrase" which better conveys the > meaning than a "literal" translation. At the same > time, I am on the record as objecting loudly to > missing definite and indefinite articles in > translation from the Russian, or the mixing up of > "unit" and "unity" which Nikolai Veresov has drawn > attention to. > > But a good paraphrase I am happy with. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/06/2019 1:27 pm, David Kellogg wrote: >> Oh, it's the same issue that Minick himself and >> others had with the Hanfmann and Vakar translation, >> Andy. It's a paraphrase. >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New Article: >> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without >> SELF: Vygotsky?s >> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s >> construalism in understanding narratives by >> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> To link to this article: >> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> Some e-prints available at: >> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:34 AM Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> Firstly, I have checked the transcription, and it >> is indeed true to the /LSVCW/ version. >> Originally, the old "Thought and Language" >> translation had been used here, but a few years >> ago I replaced it with Minick's. >> >> My initial reaction is that Minick's rendering of >> the sentence is much easier to read and >> understand. What is the issue for you? >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 12/06/2019 6:41 am, David Kellogg wrote: >>> Andy: >>> >>> On Vygotsky Internet Archive? version of T&S >>> Chapter Five, Section Five, second >>> paragraph,?we've got this. >>> >>> "Nevertheless, this mode of uniting concrete >>> objects in a common group differs from that >>> based on thinking in concepts or conceptual >>> thinking. First, the nature of the connections >>> that are established among the objects in the >>> group differs from that characteristic of >>> concepts. Second, as defined by the relationship >>> of each object in the group to the group as a >>> whole, the structure of the unified group >>> differs profoundly in type and mode of activity >>> from that based on conceptual thinking." >>> >>> The Russian, in both the first 1934 edition and >>> the 1982 Russian CW edition is this: >>> >>> >>> ?? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????? >>> ????????? ? ????? ??????, ???????? >>> ??????????????? ??? ???? ??????, ????????? >>> ??????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????, >>> ????????????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? >>> ????????, ????????? ? ?????? ??????, ?? ???? >>> ?????? ? ?????, ? ??? ??? ??????? ?????????? ?? >>> ?????? ???? ? ?? ??????? ???????????? ?? >>> ???????? ? ????????, ????????????? ?????? ? >>> ????? ???????? ??????????. >>> >>> The 1994?Vygotsky Reader, edited by Rene van der >>> Veer and Jaan Valsiner, uses the 1931 "Pedology >>> of the Adolescent" version of this study?for its >>> Chapter Nine. On p. 218, it's got this: >>> >>> "But the manner of the unification of different >>> real objects into general groups, the character >>> of the connections which becomes established >>> during th is process, the structure of the >>> affinities which arise on the basis of such >>> thinking, which is characterized by the >>> relationship of each individual object having >>> become part of the composition of the group, to >>> the group as a whole - all th is is >>> fundamentally different by its nature and the >>> manner of its operation from thinking in >>> concepts, which only develops at the time of >>> puberty." >>> >>> >>> This Vygotsky Reader version is an >>> actual?translation, but the version we have for >>> T&S Chapter Five, which I assume is an accurate >>> transcription of Norris Minick's version in the >>> English CW, seems little more than?a paraphrase. >>> What gives? >>> >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> New Article: >>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story >>> without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s >>> construalism in understanding narratives by >>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> To link to this article: >>> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> >>> Some e-prints available at: >>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190613/4022cd00/attachment.html From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Thu Jun 13 17:47:29 2019 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 20:47:29 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge Message-ID: Hello all, I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and choice in the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and tools teach much as any person. You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge brokering as it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge Knitting as my metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and amongst under represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my head and into words it will make sense. But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research up through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. Two questions: -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge begin? -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. Greg -- J. Gregory McVerry, PhD Assistant Professor Southern Connecticut State University twitter: jgmac1106 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190613/fe302d2a/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Jun 14 03:37:02 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:37:02 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Greg, This question and distinction originally interested me when I was trying to work out what intuition is. "Implicit" hides a variety of meanings and sense, whereas explicit is narrower in range and can be connoted with sign, and hence this aspect can be linked with Vygotsky. To the extent that I have studied Peirce, his object and interpretant seem to have agreement too. >From wikipedia : "Tolman also promoted the concept known as latent learning first coined by Blodgett (1929)" Polanyi (1958) referred to tacit knowledge quite extensively. There were a number of other authors that I read contemporary with Polanyi. P. I. Zinchenko's (1939) study on voluntary and involuntary learning gives experimental accounts of these two different methods of learning. Best, Huw On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 01:50, Greg Mcverry wrote: > Hello all, > > I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into > agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: > https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint > > Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and choice in > the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and tools teach > much as any person. > > You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge brokering as > it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge Knitting as my > metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and amongst under > represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my head and into > words it will make sense. > > But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit and > implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research up > through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. > > I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading > instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. > > Two questions: > -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge begin? > -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and > explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. > > Greg > > -- > J. Gregory McVerry, PhD > Assistant Professor > Southern Connecticut State University > twitter: jgmac1106 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190614/091b0f49/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Jun 14 03:35:20 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 19:35:20 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Keith Johnson, one of the professors on my MA at University of Essex,used the distinction between implicit and explicit on the one hand, and the J.R. Anderson model of DECPRO, PRODEC on the other. He didn't say anything about conditional knowledge, but from Anderson I gather it's something to do with the passive reception/active production distinction (that we Halllidayans reject). I never heard him use both of them together, in a matrix, so that there was implicit and explicit declarative knowledge, implicit and explicit procedural knowledge, and implicit and explicit conditional knowledge. But Keith was very GRAMMATICAL. It seems to me that if you apply it to PHONOLOGY, there isn't any reason we can't talk about implicit and explicit declarative knowledge (knowing THAT a sound is a /d/ and not a /t/ implicitly and being able to express that idea in phonological terms) and it is also possible to talk about implicit and explicit procedural knowledge (knowing HOW to distinguish them without thinking about it, and knowing HOW they are distinguished by the movements of the articulators). I don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same thing with conditional knowledge either, although I'm not really sure that all these distinctions are relevant to teaching. All of this, and a lot more, in his 19i96 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching (Blackwell). David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 All of this is in his 1996 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching (Blackwell). On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Greg Mcverry wrote: > Hello all, > > I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into > agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: > https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint > > Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and choice in > the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and tools teach > much as any person. > > You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge brokering as > it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge Knitting as my > metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and amongst under > represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my head and into > words it will make sense. > > But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit and > implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research up > through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. > > I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading > instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. > > Two questions: > -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge begin? > -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and > explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. > > Greg > > -- > J. Gregory McVerry, PhD > Assistant Professor > Southern Connecticut State University > twitter: jgmac1106 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190614/75bf049e/attachment.html From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Fri Jun 14 04:23:27 2019 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 07:23:27 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you all, excatly what I am looking for. This idea of applying implicit and explicit knowledge to D, P, and C makes total sense. I will be rejecting much as well but it is the langauge of my audience so I wanted to grasp the origin. I am also trying to track how my ideas get captured and transformed here: https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/06/14/using-my-commonplace-book-to-write-an-article With your permission I would like to quote your emails in the same post. On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:40 AM David Kellogg wrote: > Keith Johnson, one of the professors on my MA at University of Essex,used > the distinction between implicit and explicit on the one hand, and the J.R. > Anderson model of DECPRO, PRODEC on the other. He didn't say anything about > conditional knowledge, but from Anderson I gather it's something to do with > the passive reception/active production distinction (that we Halllidayans > reject). > > I never heard him use both of them together, in a matrix, so that there > was implicit and explicit declarative knowledge, implicit and explicit > procedural knowledge, and implicit and explicit conditional knowledge. But > Keith was very GRAMMATICAL. It seems to me that if you apply it to > PHONOLOGY, there isn't any reason we can't talk about implicit and explicit > declarative knowledge (knowing THAT a sound is a /d/ and not a /t/ > implicitly and being able to express that idea in phonological terms) > and it is also possible to talk about implicit and explicit procedural > knowledge (knowing HOW to distinguish them without thinking about it, and > knowing HOW they are distinguished by the movements of the articulators). I > don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same thing with > conditional knowledge either, although I'm not really sure that all these > distinctions are relevant to teaching. > > All of this, and a lot more, in his 19i96 book Skill Learning and Language > Teaching (Blackwell). > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in > understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > All of this is in his 1996 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching > (Blackwell). > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Greg Mcverry > wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into >> agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: >> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint >> >> Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and choice in >> the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and tools teach >> much as any person. >> >> You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge brokering as >> it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge Knitting as my >> metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and amongst under >> represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my head and into >> words it will make sense. >> >> But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit and >> implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research up >> through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. >> >> I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading >> instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >> >> Two questions: >> -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge begin? >> -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and >> explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >> >> Greg >> >> -- >> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >> Assistant Professor >> Southern Connecticut State University >> twitter: jgmac1106 >> >> >> >> -- J. Gregory McVerry, PhD Assistant Professor Southern Connecticut State University twitter: jgmac1106 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190614/e6f8aa6b/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Jun 14 06:48:03 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:48:03 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: sure On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 12:26, Greg Mcverry wrote: > Thank you all, excatly what I am looking for. This idea of applying > implicit and explicit knowledge to D, P, and C makes total sense. > > I will be rejecting much as well but it is the langauge of my audience so > I wanted to grasp the origin. > > I am also trying to track how my ideas get captured and transformed here: > https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/06/14/using-my-commonplace-book-to-write-an-article > > With your permission I would like to quote your emails in the same post. > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:40 AM David Kellogg > wrote: > >> Keith Johnson, one of the professors on my MA at University of Essex,used >> the distinction between implicit and explicit on the one hand, and the J.R. >> Anderson model of DECPRO, PRODEC on the other. He didn't say anything about >> conditional knowledge, but from Anderson I gather it's something to do with >> the passive reception/active production distinction (that we Halllidayans >> reject). >> >> I never heard him use both of them together, in a matrix, so that there >> was implicit and explicit declarative knowledge, implicit and explicit >> procedural knowledge, and implicit and explicit conditional knowledge. But >> Keith was very GRAMMATICAL. It seems to me that if you apply it to >> PHONOLOGY, there isn't any reason we can't talk about implicit and explicit >> declarative knowledge (knowing THAT a sound is a /d/ and not a /t/ >> implicitly and being able to express that idea in phonological terms) >> and it is also possible to talk about implicit and explicit procedural >> knowledge (knowing HOW to distinguish them without thinking about it, and >> knowing HOW they are distinguished by the movements of the articulators). I >> don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same thing with >> conditional knowledge either, although I'm not really sure that all these >> distinctions are relevant to teaching. >> >> All of this, and a lot more, in his 19i96 book Skill Learning and >> Language Teaching (Blackwell). >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New Article: >> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >> understanding narratives by >> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> Some e-prints available at: >> >> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> All of this is in his 1996 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching >> (Blackwell). >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Greg Mcverry >> wrote: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into >>> agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: >>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint >>> >>> Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and choice >>> in the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and tools >>> teach much as any person. >>> >>> You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge brokering >>> as it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge Knitting as >>> my metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and amongst under >>> represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my head and into >>> words it will make sense. >>> >>> But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit and >>> implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research up >>> through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. >>> >>> I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading >>> instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>> >>> Two questions: >>> -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge begin? >>> -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and >>> explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> -- >>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>> Assistant Professor >>> Southern Connecticut State University >>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>> >>> >>> >>> > > -- > J. Gregory McVerry, PhD > Assistant Professor > Southern Connecticut State University > twitter: jgmac1106 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190614/79cd2910/attachment.html From pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu Fri Jun 14 07:25:16 2019 From: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu (Peter Feigenbaum [Staff]) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 10:25:16 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greg, I'm not sure about implicit *knowledge*, but the earliest studies on implicit *learning* were conducted by Arthur Reber in the 1960s. I had the good fortune of being a graduate student at CUNY Graduate Center in Developmental Psychology in the 1980s when Arthur was there as a visiting scholar. He was studying implicit learning of *grammar* by adults and children. What struck me about the phenomenon (then and now) is that subjects in experiments are unaware that they are engaged in implicit learning - and when asked to think about the task they are performing while they are learning to infer patterns implicitly, their performance deteriorates significantly. It would seem that implicit and explicit learning are activities that conflict with each other. This info may not be at all relevant to your question, but I thought I should mention it. Cheers, Peter On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:26 AM Greg Mcverry wrote: > Thank you all, excatly what I am looking for. This idea of applying > implicit and explicit knowledge to D, P, and C makes total sense. > > I will be rejecting much as well but it is the langauge of my audience so > I wanted to grasp the origin. > > I am also trying to track how my ideas get captured and transformed here: > https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/06/14/using-my-commonplace-book-to-write-an-article > > > With your permission I would like to quote your emails in the same post. > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:40 AM David Kellogg > wrote: > >> Keith Johnson, one of the professors on my MA at University of Essex,used >> the distinction between implicit and explicit on the one hand, and the J.R. >> Anderson model of DECPRO, PRODEC on the other. He didn't say anything about >> conditional knowledge, but from Anderson I gather it's something to do with >> the passive reception/active production distinction (that we Halllidayans >> reject). >> >> I never heard him use both of them together, in a matrix, so that there >> was implicit and explicit declarative knowledge, implicit and explicit >> procedural knowledge, and implicit and explicit conditional knowledge. But >> Keith was very GRAMMATICAL. It seems to me that if you apply it to >> PHONOLOGY, there isn't any reason we can't talk about implicit and explicit >> declarative knowledge (knowing THAT a sound is a /d/ and not a /t/ >> implicitly and being able to express that idea in phonological terms) >> and it is also possible to talk about implicit and explicit procedural >> knowledge (knowing HOW to distinguish them without thinking about it, and >> knowing HOW they are distinguished by the movements of the articulators). I >> don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same thing with >> conditional knowledge either, although I'm not really sure that all these >> distinctions are relevant to teaching. >> >> All of this, and a lot more, in his 19i96 book Skill Learning and >> Language Teaching (Blackwell). >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New Article: >> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >> understanding narratives by >> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> >> Some e-prints available at: >> >> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> >> All of this is in his 1996 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching >> (Blackwell). >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Greg Mcverry >> wrote: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into >>> agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: >>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint >>> >>> >>> Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and choice >>> in the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and tools >>> teach much as any person. >>> >>> You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge brokering >>> as it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge Knitting as >>> my metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and amongst under >>> represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my head and into >>> words it will make sense. >>> >>> But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit and >>> implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research up >>> through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. >>> >>> I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading >>> instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>> >>> Two questions: >>> -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge begin? >>> -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and >>> explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> -- >>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>> Assistant Professor >>> Southern Connecticut State University >>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>> >>> >>> >>> > > -- > J. Gregory McVerry, PhD > Assistant Professor > Southern Connecticut State University > twitter: jgmac1106 > > > > -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190614/353c43fb/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Jun 14 08:15:32 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:15:32 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think you'd need to qualify that statement, Peter, for it to be correct. The use of the phrase "involuntary" in P. I. Zinchenko's work pertains to "without volition" rather than "against one's volition". Best, Huw On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 15:27, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: > Greg, > > I'm not sure about implicit *knowledge*, but the earliest studies on > implicit *learning* were conducted by Arthur Reber in the 1960s. I had the > good fortune of being a graduate student at CUNY Graduate Center in > Developmental Psychology in the 1980s when Arthur was there as a visiting > scholar. He was studying implicit learning of *grammar* by adults and > children. What struck me about the phenomenon (then and now) is that > subjects in experiments are unaware that they are engaged in implicit > learning - and when asked to think about the task they are performing while > they are learning to infer patterns implicitly, their performance > deteriorates significantly. It would seem that implicit and explicit > learning are activities that conflict with each other. > > This info may not be at all relevant to your question, but I thought I > should mention it. > > Cheers, > Peter > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:26 AM Greg Mcverry > wrote: > >> Thank you all, excatly what I am looking for. This idea of applying >> implicit and explicit knowledge to D, P, and C makes total sense. >> >> I will be rejecting much as well but it is the langauge of my audience so >> I wanted to grasp the origin. >> >> I am also trying to track how my ideas get captured and transformed here: >> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/06/14/using-my-commonplace-book-to-write-an-article >> >> >> With your permission I would like to quote your emails in the same post. >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:40 AM David Kellogg >> wrote: >> >>> Keith Johnson, one of the professors on my MA at University of >>> Essex,used the distinction between implicit and explicit on the one hand, >>> and the J.R. Anderson model of DECPRO, PRODEC on the other. He didn't say >>> anything about conditional knowledge, but from Anderson I gather it's >>> something to do with the passive reception/active production distinction >>> (that we Halllidayans reject). >>> >>> I never heard him use both of them together, in a matrix, so that there >>> was implicit and explicit declarative knowledge, implicit and explicit >>> procedural knowledge, and implicit and explicit conditional knowledge. But >>> Keith was very GRAMMATICAL. It seems to me that if you apply it to >>> PHONOLOGY, there isn't any reason we can't talk about implicit and explicit >>> declarative knowledge (knowing THAT a sound is a /d/ and not a /t/ >>> implicitly and being able to express that idea in phonological terms) >>> and it is also possible to talk about implicit and explicit procedural >>> knowledge (knowing HOW to distinguish them without thinking about it, and >>> knowing HOW they are distinguished by the movements of the articulators). I >>> don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same thing with >>> conditional knowledge either, although I'm not really sure that all these >>> distinctions are relevant to teaching. >>> >>> All of this, and a lot more, in his 19i96 book Skill Learning and >>> Language Teaching (Blackwell). >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> New Article: >>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >>> understanding narratives by >>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> >>> >>> Some e-prints available at: >>> >>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> >>> >>> All of this is in his 1996 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching >>> (Blackwell). >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Greg Mcverry >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into >>>> agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: >>>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint >>>> >>>> >>>> Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and choice >>>> in the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and tools >>>> teach much as any person. >>>> >>>> You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge brokering >>>> as it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge Knitting as >>>> my metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and amongst under >>>> represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my head and into >>>> words it will make sense. >>>> >>>> But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit and >>>> implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research up >>>> through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. >>>> >>>> I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading >>>> instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>> >>>> Two questions: >>>> -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge begin? >>>> -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and >>>> explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> -- >>>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Southern Connecticut State University >>>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >> Assistant Professor >> Southern Connecticut State University >> twitter: jgmac1106 >> >> >> >> > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190614/3fe0892a/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Jun 14 09:47:42 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:47:42 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The same distinction can be found usefully in the work of Giyoo Hatano which you might find useful,Greg. A distinction is found in Wright's book on Envisioning Real Utopias between ideology and culture. Odd query: Earth worms have an enormous effect on their environments and hence ours. Earth worms could not do this if they did not have "wiggle room." Would you attribute the tunnels and soil transformation of earth worms to them "having" agency? mike On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 8:20 AM Huw Lloyd wrote: > I think you'd need to qualify that statement, Peter, for it to be correct. > > The use of the phrase "involuntary" in P. I. Zinchenko's work pertains to > "without volition" rather than "against one's volition". > > Best, > Huw > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 15:27, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < > pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: > >> Greg, >> >> I'm not sure about implicit *knowledge*, but the earliest studies on >> implicit *learning* were conducted by Arthur Reber in the 1960s. I had the >> good fortune of being a graduate student at CUNY Graduate Center in >> Developmental Psychology in the 1980s when Arthur was there as a visiting >> scholar. He was studying implicit learning of *grammar* by adults and >> children. What struck me about the phenomenon (then and now) is that >> subjects in experiments are unaware that they are engaged in implicit >> learning - and when asked to think about the task they are performing while >> they are learning to infer patterns implicitly, their performance >> deteriorates significantly. It would seem that implicit and explicit >> learning are activities that conflict with each other. >> >> This info may not be at all relevant to your question, but I thought I >> should mention it. >> >> Cheers, >> Peter >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:26 AM Greg Mcverry >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you all, excatly what I am looking for. This idea of applying >>> implicit and explicit knowledge to D, P, and C makes total sense. >>> >>> I will be rejecting much as well but it is the langauge of my audience >>> so I wanted to grasp the origin. >>> >>> I am also trying to track how my ideas get captured and transformed >>> here: >>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/06/14/using-my-commonplace-book-to-write-an-article >>> >>> >>> With your permission I would like to quote your emails in the same post. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:40 AM David Kellogg >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Keith Johnson, one of the professors on my MA at University of >>>> Essex,used the distinction between implicit and explicit on the one hand, >>>> and the J.R. Anderson model of DECPRO, PRODEC on the other. He didn't say >>>> anything about conditional knowledge, but from Anderson I gather it's >>>> something to do with the passive reception/active production distinction >>>> (that we Halllidayans reject). >>>> >>>> I never heard him use both of them together, in a matrix, so that there >>>> was implicit and explicit declarative knowledge, implicit and explicit >>>> procedural knowledge, and implicit and explicit conditional knowledge. But >>>> Keith was very GRAMMATICAL. It seems to me that if you apply it to >>>> PHONOLOGY, there isn't any reason we can't talk about implicit and explicit >>>> declarative knowledge (knowing THAT a sound is a /d/ and not a /t/ >>>> implicitly and being able to express that idea in phonological terms) >>>> and it is also possible to talk about implicit and explicit procedural >>>> knowledge (knowing HOW to distinguish them without thinking about it, and >>>> knowing HOW they are distinguished by the movements of the articulators). I >>>> don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same thing with >>>> conditional knowledge either, although I'm not really sure that all these >>>> distinctions are relevant to teaching. >>>> >>>> All of this, and a lot more, in his 19i96 book Skill Learning and >>>> Language Teaching (Blackwell). >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> Sangmyung University >>>> >>>> New Article: >>>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >>>> understanding narratives by >>>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>> >>>> >>>> Some e-prints available at: >>>> >>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>> >>>> >>>> All of this is in his 1996 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching >>>> (Blackwell). >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Greg Mcverry >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into >>>>> agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: >>>>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and choice >>>>> in the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and tools >>>>> teach much as any person. >>>>> >>>>> You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge brokering >>>>> as it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge Knitting as >>>>> my metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and amongst under >>>>> represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my head and into >>>>> words it will make sense. >>>>> >>>>> But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit >>>>> and implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research >>>>> up through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. >>>>> >>>>> I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading >>>>> instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>>> >>>>> Two questions: >>>>> -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge >>>>> begin? >>>>> -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and >>>>> explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>>> >>>>> Greg >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>> Southern Connecticut State University >>>>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>> Assistant Professor >>> Southern Connecticut State University >>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> Director, >> Office of Institutional Research >> >> Fordham University >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >> > -- The struggle of (hu)mans against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting. ? Milan Kundera (slightly edited) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190614/de6ce9df/attachment.html From goncu@uic.edu Fri Jun 14 10:10:54 2019 From: goncu@uic.edu (Goncu, Artin) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 17:10:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Also, I believe Palermo and Weiner made this distinction in the late 70s. I would check their classic textbook on cognitive psychology (if it?s still around.) And, Polanyi addressed these issues too. Best, ag Artin Goncu, Ph.D Professor, Emeritus University of Illinois at Chicago www.artingoncu.com/ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 11:48 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge The same distinction can be found usefully in the work of Giyoo Hatano which you might find useful,Greg. A distinction is found in Wright's book on Envisioning Real Utopias between ideology and culture. Odd query: Earth worms have an enormous effect on their environments and hence ours. Earth worms could not do this if they did not have "wiggle room." Would you attribute the tunnels and soil transformation of earth worms to them "having" agency? mike On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 8:20 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: I think you'd need to qualify that statement, Peter, for it to be correct. The use of the phrase "involuntary" in P. I. Zinchenko's work pertains to "without volition" rather than "against one's volition". Best, Huw On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 15:27, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] > wrote: Greg, I'm not sure about implicit *knowledge*, but the earliest studies on implicit *learning* were conducted by Arthur Reber in the 1960s. I had the good fortune of being a graduate student at CUNY Graduate Center in Developmental Psychology in the 1980s when Arthur was there as a visiting scholar. He was studying implicit learning of *grammar* by adults and children. What struck me about the phenomenon (then and now) is that subjects in experiments are unaware that they are engaged in implicit learning - and when asked to think about the task they are performing while they are learning to infer patterns implicitly, their performance deteriorates significantly. It would seem that implicit and explicit learning are activities that conflict with each other. This info may not be at all relevant to your question, but I thought I should mention it. Cheers, Peter On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:26 AM Greg Mcverry > wrote: Thank you all, excatly what I am looking for. This idea of applying implicit and explicit knowledge to D, P, and C makes total sense. I will be rejecting much as well but it is the langauge of my audience so I wanted to grasp the origin. I am also trying to track how my ideas get captured and transformed here: https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/06/14/using-my-commonplace-book-to-write-an-article With your permission I would like to quote your emails in the same post. On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:40 AM David Kellogg > wrote: Keith Johnson, one of the professors on my MA at University of Essex,used the distinction between implicit and explicit on the one hand, and the J.R. Anderson model of DECPRO, PRODEC on the other. He didn't say anything about conditional knowledge, but from Anderson I gather it's something to do with the passive reception/active production distinction (that we Halllidayans reject). I never heard him use both of them together, in a matrix, so that there was implicit and explicit declarative knowledge, implicit and explicit procedural knowledge, and implicit and explicit conditional knowledge. But Keith was very GRAMMATICAL. It seems to me that if you apply it to PHONOLOGY, there isn't any reason we can't talk about implicit and explicit declarative knowledge (knowing THAT a sound is a /d/ and not a /t/ implicitly and being able to express that idea in phonological terms) and it is also possible to talk about implicit and explicit procedural knowledge (knowing HOW to distinguish them without thinking about it, and knowing HOW they are distinguished by the movements of the articulators). I don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same thing with conditional knowledge either, although I'm not really sure that all these distinctions are relevant to teaching. All of this, and a lot more, in his 19i96 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching (Blackwell). David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 All of this is in his 1996 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching (Blackwell). On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Greg Mcverry > wrote: Hello all, I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and choice in the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and tools teach much as any person. You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge brokering as it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge Knitting as my metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and amongst under represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my head and into words it will make sense. But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research up through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. Two questions: -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge begin? -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. Greg -- J. Gregory McVerry, PhD Assistant Professor Southern Connecticut State University twitter: jgmac1106 -- J. Gregory McVerry, PhD Assistant Professor Southern Connecticut State University twitter: jgmac1106 -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -- The struggle of (hu)mans against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting. ? Milan Kundera (slightly edited) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190614/0d12f14f/attachment.html From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Fri Jun 14 10:52:28 2019 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:52:28 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can the earthworms consider the consequences of wiggiling this way or that and predicting the consequences of these choices or do they follow an almost programmatic biological following. If so is this agency and still learning in emodoed ways? I do keep a worm box those worms are more than cared for but not free? Are they missing agency? On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 1:05 PM mike cole wrote: > The same distinction can be found usefully in the work of Giyoo Hatano > which you might find useful,Greg. A distinction is found in Wright's book > on Envisioning Real Utopias between ideology > and culture. > > Odd query: Earth worms have an enormous effect on their environments and > hence ours. > Earth worms could not do this if they did not have "wiggle room." Would > you attribute the > tunnels and soil transformation of earth worms to them "having" agency? > > mike > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 8:20 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > >> I think you'd need to qualify that statement, Peter, for it to be correct. >> >> The use of the phrase "involuntary" in P. I. Zinchenko's work pertains to >> "without volition" rather than "against one's volition". >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 15:27, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < >> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: >> >>> Greg, >>> >>> I'm not sure about implicit *knowledge*, but the earliest studies on >>> implicit *learning* were conducted by Arthur Reber in the 1960s. I had the >>> good fortune of being a graduate student at CUNY Graduate Center in >>> Developmental Psychology in the 1980s when Arthur was there as a visiting >>> scholar. He was studying implicit learning of *grammar* by adults and >>> children. What struck me about the phenomenon (then and now) is that >>> subjects in experiments are unaware that they are engaged in implicit >>> learning - and when asked to think about the task they are performing while >>> they are learning to infer patterns implicitly, their performance >>> deteriorates significantly. It would seem that implicit and explicit >>> learning are activities that conflict with each other. >>> >>> This info may not be at all relevant to your question, but I thought I >>> should mention it. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:26 AM Greg Mcverry >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you all, excatly what I am looking for. This idea of applying >>>> implicit and explicit knowledge to D, P, and C makes total sense. >>>> >>>> I will be rejecting much as well but it is the langauge of my audience >>>> so I wanted to grasp the origin. >>>> >>>> I am also trying to track how my ideas get captured and transformed >>>> here: >>>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/06/14/using-my-commonplace-book-to-write-an-article >>>> >>>> >>>> With your permission I would like to quote your emails in the same post. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:40 AM David Kellogg >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Keith Johnson, one of the professors on my MA at University of >>>>> Essex,used the distinction between implicit and explicit on the one hand, >>>>> and the J.R. Anderson model of DECPRO, PRODEC on the other. He didn't say >>>>> anything about conditional knowledge, but from Anderson I gather it's >>>>> something to do with the passive reception/active production distinction >>>>> (that we Halllidayans reject). >>>>> >>>>> I never heard him use both of them together, in a matrix, so that >>>>> there was implicit and explicit declarative knowledge, implicit and >>>>> explicit procedural knowledge, and implicit and explicit conditional >>>>> knowledge. But Keith was very GRAMMATICAL. It seems to me that if you apply >>>>> it to PHONOLOGY, there isn't any reason we can't talk about implicit and >>>>> explicit declarative knowledge (knowing THAT a sound is a /d/ and not a /t/ >>>>> implicitly and being able to express that idea in phonological terms) >>>>> and it is also possible to talk about implicit and explicit procedural >>>>> knowledge (knowing HOW to distinguish them without thinking about it, and >>>>> knowing HOW they are distinguished by the movements of the articulators). I >>>>> don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same thing with >>>>> conditional knowledge either, although I'm not really sure that all these >>>>> distinctions are relevant to teaching. >>>>> >>>>> All of this, and a lot more, in his 19i96 book Skill Learning and >>>>> Language Teaching (Blackwell). >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Sangmyung University >>>>> >>>>> New Article: >>>>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>>>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >>>>> understanding narratives by >>>>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>>>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Some e-prints available at: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All of this is in his 1996 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching >>>>> (Blackwell). >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Greg Mcverry >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into >>>>>> agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: >>>>>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and >>>>>> choice in the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and >>>>>> tools teach much as any person. >>>>>> >>>>>> You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge >>>>>> brokering as it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge >>>>>> Knitting as my metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and >>>>>> amongst under represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my >>>>>> head and into words it will make sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit >>>>>> and implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research >>>>>> up through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading >>>>>> instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> Two questions: >>>>>> -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge >>>>>> begin? >>>>>> -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and >>>>>> explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>> Southern Connecticut State University >>>>>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Southern Connecticut State University >>>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> Director, >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> >>> Fordham University >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>> >> > > -- > The struggle of (hu)mans against power is the struggle of memory against > forgetting. > ? Milan Kundera (slightly edited) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190614/146ea9ae/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Jun 14 11:21:58 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:21:58 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So agency is wiggle room (discoordination?) *plus ...* Google translate tell me that the phrase "people have agency" is translated as ???? ????? ??????? ???????? (people possess freedom of action). which brings us to freedom and action as Vygotskian concepts. And if will is the ability to control oneself from the outside, but the outside is that very same social world that enabled you to use what they provided to control yourself, what agency do "you" have? Wiggle room and..... mike On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:56 AM Greg Mcverry wrote: > Can the earthworms consider the consequences of wiggiling this way or that > and predicting the consequences of these choices or do they follow an > almost programmatic biological following. If so is this agency and still > learning in emodoed ways? > > I do keep a worm box those worms are more than cared for but not free? Are > they missing agency? > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 1:05 PM mike cole wrote: > >> The same distinction can be found usefully in the work of Giyoo Hatano >> which you might find useful,Greg. A distinction is found in Wright's book >> on Envisioning Real Utopias between ideology >> and culture. >> >> Odd query: Earth worms have an enormous effect on their environments and >> hence ours. >> Earth worms could not do this if they did not have "wiggle room." Would >> you attribute the >> tunnels and soil transformation of earth worms to them "having" agency? >> >> mike >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 8:20 AM Huw Lloyd >> wrote: >> >>> I think you'd need to qualify that statement, Peter, for it to be >>> correct. >>> >>> The use of the phrase "involuntary" in P. I. Zinchenko's work pertains >>> to "without volition" rather than "against one's volition". >>> >>> Best, >>> Huw >>> >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 15:27, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < >>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> Greg, >>>> >>>> I'm not sure about implicit *knowledge*, but the earliest studies on >>>> implicit *learning* were conducted by Arthur Reber in the 1960s. I had the >>>> good fortune of being a graduate student at CUNY Graduate Center in >>>> Developmental Psychology in the 1980s when Arthur was there as a visiting >>>> scholar. He was studying implicit learning of *grammar* by adults and >>>> children. What struck me about the phenomenon (then and now) is that >>>> subjects in experiments are unaware that they are engaged in implicit >>>> learning - and when asked to think about the task they are performing while >>>> they are learning to infer patterns implicitly, their performance >>>> deteriorates significantly. It would seem that implicit and explicit >>>> learning are activities that conflict with each other. >>>> >>>> This info may not be at all relevant to your question, but I thought I >>>> should mention it. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:26 AM Greg Mcverry >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you all, excatly what I am looking for. This idea of applying >>>>> implicit and explicit knowledge to D, P, and C makes total sense. >>>>> >>>>> I will be rejecting much as well but it is the langauge of my audience >>>>> so I wanted to grasp the origin. >>>>> >>>>> I am also trying to track how my ideas get captured and transformed >>>>> here: >>>>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/06/14/using-my-commonplace-book-to-write-an-article >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With your permission I would like to quote your emails in the same >>>>> post. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:40 AM David Kellogg >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Keith Johnson, one of the professors on my MA at University of >>>>>> Essex,used the distinction between implicit and explicit on the one hand, >>>>>> and the J.R. Anderson model of DECPRO, PRODEC on the other. He didn't say >>>>>> anything about conditional knowledge, but from Anderson I gather it's >>>>>> something to do with the passive reception/active production distinction >>>>>> (that we Halllidayans reject). >>>>>> >>>>>> I never heard him use both of them together, in a matrix, so that >>>>>> there was implicit and explicit declarative knowledge, implicit and >>>>>> explicit procedural knowledge, and implicit and explicit conditional >>>>>> knowledge. But Keith was very GRAMMATICAL. It seems to me that if you apply >>>>>> it to PHONOLOGY, there isn't any reason we can't talk about implicit and >>>>>> explicit declarative knowledge (knowing THAT a sound is a /d/ and not a /t/ >>>>>> implicitly and being able to express that idea in phonological terms) >>>>>> and it is also possible to talk about implicit and explicit procedural >>>>>> knowledge (knowing HOW to distinguish them without thinking about it, and >>>>>> knowing HOW they are distinguished by the movements of the articulators). I >>>>>> don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same thing with >>>>>> conditional knowledge either, although I'm not really sure that all these >>>>>> distinctions are relevant to teaching. >>>>>> >>>>>> All of this, and a lot more, in his 19i96 book Skill Learning and >>>>>> Language Teaching (Blackwell). >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> Sangmyung University >>>>>> >>>>>> New Article: >>>>>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>>>>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >>>>>> understanding narratives by >>>>>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>>>>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>> To link to this article: >>>>>> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Some e-prints available at: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> All of this is in his 1996 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching >>>>>> (Blackwell). >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Greg Mcverry >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into >>>>>>> agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: >>>>>>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and >>>>>>> choice in the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and >>>>>>> tools teach much as any person. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge >>>>>>> brokering as it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge >>>>>>> Knitting as my metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and >>>>>>> amongst under represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my >>>>>>> head and into words it will make sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit >>>>>>> and implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research >>>>>>> up through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading >>>>>>> instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two questions: >>>>>>> -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge >>>>>>> begin? >>>>>>> -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and >>>>>>> explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>>> Southern Connecticut State University >>>>>>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>> Southern Connecticut State University >>>>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>> Director, >>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>> >>>> Fordham University >>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>> >>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> The struggle of (hu)mans against power is the struggle of memory against >> forgetting. >> ? Milan Kundera (slightly edited) >> > -- The struggle of (hu)mans against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting. ? Milan Kundera (slightly edited) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190614/01f524ea/attachment.html From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Fri Jun 14 11:31:29 2019 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:31:29 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Km/And this where I check my Western bias to the individual in my theoretical thinking. Placing the individual abouve the social... but as I study these network learning spaces those where one's goals align to shared values of a space both the person and space grow in their ability to change the outside forces that push back on will I guess it always easier to wiggle when folks move to the same beat. Wonder if their are predixtable patterns measured in earthworm casings. On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 2:25 PM mike cole wrote: > So agency is wiggle room (discoordination?) *plus ...* > Google translate tell me that the phrase "people have agency" is > translated as ???? ????? ??????? ???????? (people possess freedom of > action). > > which brings us to freedom and action as Vygotskian concepts. > > And if will is the ability to control oneself from the outside, but the > outside is that very same social > world that enabled you to use what they provided to control yourself, what > agency do "you" > have? Wiggle room and..... > > mike > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:56 AM Greg Mcverry > wrote: > >> Can the earthworms consider the consequences of wiggiling this way or >> that and predicting the consequences of these choices or do they follow an >> almost programmatic biological following. If so is this agency and still >> learning in emodoed ways? >> >> I do keep a worm box those worms are more than cared for but not free? >> Are they missing agency? >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 1:05 PM mike cole wrote: >> >>> The same distinction can be found usefully in the work of Giyoo Hatano >>> which you might find useful,Greg. A distinction is found in Wright's book >>> on Envisioning Real Utopias between ideology >>> and culture. >>> >>> Odd query: Earth worms have an enormous effect on their environments >>> and hence ours. >>> Earth worms could not do this if they did not have "wiggle room." Would >>> you attribute the >>> tunnels and soil transformation of earth worms to them "having" agency? >>> >>> mike >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 8:20 AM Huw Lloyd >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think you'd need to qualify that statement, Peter, for it to be >>>> correct. >>>> >>>> The use of the phrase "involuntary" in P. I. Zinchenko's work pertains >>>> to "without volition" rather than "against one's volition". >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 15:27, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < >>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Greg, >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure about implicit *knowledge*, but the earliest studies on >>>>> implicit *learning* were conducted by Arthur Reber in the 1960s. I had the >>>>> good fortune of being a graduate student at CUNY Graduate Center in >>>>> Developmental Psychology in the 1980s when Arthur was there as a visiting >>>>> scholar. He was studying implicit learning of *grammar* by adults and >>>>> children. What struck me about the phenomenon (then and now) is that >>>>> subjects in experiments are unaware that they are engaged in implicit >>>>> learning - and when asked to think about the task they are performing while >>>>> they are learning to infer patterns implicitly, their performance >>>>> deteriorates significantly. It would seem that implicit and explicit >>>>> learning are activities that conflict with each other. >>>>> >>>>> This info may not be at all relevant to your question, but I thought I >>>>> should mention it. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:26 AM Greg Mcverry >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thank you all, excatly what I am looking for. This idea of applying >>>>>> implicit and explicit knowledge to D, P, and C makes total sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> I will be rejecting much as well but it is the langauge of my >>>>>> audience so I wanted to grasp the origin. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am also trying to track how my ideas get captured and transformed >>>>>> here: >>>>>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/06/14/using-my-commonplace-book-to-write-an-article >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> With your permission I would like to quote your emails in the same >>>>>> post. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:40 AM David Kellogg >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Keith Johnson, one of the professors on my MA at University of >>>>>>> Essex,used the distinction between implicit and explicit on the one hand, >>>>>>> and the J.R. Anderson model of DECPRO, PRODEC on the other. He didn't say >>>>>>> anything about conditional knowledge, but from Anderson I gather it's >>>>>>> something to do with the passive reception/active production distinction >>>>>>> (that we Halllidayans reject). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I never heard him use both of them together, in a matrix, so that >>>>>>> there was implicit and explicit declarative knowledge, implicit and >>>>>>> explicit procedural knowledge, and implicit and explicit conditional >>>>>>> knowledge. But Keith was very GRAMMATICAL. It seems to me that if you apply >>>>>>> it to PHONOLOGY, there isn't any reason we can't talk about implicit and >>>>>>> explicit declarative knowledge (knowing THAT a sound is a /d/ and not a /t/ >>>>>>> implicitly and being able to express that idea in phonological terms) >>>>>>> and it is also possible to talk about implicit and explicit procedural >>>>>>> knowledge (knowing HOW to distinguish them without thinking about it, and >>>>>>> knowing HOW they are distinguished by the movements of the articulators). I >>>>>>> don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same thing with >>>>>>> conditional knowledge either, although I'm not really sure that all these >>>>>>> distinctions are relevant to teaching. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All of this, and a lot more, in his 19i96 book Skill Learning and >>>>>>> Language Teaching (Blackwell). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> Sangmyung University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> New Article: >>>>>>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: >>>>>>> Vygotsky?s >>>>>>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >>>>>>> understanding narratives by >>>>>>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>>>>>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>> To link to this article: >>>>>>> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some e-prints available at: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All of this is in his 1996 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching >>>>>>> (Blackwell). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Greg Mcverry >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into >>>>>>>> agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: >>>>>>>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and >>>>>>>> choice in the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and >>>>>>>> tools teach much as any person. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge >>>>>>>> brokering as it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge >>>>>>>> Knitting as my metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and >>>>>>>> amongst under represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my >>>>>>>> head and into words it will make sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit >>>>>>>> and implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research >>>>>>>> up through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading >>>>>>>> instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two questions: >>>>>>>> -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge >>>>>>>> begin? >>>>>>>> -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and >>>>>>>> explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>>>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>>>> Southern Connecticut State University >>>>>>>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>> Southern Connecticut State University >>>>>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>>>> Director, >>>>> Office of Institutional Research >>>>> >>>>> Fordham University >>>>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>>>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>>>> >>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> The struggle of (hu)mans against power is the struggle of memory against >>> forgetting. >>> ? Milan Kundera (slightly edited) >>> >> > > -- > The struggle of (hu)mans against power is the struggle of memory against > forgetting. > ? Milan Kundera (slightly edited) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190614/8433a098/attachment-0001.html From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Fri Jun 14 11:36:56 2019 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:36:56 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think I will disagree. Bits of explicit learning embedded into implicit events when you have explicit goals make a difference. Meaning in the two spaces I am studying #IndieWeb and #ds106 people engage in explicit learning all the time. They need to make a gif or learn CSS. Yet other times folks muck about trying new things. In each of these events people may have an overarching goal... As I type I am drawn to Dewey and Art and Experience. I do find embedding skills in a passion whrn I teach web development is key. Is Passion implicit learning or the most explicit imaginable? On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 10:27 AM Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: > Greg, > > I'm not sure about implicit *knowledge*, but the earliest studies on > implicit *learning* were conducted by Arthur Reber in the 1960s. I had the > good fortune of being a graduate student at CUNY Graduate Center in > Developmental Psychology in the 1980s when Arthur was there as a visiting > scholar. He was studying implicit learning of *grammar* by adults and > children. What struck me about the phenomenon (then and now) is that > subjects in experiments are unaware that they are engaged in implicit > learning - and when asked to think about the task they are performing while > they are learning to infer patterns implicitly, their performance > deteriorates significantly. It would seem that implicit and explicit > learning are activities that conflict with each other. > > This info may not be at all relevant to your question, but I thought I > should mention it. > > Cheers, > Peter > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:26 AM Greg Mcverry > wrote: > >> Thank you all, excatly what I am looking for. This idea of applying >> implicit and explicit knowledge to D, P, and C makes total sense. >> >> I will be rejecting much as well but it is the langauge of my audience so >> I wanted to grasp the origin. >> >> I am also trying to track how my ideas get captured and transformed here: >> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/06/14/using-my-commonplace-book-to-write-an-article >> >> >> With your permission I would like to quote your emails in the same post. >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:40 AM David Kellogg >> wrote: >> >>> Keith Johnson, one of the professors on my MA at University of >>> Essex,used the distinction between implicit and explicit on the one hand, >>> and the J.R. Anderson model of DECPRO, PRODEC on the other. He didn't say >>> anything about conditional knowledge, but from Anderson I gather it's >>> something to do with the passive reception/active production distinction >>> (that we Halllidayans reject). >>> >>> I never heard him use both of them together, in a matrix, so that there >>> was implicit and explicit declarative knowledge, implicit and explicit >>> procedural knowledge, and implicit and explicit conditional knowledge. But >>> Keith was very GRAMMATICAL. It seems to me that if you apply it to >>> PHONOLOGY, there isn't any reason we can't talk about implicit and explicit >>> declarative knowledge (knowing THAT a sound is a /d/ and not a /t/ >>> implicitly and being able to express that idea in phonological terms) >>> and it is also possible to talk about implicit and explicit procedural >>> knowledge (knowing HOW to distinguish them without thinking about it, and >>> knowing HOW they are distinguished by the movements of the articulators). I >>> don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same thing with >>> conditional knowledge either, although I'm not really sure that all these >>> distinctions are relevant to teaching. >>> >>> All of this, and a lot more, in his 19i96 book Skill Learning and >>> Language Teaching (Blackwell). >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> New Article: >>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >>> understanding narratives by >>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> >>> >>> Some e-prints available at: >>> >>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> >>> >>> All of this is in his 1996 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching >>> (Blackwell). >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Greg Mcverry >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into >>>> agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: >>>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint >>>> >>>> >>>> Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and choice >>>> in the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and tools >>>> teach much as any person. >>>> >>>> You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge brokering >>>> as it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge Knitting as >>>> my metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and amongst under >>>> represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my head and into >>>> words it will make sense. >>>> >>>> But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit and >>>> implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research up >>>> through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. >>>> >>>> I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading >>>> instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>> >>>> Two questions: >>>> -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge begin? >>>> -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and >>>> explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> -- >>>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Southern Connecticut State University >>>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >> Assistant Professor >> Southern Connecticut State University >> twitter: jgmac1106 >> >> >> >> > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190614/135454ad/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Jun 14 11:42:41 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:42:41 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, when there is even flow, you feel entirely free, its our way or the highway. :-) And yes to dewey! mike On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:40 AM Greg Mcverry wrote: > I think I will disagree. Bits of explicit learning embedded into implicit > events when you have explicit goals make a difference. > > Meaning in the two spaces I am studying #IndieWeb and #ds106 people engage > in explicit learning all the time. They need to make a gif or learn CSS. > > Yet other times folks muck about trying new things. > > In each of these events people may have an overarching goal... As I type I > am drawn to Dewey and Art and Experience. > > I do find embedding skills in a passion whrn I teach web development is > key. Is Passion implicit learning or the most explicit imaginable? > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 10:27 AM Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < > pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: > >> Greg, >> >> I'm not sure about implicit *knowledge*, but the earliest studies on >> implicit *learning* were conducted by Arthur Reber in the 1960s. I had the >> good fortune of being a graduate student at CUNY Graduate Center in >> Developmental Psychology in the 1980s when Arthur was there as a visiting >> scholar. He was studying implicit learning of *grammar* by adults and >> children. What struck me about the phenomenon (then and now) is that >> subjects in experiments are unaware that they are engaged in implicit >> learning - and when asked to think about the task they are performing while >> they are learning to infer patterns implicitly, their performance >> deteriorates significantly. It would seem that implicit and explicit >> learning are activities that conflict with each other. >> >> This info may not be at all relevant to your question, but I thought I >> should mention it. >> >> Cheers, >> Peter >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:26 AM Greg Mcverry >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you all, excatly what I am looking for. This idea of applying >>> implicit and explicit knowledge to D, P, and C makes total sense. >>> >>> I will be rejecting much as well but it is the langauge of my audience >>> so I wanted to grasp the origin. >>> >>> I am also trying to track how my ideas get captured and transformed >>> here: >>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/06/14/using-my-commonplace-book-to-write-an-article >>> >>> >>> With your permission I would like to quote your emails in the same post. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:40 AM David Kellogg >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Keith Johnson, one of the professors on my MA at University of >>>> Essex,used the distinction between implicit and explicit on the one hand, >>>> and the J.R. Anderson model of DECPRO, PRODEC on the other. He didn't say >>>> anything about conditional knowledge, but from Anderson I gather it's >>>> something to do with the passive reception/active production distinction >>>> (that we Halllidayans reject). >>>> >>>> I never heard him use both of them together, in a matrix, so that there >>>> was implicit and explicit declarative knowledge, implicit and explicit >>>> procedural knowledge, and implicit and explicit conditional knowledge. But >>>> Keith was very GRAMMATICAL. It seems to me that if you apply it to >>>> PHONOLOGY, there isn't any reason we can't talk about implicit and explicit >>>> declarative knowledge (knowing THAT a sound is a /d/ and not a /t/ >>>> implicitly and being able to express that idea in phonological terms) >>>> and it is also possible to talk about implicit and explicit procedural >>>> knowledge (knowing HOW to distinguish them without thinking about it, and >>>> knowing HOW they are distinguished by the movements of the articulators). I >>>> don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same thing with >>>> conditional knowledge either, although I'm not really sure that all these >>>> distinctions are relevant to teaching. >>>> >>>> All of this, and a lot more, in his 19i96 book Skill Learning and >>>> Language Teaching (Blackwell). >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> Sangmyung University >>>> >>>> New Article: >>>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >>>> understanding narratives by >>>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>> >>>> >>>> Some e-prints available at: >>>> >>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>> >>>> >>>> All of this is in his 1996 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching >>>> (Blackwell). >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Greg Mcverry >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into >>>>> agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: >>>>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and choice >>>>> in the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and tools >>>>> teach much as any person. >>>>> >>>>> You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge brokering >>>>> as it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge Knitting as >>>>> my metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and amongst under >>>>> represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my head and into >>>>> words it will make sense. >>>>> >>>>> But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit >>>>> and implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research >>>>> up through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. >>>>> >>>>> I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading >>>>> instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>>> >>>>> Two questions: >>>>> -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge >>>>> begin? >>>>> -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and >>>>> explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>>> >>>>> Greg >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>> Southern Connecticut State University >>>>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>> Assistant Professor >>> Southern Connecticut State University >>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >> Director, >> Office of Institutional Research >> >> Fordham University >> Thebaud Hall-202 >> Bronx, NY 10458 >> >> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >> > -- The struggle of (hu)mans against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting. ? Milan Kundera (slightly edited) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190614/5fb7a434/attachment.html From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Fri Jun 14 11:59:27 2019 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:59:27 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Kind of why I wish I did not have to name things. Just say they "learn" then we don't cut knowledge off to the world. I am going to try to grab thos thread and concurrent threads on Twitter and try to mix them together Thank you to all, All the books in thread requested through my library. On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 2:44 PM mike cole wrote: > Yes, when there is even flow, you feel entirely free, its our way or the > highway. :-) > And yes to dewey! > mike > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:40 AM Greg Mcverry > wrote: > >> I think I will disagree. Bits of explicit learning embedded into implicit >> events when you have explicit goals make a difference. >> >> Meaning in the two spaces I am studying #IndieWeb and #ds106 people >> engage in explicit learning all the time. They need to make a gif or learn >> CSS. >> >> Yet other times folks muck about trying new things. >> >> In each of these events people may have an overarching goal... As I type >> I am drawn to Dewey and Art and Experience. >> >> I do find embedding skills in a passion whrn I teach web development is >> key. Is Passion implicit learning or the most explicit imaginable? >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 10:27 AM Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < >> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: >> >>> Greg, >>> >>> I'm not sure about implicit *knowledge*, but the earliest studies on >>> implicit *learning* were conducted by Arthur Reber in the 1960s. I had the >>> good fortune of being a graduate student at CUNY Graduate Center in >>> Developmental Psychology in the 1980s when Arthur was there as a visiting >>> scholar. He was studying implicit learning of *grammar* by adults and >>> children. What struck me about the phenomenon (then and now) is that >>> subjects in experiments are unaware that they are engaged in implicit >>> learning - and when asked to think about the task they are performing while >>> they are learning to infer patterns implicitly, their performance >>> deteriorates significantly. It would seem that implicit and explicit >>> learning are activities that conflict with each other. >>> >>> This info may not be at all relevant to your question, but I thought I >>> should mention it. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:26 AM Greg Mcverry >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you all, excatly what I am looking for. This idea of applying >>>> implicit and explicit knowledge to D, P, and C makes total sense. >>>> >>>> I will be rejecting much as well but it is the langauge of my audience >>>> so I wanted to grasp the origin. >>>> >>>> I am also trying to track how my ideas get captured and transformed >>>> here: >>>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/06/14/using-my-commonplace-book-to-write-an-article >>>> >>>> >>>> With your permission I would like to quote your emails in the same post. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:40 AM David Kellogg >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Keith Johnson, one of the professors on my MA at University of >>>>> Essex,used the distinction between implicit and explicit on the one hand, >>>>> and the J.R. Anderson model of DECPRO, PRODEC on the other. He didn't say >>>>> anything about conditional knowledge, but from Anderson I gather it's >>>>> something to do with the passive reception/active production distinction >>>>> (that we Halllidayans reject). >>>>> >>>>> I never heard him use both of them together, in a matrix, so that >>>>> there was implicit and explicit declarative knowledge, implicit and >>>>> explicit procedural knowledge, and implicit and explicit conditional >>>>> knowledge. But Keith was very GRAMMATICAL. It seems to me that if you apply >>>>> it to PHONOLOGY, there isn't any reason we can't talk about implicit and >>>>> explicit declarative knowledge (knowing THAT a sound is a /d/ and not a /t/ >>>>> implicitly and being able to express that idea in phonological terms) >>>>> and it is also possible to talk about implicit and explicit procedural >>>>> knowledge (knowing HOW to distinguish them without thinking about it, and >>>>> knowing HOW they are distinguished by the movements of the articulators). I >>>>> don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same thing with >>>>> conditional knowledge either, although I'm not really sure that all these >>>>> distinctions are relevant to teaching. >>>>> >>>>> All of this, and a lot more, in his 19i96 book Skill Learning and >>>>> Language Teaching (Blackwell). >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Sangmyung University >>>>> >>>>> New Article: >>>>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>>>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >>>>> understanding narratives by >>>>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>>>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Some e-prints available at: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All of this is in his 1996 book Skill Learning and Language Teaching >>>>> (Blackwell). >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Greg Mcverry >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am carrying on my quest to rethink cognitive apprenticeships into >>>>>> agentive apprenticeships for my work around innovation systems: >>>>>> https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Agentive apprenticeships defer more in centering the agency and >>>>>> choice in the learner in a network of shared interest where the space and >>>>>> tools teach much as any person. >>>>>> >>>>>> You may recall I originally asked for ideas around knowledge >>>>>> brokering as it did not sit well with me. I decided to go with Knowledge >>>>>> Knitting as my metaphor. It is used frequently in the OER Community and >>>>>> amongst under represented scholars and if I can get the pictures out of my >>>>>> head and into words it will make sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I am trying to chase down when the distinction between explicit >>>>>> and implicit knowledge began. It weaves through all apprenticeship research >>>>>> up through and including Gee's work on Affinity Spaces. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am more trained in the cognitive narrative that dominates reading >>>>>> instruction today of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> Two questions: >>>>>> -When did the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge >>>>>> begin? >>>>>> -Are you aware of works that describe knowing in both implicit and >>>>>> explicit and in declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>> Southern Connecticut State University >>>>>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> J. Gregory McVerry, PhD >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Southern Connecticut State University >>>> twitter: jgmac1106 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. >>> Director, >>> Office of Institutional Research >>> >>> Fordham University >>> Thebaud Hall-202 >>> Bronx, NY 10458 >>> >>> Phone: (718) 817-2243 >>> Fax: (718) 817-3817 >>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu >>> >> > > -- > The struggle of (hu)mans against power is the struggle of memory against > forgetting. > ? Milan Kundera (slightly edited) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190614/b751ce17/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Fri Jun 14 17:59:43 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:59:43 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: History of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0d76e439-94c4-8279-c710-d730109c4e3a@marxists.org> Vygotsky showed in his work on child development (_Problem of Age_, for example) that the will is not born free all at once, and is in fact never free absolutely. Hegel gives us an extended discourse on free will in _The Philosophy of Right_, beginning with the transformation of the 'natural will' into the 'free will' with the creatures who use culture to control their own activity. But is takes social transformation to take the will beyond a Spinozan/Stoic resignation. Nature-given drives and culture-given norms do not cancel freedom of will absolutely, but I think it makes no sense to talk about "agency" or freedom of the will other than actions passing through consciousness, with or without conscious awareness. But of course, if you are an Althusserian or Foucauldian, "agency" is taken in the sense of being the unwitting agent transmitting a disease, under which meaning, the earthworm has as much agency as Napoleon. Andy https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Article_on_Teleology.pdf ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 15/06/2019 4:21 am, mike cole wrote: > So agency is wiggle room (discoordination?) /plus .../ > Google translate tell me that the phrase "people have > agency" is translated as? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? > (people possess freedom of action). > > which brings us to freedom and action as Vygotskian concepts. > > And if will is the ability to control oneself from the > outside, but the outside is that very same social > world that enabled you to use what they provided to > control yourself,?what agency do "you" > have?? Wiggle room and..... > > mike > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:56 AM Greg Mcverry > > > wrote: > > Can the earthworms consider the consequences of > wiggiling this way or that and predicting the > consequences of these choices or do they follow an > almost programmatic biological following. If so is > this agency and still learning in emodoed ways? > > I do keep a worm box those worms are more than cared > for but not free? Are they missing agency? > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 1:05 PM mike cole > > wrote: > > The same distinction can be found usefully in the > work of Giyoo Hatano which you might find > useful,Greg. A distinction is found in Wright's > book on Envisioning Real Utopias between ideology > and culture. > > Odd query:? Earth worms have an enormous effect on > their environments and hence ours. > Earth worms could not do this if they did not have > "wiggle room." Would you attribute the > tunnels and soil transformation of earth worms to > them "having" agency? > > mike > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 8:20 AM Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > I think you'd need to qualify that statement, > Peter, for it to be correct. > > The use of the phrase "involuntary" in P. I. > Zinchenko's work pertains to "without > volition" rather than "against one's volition". > > Best, > Huw > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 15:27, Peter Feigenbaum > [Staff] > wrote: > > Greg, > > I'm not sure about implicit *knowledge*, > but the earliest studies on implicit > *learning* were conducted by Arthur Reber > in the 1960s. I had the good fortune of > being a graduate student at CUNY Graduate > Center in Developmental Psychology in the > 1980s when Arthur was there as a visiting > scholar. He was studying implicit learning > of *grammar* by adults and children. What > struck me about the phenomenon (then and > now) is that subjects in experiments are > unaware that they are engaged in implicit > learning - and when asked to think about > the task they are performing while they > are learning to infer patterns implicitly, > their performance deteriorates > significantly. It would seem that implicit > and explicit learning are activities that > conflict with each other. > > This info may not be at all relevant to > your question, but I thought I should > mention it. > > Cheers, > Peter > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:26 AM Greg > Mcverry > wrote: > > Thank you all, excatly what I am > looking for. This idea of applying > implicit and explicit knowledge to D, > P, and C makes total sense. > > I will be rejecting much as well but > it is the langauge of my audience so I > wanted to grasp the origin. > > I am also trying to track how my ideas > get captured and transformed here: > https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/06/14/using-my-commonplace-book-to-write-an-article > > > With your permission I would like to > quote your emails in the same post. > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:40 AM David > Kellogg > wrote: > > Keith Johnson, one of the > professors on my MA at University > of Essex,used the distinction > between implicit and explicit on > the one hand, and the J.R. > Anderson model of DECPRO, PRODEC > on the other. He?didn't?say > anything about conditional > knowledge, but?from Anderson I > gather it's something to do with > the passive reception/active > production distinction (that we > Halllidayans reject). > > I never heard him use both of them > together, in a matrix, so that > there was implicit and explicit > declarative knowledge, implicit > and explicit procedural knowledge, > and implicit and explicit > conditional knowledge. But Keith > was very GRAMMATICAL. It seems to > me that if you apply it to > PHONOLOGY, there isn't any reason > we can't talk about implicit and > explicit declarative knowledge > (knowing THAT a sound is a /d/ and > not a /t/ implicitly and being > able to express that idea in > phonological terms) and?it is also > possible to talk about implicit > and explicit procedural knowledge > (knowing HOW to distinguish > them?without thinking about it, > and knowing HOW they are > distinguished by the movements of > the articulators). I don't see any > reason in principle why you > couldn't do the same thing with > conditional knowledge either, > although I'm not really sure that > all these distinctions are > relevant to teaching. > > All of this, and a lot more, in > his 19i96 book Skill Learning and > Language Teaching (Blackwell). > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg > (2019): A story without SELF: > Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism > and Halliday?s construalism in > understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and > Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > All of this is in his 1996 book > Skill Learning and Language > Teaching (Blackwell). > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM > Greg Mcverry > > > wrote: > > Hello all, > > I am carrying on my quest to > rethink cognitive > apprenticeships into agentive > apprenticeships for my work > around innovation systems: > https://quickthoughts.jgregorymcverry.com/2019/03/07/my-fork-of-synea-into-a-saint > > > Agentive apprenticeships defer > more in centering the agency > and choice in the learner in a > network of shared interest > where the space and tools > teach much as any person. > > You may recall I originally > asked for ideas around > knowledge brokering as it did > not sit well with me. I > decided to go with Knowledge > Knitting as my metaphor. It is > used frequently in the OER > Community and amongst under > represented scholars and if I > can get the pictures out of my > head and into words it will > make sense. > > But I am trying to chase down > when the distinction between > explicit and implicit > knowledge began. It weaves > through all apprenticeship > research up through and > including Gee's work on > Affinity Spaces. > > I am more trained in the > cognitive narrative that > dominates reading instruction > today of declarative, > procedural, and conditional > knowledge. > > Two questions: > -When did the distinction > between implicit and explicit > knowledge begin? > -Are you aware of works that > describe knowing in both > implicit and explicit and in > declarative, procedural, and > conditional knowledge. > > Greg > > -- > J. Gregory McVerry, PhD > Assistant Professor > Southern Connecticut State > University > twitter: jgmac1106 > > > > > > -- > J. Gregory McVerry, PhD > Assistant Professor > Southern Connecticut State University > twitter: jgmac1106 > > > > > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > > > > > -- > The struggle of (hu)mans against power is the > struggle of memory against forgetting. > ? Milan Kundera (slightly edited) > > > > -- > The struggle of (hu)mans against power is the struggle of > memory against forgetting. > ? Milan Kundera (slightly edited) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190615/d37340d3/attachment.html From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Sun Jun 16 02:55:35 2019 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 05:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] World Wide Work Message-ID: This maybe of interest to folks: https://ethanmarcotte.com/wrote/a-reading-list-the-world-wide-work/ " want to talk about how the web has excelled at creating new kinds of work, and then rendering that work?and its workers?invisible." -- J. Gregory McVerry, PhD Assistant Professor Southern Connecticut State University twitter: jgmac1106 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190616/e193ee0b/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Jun 17 00:17:50 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:17:50 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The House of Government In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In Chapter 21, Yuri Slezkine's 'House of Government' includes some wonderful data from the diaries of children, including maps of the courtyards they played in, accounts of the games they played, and long selections from their diaries, which include remarkable literary experiments (e.g. trying to write down verbatim in the diaries conversations they had about planning the diary entries withe their friends). There is also this: "After 1932 and especially after 1934, the 'leftist excesses and 'harmful experiments' left over from the previous age were systematically removed in favor of massively reinforced and transparently hierarchical educational institutions charged with the organized transfer of a well-defined body of knowledge to individually graded 'schoolchildren'. At the centre of the new system, which closely followed the old imperial one, were standard curricula, stable textbooks, structured lessons, and professionally trained teachers--assisted, in a subordinate capacity, by parents. Exams, abolished after the revolution, came back as 'testing trials', and later as 'exams': class preceptors, responsible for good conduct, morals and teacher-parent relations) came back as 'groupleaders', and later 'class mentors'. 'Pedology' a branch of child psychology commmitted to ntelligence testing and present in most Moscow schools in teh form of special labs, was banned in 1936 on the initiative of Boris Volin, recentrly transferred from the central censorship office to the Central Commmittee's school department) for 'abandoing the study of a particular living child', preaching the concept of 'the fatal dependence of a child's development on biological and social factors' and spreading the most harmful and ridiculsous nonsnese about hte impending disappearance of the family." (The House of Government, p. 657). Unfortunately, this is followed by in Chapter 23, by a long and completely ahistorical account of the practice of scapegoating, including a long account of Janet Reno's participation in a supposed "witch trial" against sexual predation in preschools in Florida. The author compares this to, inter alia, the practice of necklacing in South Africa, ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and the anaBaptist movement during the reformation. Christianity runs like a red thread through all of this: it is sometimes hard to tell if the author is more exercised by Communism or by Christianity, or even if he can tell the difference. Here's a problem that never seems to occur to the author, though. In China I lived in a whole series of buildings that were physically quite similar to the HOuse of Government, some of which were actually built by Soviet architects, and my wife grew up playing games in couryards, keeping diaries, writing down conversations...during the Cultural Revolution, which included many aspects of the Great Purges (her father was on one side and her grandfather on the other). But there is nothing Christian at all about China--Christians are a miniscule (though growing) part of the population. Could it be that the real reasons for the phenomena that interest the author simply have material roots in poverty, revolution, isolation, corruption? Nah...it's gotta be about the theory of practice of human sacrifice in Christianity. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:16 AM mike cole wrote: > Hi All -- > > If anyone remains interested in reading "the house of government," let me > know. Maybe a summer > reading project. David could be correct that it is a trivial conceit. > > Great to see that Anna and Eugene's work resonates. > Mike > PS- Some may be interested in this interview with Vladimir Lubovsky who > was a key player in the Institute of Defectology that sheltered Luria in > the mid-1950's. David's note brought it to mind. > http://luria.ucsd.edu/AudioVideo/index.html > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 1:12 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Die = feminine gender, nominative or accusative case >> >> Der = feminine gender, genitive case (or dative) >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 10/06/2019 5:58 pm, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> (I'm changing the name of this thread, both to reflect the content and >> because I don't think that Wolff-Michael's comment on the gender of "Frage" >> in German is picky at all.) >> >> I think that "The House of Government" is not really an instance of >> ethnography of speech; that is only what in the seventeenth century was >> called a "conceit"--an instance of wit that involves unlikely >> juxtaposition, like fleabites and romantic love. >> >> It's really a sustained argument about two propositions that the author >> finds utterly contradictory: that the future is somehow in some way already >> programmed and that its realization is still somehow in some way contingent >> on your participation. Both propositions seem very poorly framed to me, but >> I do recognize that frame of mind that likes to frame historical problems >> in these inexplicable, inextricable muddles (for example: my sister has >> just sent me an urgent link urging me to give up chocolate in order to >> struggle against child labor in the Ivory Coast--not, mind you, in order to >> lower the price of chocolate!) >> >> Early on, the author points out how some authors tried their best to >> write revolutionary epics but could not resist the lure of irony. This was >> actually two paths, and not one. For the early generation of artists >> (Mayakovsky, Babel), what was involved was adherance to the revolutionary >> camp, a sudden consciousness of the religious element of that zeal, and >> then a very different moment of "campiness", a reflective moment we might >> almost call revolutionary perezhivanie. As if through a looking glass, the >> later generation of artists (Shokolov, Ostrovsky) took the opposite path: a >> certain aloofness from the events of the revolution, a sudden interest in >> intensive realism, in "permeating art with life", and as a result the kind >> of cynicism that became very explicit and very profitable (and which is >> quite typical of Chinese art today). >> >> Something of the sort could also be said about psychology: there was a >> first generation for whom the revolution was the moment when humans could >> exercise rational free will over everything from economics to child >> development, and there was a later generation which proceeded the other way >> around, working on lie detectors and programmed learning that would allow >> us to plan the human. Perhaps the real dividing line in generations is not >> when you are born but rather when and how you died. I think of Vygotsky >> (and Trotsky) as belonging to the first generation, while Luria (and >> Leontiev) belonged to the second. >> >> (Wolff-Michael: I am still wondering about "der Frage", but let me >> guess--In *Endl?sung der Judenfrage,*"der" actually doesn't mean the >> masculine article, but a preposition + article combination like "de la" in >> French.) >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New Article: >> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >> understanding narratives by >> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> Some e-prints available at: >> >> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> > > -- > We become ourselves through others -L.S.Vygotsky > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190617/f236fe35/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Wed Jun 19 03:24:37 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 20:24:37 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Ilyenkov's 1954 Theses! Message-ID: <52cc849e-b49d-fb82-c042-cfc05d850f07@marxists.org> The Marxists Internet Archive announces the publication, free to the world, of the founding document of an important current of contemporary Marxism: /Theses on the Question of the Interconnection of Philosophy and Knowledge of Nature and Society in the Process of their Historical Development/. https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/articles/Theses.pdf In April 1954, Evald Ilyenkov and his friend Valentin Korovikov, junior lecturers at Moscow State University, wrote these "theses on philosophy." The theses were the subject of discussion at an open meeting of their department. The subsequent furore pitched Ilyenkov and Korovikov against the Soviet philosophical establishment, controlled by philosophers who had come to prominence at the height of Stalinism. Korovikov and Ilyenkov survived only when Khrushchev's famous speech at the 20th Congress pushed the conflict into the background. Ilyenkov took his own life in 1979. The Theses were only discovered by Ilyenkov's daughter, Elena Illesh, in 2016. The Theses have been published for the first time in /Philosophical Thought in Russia in the Second Half of the 20th Century, a contemporary view from Russia and abroad/. ed. Marin Bykova and Vladimir Lektorsky, Bloomsbury Academic, 2019. Published on marxists.org with the kind permission of the translator, David Bakhurst, co-editor Marina Bykova and Colleen Coalter for Bloomsbury Academic. https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/philosophical-thought-in-russia-in-the-second-half-of-the-twentieth-century-9781350040588/ -- ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190619/897ef6ca/attachment.html From pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu Wed Jun 19 05:32:48 2019 From: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu (Peter Feigenbaum [Staff]) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:32:48 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ilyenkov's 1954 Theses! In-Reply-To: <52cc849e-b49d-fb82-c042-cfc05d850f07@marxists.org> References: <52cc849e-b49d-fb82-c042-cfc05d850f07@marxists.org> Message-ID: Excellent! Kudos to all those involved in making this work available! In solidarity, Peter On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 6:27 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > The Marxists Internet Archive announces the publication, free to the > world, of the founding document of an important current of contemporary > Marxism: *Theses on the Question of the Interconnection of Philosophy and > Knowledge of Nature and Society in the Process of their Historical > Development*. > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/articles/Theses.pdf > > > In April 1954, Evald Ilyenkov and his friend Valentin Korovikov, junior > lecturers at Moscow State University, wrote these "theses on philosophy." > The theses were the subject of discussion at an open meeting of their > department. The subsequent furore pitched Ilyenkov and Korovikov against > the Soviet philosophical establishment, controlled by philosophers who had > come to prominence at the height of Stalinism. Korovikov and Ilyenkov > survived only when Khrushchev's famous speech at the 20th Congress pushed > the conflict into the background. Ilyenkov took his own life in 1979. The > Theses were only discovered by Ilyenkov's daughter, Elena Illesh, in 2016. > > The Theses have been published for the first time in *Philosophical > Thought in Russia in the Second Half of the 20th Century, a contemporary > view from Russia and abroad*. ed. Marin Bykova and Vladimir Lektorsky, > Bloomsbury Academic, 2019. > > Published on marxists.org with the kind permission of the translator, > David Bakhurst, co-editor Marina Bykova and Colleen Coalter for Bloomsbury > Academic. > > > > https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/philosophical-thought-in-russia-in-the-second-half-of-the-twentieth-century-9781350040588/ > > -- > ------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190619/48727ab6/attachment.html From dkirsh@lsu.edu Thu Jun 20 02:35:43 2019 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:35:43 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?q?_FW=3A_BBS_Call_for_Commentary_Proposals=3A_Veissi?= =?utf-8?b?w6hyZSBldCBhbC4=?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm reading through this upcoming article in BBS which takes as its primary problem, acquisition of culture. BBS solicits commentaries on each article, and these are reviewed and then published along with it. As there is not a single reference to Vygotsky or cultural historical theory in the article, I thought someone on XMCA might want to submit a commentary. David -----Original Message----- From: em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com On Behalf Of Behavioral and Brain Sciences Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:46 AM To: David H Kirshner Subject: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. Dear Dr. Kirshner: We are writing you to announce that BBS has just accepted an article for open peer commentary in BBS. The article was already reviewed, and we are now accepting commentary proposals. If you are interested in writing a commentary, you are welcome to submit a short proposal (see instructions below). No action is required if you aren't interested.? Please DO NOT submit a full commentary article unless you are formally invited---AFTER you submit a commentary *proposal*. We will review all commentary proposals and issue invitations in August. Also, please be aware that we typically receive far more commentary proposals than we can accommodate with formal invitations. When choosing invitations, we balance over multiple factors, including the interest of the commentary itself, the commentator's expertise, whether the commentator's work has been discussed in the target article, and other considerations. NOW PROCESSING COMMENTARY PROPOSALS ON: Target Article: Thinking Through Other Minds: A Variational Approach to Cognition and Culture Authors: Samuel P. L. Veissie?re, Axel Constant, Maxwell J. D. Ramstead, Karl J. Friston, and Laurence J. Kirmayer Deadline for Commentary Proposals: Tuesday July 9, 2019 Abstract: The processes underwriting the acquisition of culture remain unclear. How are shared habits, norms, and expectations learned and maintained with precision and reliability across large-scale sociocultural ensembles? Is there a unifying account of the mechanisms involved in the acquisition of culture? Notions such as 'shared expectations', the 'selective patterning of attention and behaviour', 'cultural evolution', 'cultural inheritance', and 'implicit learning' are the main candidates to underpin a unifying account of cognition and the acquisition of culture; however, their interactions require greater specification and clarification. In this paper, we integrate these candidates using the variational (free energy) approach to human cognition and culture in theoretical neuroscience. We describe the construction by humans of social niches that afford epistemic resources called cultural affordances. We argue that human agents learn the shared habits, norms, and expectations of their culture through immersive participation in patterned cultural practices that selectively pattern attention and behaviour. We call this process "Thinking through Other Minds" (TTOM) - in effect, the process of inferring other agents' expectations about the world and how to behave in social context. We argue that for humans, information from and about other people's expectations constitutes the primary domain of statistical regularities that humans leverage to predict and organize behaviour. The integrative model we offer has implications that can advance theories of cognition, enculturation, adaptation, and psychopathology. Crucially, this formal (variational) treatment seeks to resolve key debates in current cognitive science, such as the distinction between internalist and externalist accounts of Theory of Mind abilities and the more fundamental distinction between dynamical and representational accounts of enactivism. Keywords: Cognition and culture; Variational free energy principle; Social learning; Epistemic Affordances; Cultural affordances; Niche construction; Embodiment; Enactment Download Target Article Preprint: (Depending on your browser, the PDF will either load in a separate window, from which you can download the PDF, or will download directly to your computer.) https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cambridge.org%2Fcore%2Fservices%2Faop-cambridge-core%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F9A10399BA85F428D5943DD847092C14A%2FS0140525X19001213a.pdf%2Fthinking_through_other_minds_a_variational_approach_to_cognition_and_culture.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995231679&sdata=WSKHJ3Jeqft8ZFCCROdHFfWbjlOHw9Sb71L3KhWsdZI%3D&reserved=0 COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING 1. Name of the target article for which you are submitting a commentary proposal. 2. All authors, including any possible co-authors, listed at the top of your submission document. 3. What aspect of the target article or book you would anticipate commenting on.? 4. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the target article or book. Please number these sections in your proposal: 1., 2., 3., 4. EDITORS' NOTES ON WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL In addition to the open "Call for Commentary Proposals," we invite commentators who do not submit proposals?these include reviewers of the paper, scholars whose work is discussed in the paper, and commentators suggested by the authors. (Obviously, these can be overlapping sets.) Once we subtract this set, only about 20 submitted proposals from the Call for Commentary Proposals can be invited to write a commentary. Commentary selection is necessarily multifactorial. It must be balanced to a degree across the various fields of cognitive science, point of view of the article, and several other aspects of academic diversity. The number of proposals can vary widely, however, depending on the topic, the range is from 15 to 150! In the latter case, when we can accept only a little over 1 in 10 of the proposals, a few things will facilitate a positive reading of a proposal, and hopefully acceptance, given the constraints: 1. The proposal for the commentary should not be longer than the commentary, 1,000 words. 100-500 is optimal, and we value succinctness. On the other hand, "I intend to comment on X aspect of the target article" is not enough. Are you for it, against it, or extending it? 2. Under no circumstances should proposers simply write a commentary and submit it to us. 3. Proposers should clearly state what aspect of the target article they intend to comment on. It's quite obvious when proposers are using the commentary forum only to promote their own research and not engage with the target article. Such proposals are routinely declined. 4. Concerning "the relevant expertise you would bring to bear": While the editors have a generally good idea of who is active in the fields of the target article, we must cover a wide range and may be unaware of the people who have been most productive and influential in a given area, or the scholars who have engaged in heated debate with the authors in the past. So, the editors will be greatly helped if every proposer states their position in the field and lists between 2-10 relevant publications, again succinctly. On the other side of the spectrum, under no circumstances should an entire CV be included. 5. BUT ? it's not all about articles previously published, or position in the field. It's not necessary to have published in the area, and it's not necessary to have a current academic appointment. We make efforts to include proposals coming both from established figures and total newcomers. An engaging idea elicited by the article, an illuminating application of the target article concept to an allied field, or a truly clever riposte is often all that's needed. 6. Being a co-author on multiple proposals directed to one target article will almost certainly remove one set of your co-authors or the other from contention altogether, which will put you in an unpleasant game theoretic situation with your colleagues. Do this carefully, if at all. 7. We make our choices mostly on quality and fit, but we do want to open up BBS to as many individuals as possible. If you've written one or more other commentaries recently, your odds of having another one accepted will correspondingly go down, though not to zero. HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL VIA THE ONLINE SUBMISSION SYSTEM If you would like to nominate yourself for potential commentary invitation, you must submit a commentary proposal via our BBS Editorial Manager site: 1. Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an author: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorialmanager.com%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=Me%2BTvDa2hmuk1zs6kUOoZJ97ZL4AoHx6ZfevwWTP34Q%3D&reserved=0 Username: DKirshner-489 Password: You will also need to enter your password. If you have forgotten it, you may click Send Login Details. If you do not have an account, please visit the site and register. 2. Submit New Manuscript Within your author main menu please select Submit New Manuscript. 3. Select Article Type Choose the article type of your manuscript from the pull-down menu. Commentary proposal article types are temporarily created for each accepted target article or book. Only select the commentary proposal article type that you wish to submit a proposal on. For example: "Commentary Proposal (Veissie?re)" 4. Enter Title Please title your proposal submission by indicating the relevant first author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on Veissie?re" 5. Add Co-Authors If you are proposing to write a commentary with any co-authors, the system will not allow you to enter their information here. Instead, include their names at the top of the commentary proposal document you upload. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the commentary proposal itself. 6. Attach Files The only required submission Item is your commentary proposal in .DOC(X) or .RTF format. In the description field please add the first author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on Veissie?re" 7. Approve Your Submission Editorial Manager will process your commentary proposal submission and will create a PDF for your approval. On the "Submissions Waiting for Author's Approval" page, you can view your PDF, edit, approve, or remove the submission. (You might have to wait several minutes for the blue "Action" menu to appear, allowing you to approve.) Once you have Approved the Submission, the PDF will be sent to the editorial office.? **It is VERY important that you check and approve your commentary proposal manuscript as described above. Otherwise, we cannot process your submission.** 8. Editorial Office Decision At the conclusion of the commentary proposal period, the editors will review all the submitted commentary proposals. An undetermined number of commentary proposals will be approved and those author names will be added to the final commentary invitation list. At that time you will be notified of the decision. If you are formally invited to submit a commentary, you will be asked to confirm your intention to submit by the commentary deadline. Note: Before the commentary invitations are sent, the copy-edited and revised target article will be posted for invitees. Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an official invitation! BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST If you DO NOT wish to receive call for commentary proposals in the future, please reply to bbsjournal@cambridge.org, and type "remove" in the subject line. SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES To suggest others as possible commentators, or to nominate others for BBS Associateship status, please email bbsjournal@cambridge.org.? Regards, Gennifer Levey Managing Editor, BBS Cambridge University Press bbsjournal@cambridge.org https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.cambridge.org%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=Kuhexo7D3NNwBEWnA6b%2Bl%2BNRak4NiNZvcJVslKbNRsQ%3D&reserved=0 https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbbs.edmgr.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=M7ajsvG4zNo5%2FQ%2BmTH3x6MM%2FItcA%2FQa6jYt8cfzIBlQ%3D&reserved=0 __________________________________________________ In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the following URL: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorialmanager.com%2FBBS%2Flogin.asp%3Fa%3Dr&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=r%2Fxx85sR5XRuoNOT2Y4835WgFULamaLGc40foi86umQ%3D&reserved=0). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions. From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Thu Jun 20 02:53:06 2019 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 09:53:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?windows-1252?q?FW=3A_BBS_Call_for_Commentary_Proposals=3A_V?= =?windows-1252?q?eissi=E8re_et_al=2E?= Message-ID: It would be great to have someone from XMCA who would comment and enrich this debate (on these days I am not available to do it). The underlying model in this upcoming article seems to rely mostly on conformity, monological approaches, etc. In the paper (attached here) we offer a completely different approach, much more inspired by dialogism, cultural historical theory, and a serious account of the activity that the child indulges in when answering. Hoping to read you on these issues. Anne-Nelly Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 CH 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) http://www.unine.ch/ipe/publications/anne_nelly_perret_clermont -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of David H Kirshner R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : jeudi, 20 juin 2019 ? 11:35 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : [Xmca-l] FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. >I'm reading through this upcoming article in BBS which takes as its >primary problem, acquisition of culture. >BBS solicits commentaries on each article, and these are reviewed and >then published along with it. >As there is not a single reference to Vygotsky or cultural historical >theory in the article, I thought someone on XMCA might want to submit a >commentary. >David > > >-----Original Message----- >From: em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com > On Behalf Of Behavioral >and Brain Sciences >Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:46 AM >To: David H Kirshner >Subject: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. > >Dear Dr. Kirshner: > >We are writing you to announce that BBS has just accepted an article for >open peer commentary in BBS. The article was already reviewed, and we are >now accepting commentary proposals. If you are interested in writing a >commentary, you are welcome to submit a short proposal (see instructions >below). No action is required if you aren't interested. > >Please DO NOT submit a full commentary article unless you are formally >invited---AFTER you submit a commentary *proposal*. We will review all >commentary proposals and issue invitations in August. Also, please be >aware that we typically receive far more commentary proposals than we can >accommodate with formal invitations. When choosing invitations, we >balance over multiple factors, including the interest of the commentary >itself, the commentator's expertise, whether the commentator's work has >been discussed in the target article, and other considerations. > >NOW PROCESSING COMMENTARY PROPOSALS ON: > >Target Article: Thinking Through Other Minds: A Variational Approach to >Cognition and Culture > >Authors: Samuel P. L. Veissi?re, Axel Constant, Maxwell J. D. Ramstead, >Karl J. Friston, and Laurence J. Kirmayer > >Deadline for Commentary Proposals: Tuesday July 9, 2019 > >Abstract: The processes underwriting the acquisition of culture remain >unclear. How are shared habits, norms, and expectations learned and >maintained with precision and reliability across large-scale >sociocultural ensembles? Is there a unifying account of the mechanisms >involved in the acquisition of culture? Notions such as 'shared >expectations', the 'selective patterning of attention and behaviour', >'cultural evolution', 'cultural inheritance', and 'implicit learning' are >the main candidates to underpin a unifying account of cognition and the >acquisition of culture; however, their interactions require greater >specification and clarification. In this paper, we integrate these >candidates using the variational (free energy) approach to human >cognition and culture in theoretical neuroscience. We describe the >construction by humans of social niches that afford epistemic resources >called cultural affordances. We argue that human agents learn the shared >habits, norms, and expectations of their culture through immersive >participation in patterned cultural practices that selectively pattern >attention and behaviour. We call this process "Thinking through Other >Minds" (TTOM) - in effect, the process of inferring other agents' >expectations about the world and how to behave in social context. We >argue that for humans, information from and about other people's >expectations constitutes the primary domain of statistical regularities >that humans leverage to predict and organize behaviour. The integrative >model we offer has implications that can advance theories of cognition, >enculturation, adaptation, and psychopathology. Crucially, this formal >(variational) treatment seeks to resolve key debates in current cognitive >science, such as the distinction between internalist and externalist >accounts of Theory of Mind abilities and the more fundamental distinction >between dynamical and representational accounts of enactivism. > > >Keywords: Cognition and culture; Variational free energy principle; >Social learning; Epistemic Affordances; Cultural affordances; Niche >construction; Embodiment; Enactment > > >Download Target Article Preprint: > >(Depending on your browser, the PDF will either load in a separate >window, from which you can download the PDF, or will download directly to >your computer.) > >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.camb >ridge.org%2Fcore%2Fservices%2Faop-cambridge-core%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F9A1039 >9BA85F428D5943DD847092C14A%2FS0140525X19001213a.pdf%2Fthinking_through_oth >er_minds_a_variational_approach_to_cognition_and_culture.pdf&data=02%7 >C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47 >d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995231679&sdata=WSKHJ3Jeqft8ZFCC >ROdHFfWbjlOHw9Sb71L3KhWsdZI%3D&reserved=0 > > >COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING > >1. Name of the target article for which you are submitting a commentary >proposal. > >2. All authors, including any possible co-authors, listed at the top of >your submission document. > >3. What aspect of the target article or book you would anticipate >commenting on. > >4. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the target article >or book. > >Please number these sections in your proposal: 1., 2., 3., 4. > >EDITORS' NOTES ON WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL > >In addition to the open "Call for Commentary Proposals," we invite >commentators who do not submit proposals?these include reviewers of the >paper, scholars whose work is discussed in the paper, and commentators >suggested by the authors. (Obviously, these can be overlapping sets.) >Once we subtract this set, only about 20 submitted proposals from the >Call for Commentary Proposals can be invited to write a commentary. > >Commentary selection is necessarily multifactorial. It must be balanced >to a degree across the various fields of cognitive science, point of view >of the article, and several other aspects of academic diversity. The >number of proposals can vary widely, however, depending on the topic, the >range is from 15 to 150! In the latter case, when we can accept only a >little over 1 in 10 of the proposals, a few things will facilitate a >positive reading of a proposal, and hopefully acceptance, given the >constraints: > >1. The proposal for the commentary should not be longer than the >commentary, 1,000 words. 100-500 is optimal, and we value succinctness. >On the other hand, "I intend to comment on X aspect of the target >article" is not enough. Are you for it, against it, or extending it? > >2. Under no circumstances should proposers simply write a commentary and >submit it to us. > >3. Proposers should clearly state what aspect of the target article they >intend to comment on. It's quite obvious when proposers are using the >commentary forum only to promote their own research and not engage with >the target article. Such proposals are routinely declined. > >4. Concerning "the relevant expertise you would bring to bear": While the >editors have a generally good idea of who is active in the fields of the >target article, we must cover a wide range and may be unaware of the >people who have been most productive and influential in a given area, or >the scholars who have engaged in heated debate with the authors in the >past. So, the editors will be greatly helped if every proposer states >their position in the field and lists between 2-10 relevant publications, >again succinctly. On the other side of the spectrum, under no >circumstances should an entire CV be included. > >5. BUT ? it's not all about articles previously published, or position in >the field. It's not necessary to have published in the area, and it's not >necessary to have a current academic appointment. We make efforts to >include proposals coming both from established figures and total >newcomers. An engaging idea elicited by the article, an illuminating >application of the target article concept to an allied field, or a truly >clever riposte is often all that's needed. > >6. Being a co-author on multiple proposals directed to one target article >will almost certainly remove one set of your co-authors or the other from >contention altogether, which will put you in an unpleasant game theoretic >situation with your colleagues. Do this carefully, if at all. > >7. We make our choices mostly on quality and fit, but we do want to open >up BBS to as many individuals as possible. If you've written one or more >other commentaries recently, your odds of having another one accepted >will correspondingly go down, though not to zero. > >HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL VIA THE ONLINE SUBMISSION SYSTEM > >If you would like to nominate yourself for potential commentary >invitation, you must submit a commentary proposal via our BBS Editorial >Manager site: > >1. Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an author: > >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edito >rialmanager.com%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c >1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C6369643709 >95241675&sdata=Me%2BTvDa2hmuk1zs6kUOoZJ97ZL4AoHx6ZfevwWTP34Q%3D&re >served=0 > >Username: DKirshner-489 >Password: You will also need to enter your password. If you have >forgotten it, you may click Send Login Details. > >If you do not have an account, please visit the site and register. > >2. Submit New Manuscript > >Within your author main menu please select Submit New Manuscript. > >3. Select Article Type > >Choose the article type of your manuscript from the pull-down menu. >Commentary proposal article types are temporarily created for each >accepted target article or book. Only select the commentary proposal >article type that you wish to submit a proposal on. For example: >"Commentary Proposal (Veissi?re)" > >4. Enter Title > >Please title your proposal submission by indicating the relevant first >author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary >Proposal on Veissi?re" > >5. Add Co-Authors > >If you are proposing to write a commentary with any co-authors, the >system will not allow you to enter their information here. Instead, >include their names at the top of the commentary proposal document you >upload. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the commentary >proposal itself. > >6. Attach Files > >The only required submission Item is your commentary proposal in .DOC(X) >or .RTF format. In the description field please add the first author name >of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on >Veissi?re" > >7. Approve Your Submission > >Editorial Manager will process your commentary proposal submission and >will create a PDF for your approval. On the "Submissions Waiting for >Author's Approval" page, you can view your PDF, edit, approve, or remove >the submission. (You might have to wait several minutes for the blue >"Action" menu to appear, allowing you to approve.) Once you have Approved >the Submission, the PDF will be sent to the editorial office. > >**It is VERY important that you check and approve your commentary >proposal manuscript as described above. Otherwise, we cannot process your >submission.** > >8. Editorial Office Decision > >At the conclusion of the commentary proposal period, the editors will >review all the submitted commentary proposals. An undetermined number of >commentary proposals will be approved and those author names will be >added to the final commentary invitation list. At that time you will be >notified of the decision. If you are formally invited to submit a >commentary, you will be asked to confirm your intention to submit by the >commentary deadline. > >Note: Before the commentary invitations are sent, the copy-edited and >revised target article will be posted for invitees. > >Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an official >invitation! > >BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST > >If you DO NOT wish to receive call for commentary proposals in the >future, please reply to bbsjournal@cambridge.org, and type "remove" in >the subject line. > >SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES > >To suggest others as possible commentators, or to nominate others for BBS >Associateship status, please email bbsjournal@cambridge.org. > > >Regards, > >Gennifer Levey >Managing Editor, BBS >Cambridge University Press >bbsjournal@cambridge.org >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals. >cambridge.org%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1c >ea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995 >241675&sdata=Kuhexo7D3NNwBEWnA6b%2Bl%2BNRak4NiNZvcJVslKbNRsQ%3D&re >served=0 >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbbs.edmgr >.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b8 >7aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&s >data=M7ajsvG4zNo5%2FQ%2BmTH3x6MM%2FItcA%2FQa6jYt8cfzIBlQ%3D&reserved=0 > >__________________________________________________ >In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we >remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the >following URL: >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.edit >orialmanager.com%2FBBS%2Flogin.asp%3Fa%3Dr&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu >.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8 >%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=r%2Fxx85sR5XRuoNOT2Y4835WgFULamaLG >c40foi86umQ%3D&reserved=0). Please contact the publication office if >you have any questions. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: preprint_Lombardi_et-al.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1326588 bytes Desc: preprint_Lombardi_et-al.pdf Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190620/c3d653d7/attachment-0001.pdf From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Thu Jun 20 03:02:56 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 10:02:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?windows-1252?q?BBS_Call_for_Commentary_Proposals=3A_Veissi?= =?windows-1252?q?=E8re_et_al=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1561024976040.14381@ils.uio.no> What a great idea to share this, David! I look through the article quickly and it does look like the authors' aims to achieve "a compromise position between 'internalise', brain-based approaches ..., which emphasise the neural machinery in individual humans' brains that is necessary to read other minds, and 'externalist' approaches (e.g., radical inactive and cultural evolutionary theory)" and to "capture the two-way traffic between the organism and the world" could be highly informed by cultural-historical theory. The paper touches on lots of literature, some of which is already (though loosely) informed by chat. Looks like a real possibility to write that commentary, but may take some time and effort judging by the wide variety of literature and arguments involved. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David H Kirshner Sent: 20 June 2019 11:35 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. I'm reading through this upcoming article in BBS which takes as its primary problem, acquisition of culture. BBS solicits commentaries on each article, and these are reviewed and then published along with it. As there is not a single reference to Vygotsky or cultural historical theory in the article, I thought someone on XMCA might want to submit a commentary. David -----Original Message----- From: em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com On Behalf Of Behavioral and Brain Sciences Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:46 AM To: David H Kirshner Subject: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. Dear Dr. Kirshner: We are writing you to announce that BBS has just accepted an article for open peer commentary in BBS. The article was already reviewed, and we are now accepting commentary proposals. If you are interested in writing a commentary, you are welcome to submit a short proposal (see instructions below). No action is required if you aren't interested. Please DO NOT submit a full commentary article unless you are formally invited---AFTER you submit a commentary *proposal*. We will review all commentary proposals and issue invitations in August. Also, please be aware that we typically receive far more commentary proposals than we can accommodate with formal invitations. When choosing invitations, we balance over multiple factors, including the interest of the commentary itself, the commentator's expertise, whether the commentator's work has been discussed in the target article, and other considerations. NOW PROCESSING COMMENTARY PROPOSALS ON: Target Article: Thinking Through Other Minds: A Variational Approach to Cognition and Culture Authors: Samuel P. L. Veissi?re, Axel Constant, Maxwell J. D. Ramstead, Karl J. Friston, and Laurence J. Kirmayer Deadline for Commentary Proposals: Tuesday July 9, 2019 Abstract: The processes underwriting the acquisition of culture remain unclear. How are shared habits, norms, and expectations learned and maintained with precision and reliability across large-scale sociocultural ensembles? Is there a unifying account of the mechanisms involved in the acquisition of culture? Notions such as 'shared expectations', the 'selective patterning of attention and behaviour', 'cultural evolution', 'cultural inheritance', and 'implicit learning' are the main candidates to underpin a unifying account of cognition and the acquisition of culture; however, their interactions require greater specification and clarification. In this paper, we integrate these candidates using the variational (free energy) approach to human cognition and culture in theoretical neuroscience. We describe the construction by humans of social niches that afford epistemic resources called cultural affordances. We argue that human agents learn the shared habits, norms, and expectations of their culture through immersive participation in patterned cultural practices that selectively pattern attention and behaviour. We call this process "Thinking through Other Minds" (TTOM) - in effect, the process of inferring other agents' expectations about the world and how to behave in social context. We argue that for humans, information from and about other people's expectations constitutes the primary domain of statistical regularities that humans leverage to predict and organize behaviour. The integrative model we offer has implications that can advance theories of cognition, enculturation, adaptation, and psychopathology. Crucially, this formal (variational) treatment seeks to resolve key debates in current cognitive science, such as the distinction between internalist and externalist accounts of Theory of Mind abilities and the more fundamental distinction between dynamical and representational accounts of enactivism. Keywords: Cognition and culture; Variational free energy principle; Social learning; Epistemic Affordances; Cultural affordances; Niche construction; Embodiment; Enactment Download Target Article Preprint: (Depending on your browser, the PDF will either load in a separate window, from which you can download the PDF, or will download directly to your computer.) https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cambridge.org%2Fcore%2Fservices%2Faop-cambridge-core%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F9A10399BA85F428D5943DD847092C14A%2FS0140525X19001213a.pdf%2Fthinking_through_other_minds_a_variational_approach_to_cognition_and_culture.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995231679&sdata=WSKHJ3Jeqft8ZFCCROdHFfWbjlOHw9Sb71L3KhWsdZI%3D&reserved=0 COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING 1. Name of the target article for which you are submitting a commentary proposal. 2. All authors, including any possible co-authors, listed at the top of your submission document. 3. What aspect of the target article or book you would anticipate commenting on. 4. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the target article or book. Please number these sections in your proposal: 1., 2., 3., 4. EDITORS' NOTES ON WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL In addition to the open "Call for Commentary Proposals," we invite commentators who do not submit proposals?these include reviewers of the paper, scholars whose work is discussed in the paper, and commentators suggested by the authors. (Obviously, these can be overlapping sets.) Once we subtract this set, only about 20 submitted proposals from the Call for Commentary Proposals can be invited to write a commentary. Commentary selection is necessarily multifactorial. It must be balanced to a degree across the various fields of cognitive science, point of view of the article, and several other aspects of academic diversity. The number of proposals can vary widely, however, depending on the topic, the range is from 15 to 150! In the latter case, when we can accept only a little over 1 in 10 of the proposals, a few things will facilitate a positive reading of a proposal, and hopefully acceptance, given the constraints: 1. The proposal for the commentary should not be longer than the commentary, 1,000 words. 100-500 is optimal, and we value succinctness. On the other hand, "I intend to comment on X aspect of the target article" is not enough. Are you for it, against it, or extending it? 2. Under no circumstances should proposers simply write a commentary and submit it to us. 3. Proposers should clearly state what aspect of the target article they intend to comment on. It's quite obvious when proposers are using the commentary forum only to promote their own research and not engage with the target article. Such proposals are routinely declined. 4. Concerning "the relevant expertise you would bring to bear": While the editors have a generally good idea of who is active in the fields of the target article, we must cover a wide range and may be unaware of the people who have been most productive and influential in a given area, or the scholars who have engaged in heated debate with the authors in the past. So, the editors will be greatly helped if every proposer states their position in the field and lists between 2-10 relevant publications, again succinctly. On the other side of the spectrum, under no circumstances should an entire CV be included. 5. BUT ? it's not all about articles previously published, or position in the field. It's not necessary to have published in the area, and it's not necessary to have a current academic appointment. We make efforts to include proposals coming both from established figures and total newcomers. An engaging idea elicited by the article, an illuminating application of the target article concept to an allied field, or a truly clever riposte is often all that's needed. 6. Being a co-author on multiple proposals directed to one target article will almost certainly remove one set of your co-authors or the other from contention altogether, which will put you in an unpleasant game theoretic situation with your colleagues. Do this carefully, if at all. 7. We make our choices mostly on quality and fit, but we do want to open up BBS to as many individuals as possible. If you've written one or more other commentaries recently, your odds of having another one accepted will correspondingly go down, though not to zero. HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL VIA THE ONLINE SUBMISSION SYSTEM If you would like to nominate yourself for potential commentary invitation, you must submit a commentary proposal via our BBS Editorial Manager site: 1. Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an author: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorialmanager.com%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=Me%2BTvDa2hmuk1zs6kUOoZJ97ZL4AoHx6ZfevwWTP34Q%3D&reserved=0 Username: DKirshner-489 Password: You will also need to enter your password. If you have forgotten it, you may click Send Login Details. If you do not have an account, please visit the site and register. 2. Submit New Manuscript Within your author main menu please select Submit New Manuscript. 3. Select Article Type Choose the article type of your manuscript from the pull-down menu. Commentary proposal article types are temporarily created for each accepted target article or book. Only select the commentary proposal article type that you wish to submit a proposal on. For example: "Commentary Proposal (Veissi?re)" 4. Enter Title Please title your proposal submission by indicating the relevant first author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on Veissi?re" 5. Add Co-Authors If you are proposing to write a commentary with any co-authors, the system will not allow you to enter their information here. Instead, include their names at the top of the commentary proposal document you upload. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the commentary proposal itself. 6. Attach Files The only required submission Item is your commentary proposal in .DOC(X) or .RTF format. In the description field please add the first author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on Veissi?re" 7. Approve Your Submission Editorial Manager will process your commentary proposal submission and will create a PDF for your approval. On the "Submissions Waiting for Author's Approval" page, you can view your PDF, edit, approve, or remove the submission. (You might have to wait several minutes for the blue "Action" menu to appear, allowing you to approve.) Once you have Approved the Submission, the PDF will be sent to the editorial office. **It is VERY important that you check and approve your commentary proposal manuscript as described above. Otherwise, we cannot process your submission.** 8. Editorial Office Decision At the conclusion of the commentary proposal period, the editors will review all the submitted commentary proposals. An undetermined number of commentary proposals will be approved and those author names will be added to the final commentary invitation list. At that time you will be notified of the decision. If you are formally invited to submit a commentary, you will be asked to confirm your intention to submit by the commentary deadline. Note: Before the commentary invitations are sent, the copy-edited and revised target article will be posted for invitees. Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an official invitation! BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST If you DO NOT wish to receive call for commentary proposals in the future, please reply to bbsjournal@cambridge.org, and type "remove" in the subject line. SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES To suggest others as possible commentators, or to nominate others for BBS Associateship status, please email bbsjournal@cambridge.org. Regards, Gennifer Levey Managing Editor, BBS Cambridge University Press bbsjournal@cambridge.org https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.cambridge.org%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=Kuhexo7D3NNwBEWnA6b%2Bl%2BNRak4NiNZvcJVslKbNRsQ%3D&reserved=0 https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbbs.edmgr.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=M7ajsvG4zNo5%2FQ%2BmTH3x6MM%2FItcA%2FQa6jYt8cfzIBlQ%3D&reserved=0 __________________________________________________ In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the following URL: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorialmanager.com%2FBBS%2Flogin.asp%3Fa%3Dr&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=r%2Fxx85sR5XRuoNOT2Y4835WgFULamaLGc40foi86umQ%3D&reserved=0). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions. From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Thu Jun 20 05:55:18 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:55:18 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?windows-1252?q?FW=3A_BBS_Call_for_Commentary_Proposals=3A_V?= =?windows-1252?q?eissi=E8re_et_al=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1561035318485.33706@ils.uio.no> Certainly, Anne-Nelly, the work you just shared would be relevant for that commentary, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly Sent: 20 June 2019 11:53 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. It would be great to have someone from XMCA who would comment and enrich this debate (on these days I am not available to do it). The underlying model in this upcoming article seems to rely mostly on conformity, monological approaches, etc. In the paper (attached here) we offer a completely different approach, much more inspired by dialogism, cultural historical theory, and a serious account of the activity that the child indulges in when answering. Hoping to read you on these issues. Anne-Nelly Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 CH 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) http://www.unine.ch/ipe/publications/anne_nelly_perret_clermont -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of David H Kirshner R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : jeudi, 20 juin 2019 ? 11:35 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : [Xmca-l] FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. >I'm reading through this upcoming article in BBS which takes as its >primary problem, acquisition of culture. >BBS solicits commentaries on each article, and these are reviewed and >then published along with it. >As there is not a single reference to Vygotsky or cultural historical >theory in the article, I thought someone on XMCA might want to submit a >commentary. >David > > >-----Original Message----- >From: em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com > On Behalf Of Behavioral >and Brain Sciences >Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:46 AM >To: David H Kirshner >Subject: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. > >Dear Dr. Kirshner: > >We are writing you to announce that BBS has just accepted an article for >open peer commentary in BBS. The article was already reviewed, and we are >now accepting commentary proposals. If you are interested in writing a >commentary, you are welcome to submit a short proposal (see instructions >below). No action is required if you aren't interested. > >Please DO NOT submit a full commentary article unless you are formally >invited---AFTER you submit a commentary *proposal*. We will review all >commentary proposals and issue invitations in August. Also, please be >aware that we typically receive far more commentary proposals than we can >accommodate with formal invitations. When choosing invitations, we >balance over multiple factors, including the interest of the commentary >itself, the commentator's expertise, whether the commentator's work has >been discussed in the target article, and other considerations. > >NOW PROCESSING COMMENTARY PROPOSALS ON: > >Target Article: Thinking Through Other Minds: A Variational Approach to >Cognition and Culture > >Authors: Samuel P. L. Veissi?re, Axel Constant, Maxwell J. D. Ramstead, >Karl J. Friston, and Laurence J. Kirmayer > >Deadline for Commentary Proposals: Tuesday July 9, 2019 > >Abstract: The processes underwriting the acquisition of culture remain >unclear. How are shared habits, norms, and expectations learned and >maintained with precision and reliability across large-scale >sociocultural ensembles? Is there a unifying account of the mechanisms >involved in the acquisition of culture? Notions such as 'shared >expectations', the 'selective patterning of attention and behaviour', >'cultural evolution', 'cultural inheritance', and 'implicit learning' are >the main candidates to underpin a unifying account of cognition and the >acquisition of culture; however, their interactions require greater >specification and clarification. In this paper, we integrate these >candidates using the variational (free energy) approach to human >cognition and culture in theoretical neuroscience. We describe the >construction by humans of social niches that afford epistemic resources >called cultural affordances. We argue that human agents learn the shared >habits, norms, and expectations of their culture through immersive >participation in patterned cultural practices that selectively pattern >attention and behaviour. We call this process "Thinking through Other >Minds" (TTOM) - in effect, the process of inferring other agents' >expectations about the world and how to behave in social context. We >argue that for humans, information from and about other people's >expectations constitutes the primary domain of statistical regularities >that humans leverage to predict and organize behaviour. The integrative >model we offer has implications that can advance theories of cognition, >enculturation, adaptation, and psychopathology. Crucially, this formal >(variational) treatment seeks to resolve key debates in current cognitive >science, such as the distinction between internalist and externalist >accounts of Theory of Mind abilities and the more fundamental distinction >between dynamical and representational accounts of enactivism. > > >Keywords: Cognition and culture; Variational free energy principle; >Social learning; Epistemic Affordances; Cultural affordances; Niche >construction; Embodiment; Enactment > > >Download Target Article Preprint: > >(Depending on your browser, the PDF will either load in a separate >window, from which you can download the PDF, or will download directly to >your computer.) > >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.camb >ridge.org%2Fcore%2Fservices%2Faop-cambridge-core%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F9A1039 >9BA85F428D5943DD847092C14A%2FS0140525X19001213a.pdf%2Fthinking_through_oth >er_minds_a_variational_approach_to_cognition_and_culture.pdf&data=02%7 >C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47 >d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995231679&sdata=WSKHJ3Jeqft8ZFCC >ROdHFfWbjlOHw9Sb71L3KhWsdZI%3D&reserved=0 > > >COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING > >1. Name of the target article for which you are submitting a commentary >proposal. > >2. All authors, including any possible co-authors, listed at the top of >your submission document. > >3. What aspect of the target article or book you would anticipate >commenting on. > >4. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the target article >or book. > >Please number these sections in your proposal: 1., 2., 3., 4. > >EDITORS' NOTES ON WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL > >In addition to the open "Call for Commentary Proposals," we invite >commentators who do not submit proposals?these include reviewers of the >paper, scholars whose work is discussed in the paper, and commentators >suggested by the authors. (Obviously, these can be overlapping sets.) >Once we subtract this set, only about 20 submitted proposals from the >Call for Commentary Proposals can be invited to write a commentary. > >Commentary selection is necessarily multifactorial. It must be balanced >to a degree across the various fields of cognitive science, point of view >of the article, and several other aspects of academic diversity. The >number of proposals can vary widely, however, depending on the topic, the >range is from 15 to 150! In the latter case, when we can accept only a >little over 1 in 10 of the proposals, a few things will facilitate a >positive reading of a proposal, and hopefully acceptance, given the >constraints: > >1. The proposal for the commentary should not be longer than the >commentary, 1,000 words. 100-500 is optimal, and we value succinctness. >On the other hand, "I intend to comment on X aspect of the target >article" is not enough. Are you for it, against it, or extending it? > >2. Under no circumstances should proposers simply write a commentary and >submit it to us. > >3. Proposers should clearly state what aspect of the target article they >intend to comment on. It's quite obvious when proposers are using the >commentary forum only to promote their own research and not engage with >the target article. Such proposals are routinely declined. > >4. Concerning "the relevant expertise you would bring to bear": While the >editors have a generally good idea of who is active in the fields of the >target article, we must cover a wide range and may be unaware of the >people who have been most productive and influential in a given area, or >the scholars who have engaged in heated debate with the authors in the >past. So, the editors will be greatly helped if every proposer states >their position in the field and lists between 2-10 relevant publications, >again succinctly. On the other side of the spectrum, under no >circumstances should an entire CV be included. > >5. BUT ? it's not all about articles previously published, or position in >the field. It's not necessary to have published in the area, and it's not >necessary to have a current academic appointment. We make efforts to >include proposals coming both from established figures and total >newcomers. An engaging idea elicited by the article, an illuminating >application of the target article concept to an allied field, or a truly >clever riposte is often all that's needed. > >6. Being a co-author on multiple proposals directed to one target article >will almost certainly remove one set of your co-authors or the other from >contention altogether, which will put you in an unpleasant game theoretic >situation with your colleagues. Do this carefully, if at all. > >7. We make our choices mostly on quality and fit, but we do want to open >up BBS to as many individuals as possible. If you've written one or more >other commentaries recently, your odds of having another one accepted >will correspondingly go down, though not to zero. > >HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL VIA THE ONLINE SUBMISSION SYSTEM > >If you would like to nominate yourself for potential commentary >invitation, you must submit a commentary proposal via our BBS Editorial >Manager site: > >1. Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an author: > >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edito >rialmanager.com%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c >1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C6369643709 >95241675&sdata=Me%2BTvDa2hmuk1zs6kUOoZJ97ZL4AoHx6ZfevwWTP34Q%3D&re >served=0 > >Username: DKirshner-489 >Password: You will also need to enter your password. If you have >forgotten it, you may click Send Login Details. > >If you do not have an account, please visit the site and register. > >2. Submit New Manuscript > >Within your author main menu please select Submit New Manuscript. > >3. Select Article Type > >Choose the article type of your manuscript from the pull-down menu. >Commentary proposal article types are temporarily created for each >accepted target article or book. Only select the commentary proposal >article type that you wish to submit a proposal on. For example: >"Commentary Proposal (Veissi?re)" > >4. Enter Title > >Please title your proposal submission by indicating the relevant first >author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary >Proposal on Veissi?re" > >5. Add Co-Authors > >If you are proposing to write a commentary with any co-authors, the >system will not allow you to enter their information here. Instead, >include their names at the top of the commentary proposal document you >upload. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the commentary >proposal itself. > >6. Attach Files > >The only required submission Item is your commentary proposal in .DOC(X) >or .RTF format. In the description field please add the first author name >of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on >Veissi?re" > >7. Approve Your Submission > >Editorial Manager will process your commentary proposal submission and >will create a PDF for your approval. On the "Submissions Waiting for >Author's Approval" page, you can view your PDF, edit, approve, or remove >the submission. (You might have to wait several minutes for the blue >"Action" menu to appear, allowing you to approve.) Once you have Approved >the Submission, the PDF will be sent to the editorial office. > >**It is VERY important that you check and approve your commentary >proposal manuscript as described above. Otherwise, we cannot process your >submission.** > >8. Editorial Office Decision > >At the conclusion of the commentary proposal period, the editors will >review all the submitted commentary proposals. An undetermined number of >commentary proposals will be approved and those author names will be >added to the final commentary invitation list. At that time you will be >notified of the decision. If you are formally invited to submit a >commentary, you will be asked to confirm your intention to submit by the >commentary deadline. > >Note: Before the commentary invitations are sent, the copy-edited and >revised target article will be posted for invitees. > >Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an official >invitation! > >BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST > >If you DO NOT wish to receive call for commentary proposals in the >future, please reply to bbsjournal@cambridge.org, and type "remove" in >the subject line. > >SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES > >To suggest others as possible commentators, or to nominate others for BBS >Associateship status, please email bbsjournal@cambridge.org. > > >Regards, > >Gennifer Levey >Managing Editor, BBS >Cambridge University Press >bbsjournal@cambridge.org >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals. >cambridge.org%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1c >ea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995 >241675&sdata=Kuhexo7D3NNwBEWnA6b%2Bl%2BNRak4NiNZvcJVslKbNRsQ%3D&re >served=0 >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbbs.edmgr >.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b8 >7aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&s >data=M7ajsvG4zNo5%2FQ%2BmTH3x6MM%2FItcA%2FQa6jYt8cfzIBlQ%3D&reserved=0 > >__________________________________________________ >In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we >remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the >following URL: >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.edit >orialmanager.com%2FBBS%2Flogin.asp%3Fa%3Dr&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu >.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8 >%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=r%2Fxx85sR5XRuoNOT2Y4835WgFULamaLG >c40foi86umQ%3D&reserved=0). Please contact the publication office if >you have any questions. > From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Thu Jun 20 06:09:14 2019 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 13:09:14 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_BBS_Call_for_Commentary_Proposals=3A_Veissi?= =?utf-8?b?w6hyZSBldCBhbC4=?= In-Reply-To: <1561035318485.33706@ils.uio.no> References: <1561035318485.33706@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: Thanks, Alfredo. I remain at the disposal of who would like to work on it. Anne-Nelly -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : jeudi, 20 juin 2019 ? 14:55 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. >Certainly, Anne-Nelly, the work you just shared would be relevant for >that commentary, >Alfredo > > > >________________________________________ >From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > >Sent: 20 June 2019 11:53 >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et >al. > >It would be great to have someone from XMCA who would comment and enrich >this debate (on these days I am not available to do it). >The underlying model in this upcoming article seems to rely mostly on >conformity, monological approaches, etc. In the paper (attached here) we >offer a completely different approach, much more inspired by dialogism, >cultural historical theory, and a serious account of the activity that the >child indulges in when answering. >Hoping to read you on these issues. > >Anne-Nelly > >Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont >Institut de psychologie et ?ducation >Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines >Universit? de Neuch?tel >Espace Tilo-Frey 1 CH 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) >http://www.unine.ch/ipe/publications/anne_nelly_perret_clermont > > > > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : on behalf of David H Kirshner > >R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >Date : jeudi, 20 juin 2019 ? 11:35 >? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >Objet : [Xmca-l] FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. > >>I'm reading through this upcoming article in BBS which takes as its >>primary problem, acquisition of culture. >>BBS solicits commentaries on each article, and these are reviewed and >>then published along with it. >>As there is not a single reference to Vygotsky or cultural historical >>theory in the article, I thought someone on XMCA might want to submit a >>commentary. >>David >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com >> On Behalf Of Behavioral >>and Brain Sciences >>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:46 AM >>To: David H Kirshner >>Subject: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. >> >>Dear Dr. Kirshner: >> >>We are writing you to announce that BBS has just accepted an article for >>open peer commentary in BBS. The article was already reviewed, and we are >>now accepting commentary proposals. If you are interested in writing a >>commentary, you are welcome to submit a short proposal (see instructions >>below). No action is required if you aren't interested. >> >>Please DO NOT submit a full commentary article unless you are formally >>invited---AFTER you submit a commentary *proposal*. We will review all >>commentary proposals and issue invitations in August. Also, please be >>aware that we typically receive far more commentary proposals than we can >>accommodate with formal invitations. When choosing invitations, we >>balance over multiple factors, including the interest of the commentary >>itself, the commentator's expertise, whether the commentator's work has >>been discussed in the target article, and other considerations. >> >>NOW PROCESSING COMMENTARY PROPOSALS ON: >> >>Target Article: Thinking Through Other Minds: A Variational Approach to >>Cognition and Culture >> >>Authors: Samuel P. L. Veissi?re, Axel Constant, Maxwell J. D. Ramstead, >>Karl J. Friston, and Laurence J. Kirmayer >> >>Deadline for Commentary Proposals: Tuesday July 9, 2019 >> >>Abstract: The processes underwriting the acquisition of culture remain >>unclear. How are shared habits, norms, and expectations learned and >>maintained with precision and reliability across large-scale >>sociocultural ensembles? Is there a unifying account of the mechanisms >>involved in the acquisition of culture? Notions such as 'shared >>expectations', the 'selective patterning of attention and behaviour', >>'cultural evolution', 'cultural inheritance', and 'implicit learning' are >>the main candidates to underpin a unifying account of cognition and the >>acquisition of culture; however, their interactions require greater >>specification and clarification. In this paper, we integrate these >>candidates using the variational (free energy) approach to human >>cognition and culture in theoretical neuroscience. We describe the >>construction by humans of social niches that afford epistemic resources >>called cultural affordances. We argue that human agents learn the shared >>habits, norms, and expectations of their culture through immersive >>participation in patterned cultural practices that selectively pattern >>attention and behaviour. We call this process "Thinking through Other >>Minds" (TTOM) - in effect, the process of inferring other agents' >>expectations about the world and how to behave in social context. We >>argue that for humans, information from and about other people's >>expectations constitutes the primary domain of statistical regularities >>that humans leverage to predict and organize behaviour. The integrative >>model we offer has implications that can advance theories of cognition, >>enculturation, adaptation, and psychopathology. Crucially, this formal >>(variational) treatment seeks to resolve key debates in current cognitive >>science, such as the distinction between internalist and externalist >>accounts of Theory of Mind abilities and the more fundamental distinction >>between dynamical and representational accounts of enactivism. >> >> >>Keywords: Cognition and culture; Variational free energy principle; >>Social learning; Epistemic Affordances; Cultural affordances; Niche >>construction; Embodiment; Enactment >> >> >>Download Target Article Preprint: >> >>(Depending on your browser, the PDF will either load in a separate >>window, from which you can download the PDF, or will download directly to >>your computer.) >> >>https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cam >>b >>ridge.org%2Fcore%2Fservices%2Faop-cambridge-core%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F9A103 >>9 >>9BA85F428D5943DD847092C14A%2FS0140525X19001213a.pdf%2Fthinking_through_ot >>h >>er_minds_a_variational_approach_to_cognition_and_culture.pdf&data=02% >>7 >>C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae4 >>7 >>d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995231679&sdata=WSKHJ3Jeqft8ZFC >>C >>ROdHFfWbjlOHw9Sb71L3KhWsdZI%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >>COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING >> >>1. Name of the target article for which you are submitting a commentary >>proposal. >> >>2. All authors, including any possible co-authors, listed at the top of >>your submission document. >> >>3. What aspect of the target article or book you would anticipate >>commenting on. >> >>4. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the target article >>or book. >> >>Please number these sections in your proposal: 1., 2., 3., 4. >> >>EDITORS' NOTES ON WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL >> >>In addition to the open "Call for Commentary Proposals," we invite >>commentators who do not submit proposals?these include reviewers of the >>paper, scholars whose work is discussed in the paper, and commentators >>suggested by the authors. (Obviously, these can be overlapping sets.) >>Once we subtract this set, only about 20 submitted proposals from the >>Call for Commentary Proposals can be invited to write a commentary. >> >>Commentary selection is necessarily multifactorial. It must be balanced >>to a degree across the various fields of cognitive science, point of view >>of the article, and several other aspects of academic diversity. The >>number of proposals can vary widely, however, depending on the topic, the >>range is from 15 to 150! In the latter case, when we can accept only a >>little over 1 in 10 of the proposals, a few things will facilitate a >>positive reading of a proposal, and hopefully acceptance, given the >>constraints: >> >>1. The proposal for the commentary should not be longer than the >>commentary, 1,000 words. 100-500 is optimal, and we value succinctness. >>On the other hand, "I intend to comment on X aspect of the target >>article" is not enough. Are you for it, against it, or extending it? >> >>2. Under no circumstances should proposers simply write a commentary and >>submit it to us. >> >>3. Proposers should clearly state what aspect of the target article they >>intend to comment on. It's quite obvious when proposers are using the >>commentary forum only to promote their own research and not engage with >>the target article. Such proposals are routinely declined. >> >>4. Concerning "the relevant expertise you would bring to bear": While the >>editors have a generally good idea of who is active in the fields of the >>target article, we must cover a wide range and may be unaware of the >>people who have been most productive and influential in a given area, or >>the scholars who have engaged in heated debate with the authors in the >>past. So, the editors will be greatly helped if every proposer states >>their position in the field and lists between 2-10 relevant publications, >>again succinctly. On the other side of the spectrum, under no >>circumstances should an entire CV be included. >> >>5. BUT ? it's not all about articles previously published, or position in >>the field. It's not necessary to have published in the area, and it's not >>necessary to have a current academic appointment. We make efforts to >>include proposals coming both from established figures and total >>newcomers. An engaging idea elicited by the article, an illuminating >>application of the target article concept to an allied field, or a truly >>clever riposte is often all that's needed. >> >>6. Being a co-author on multiple proposals directed to one target article >>will almost certainly remove one set of your co-authors or the other from >>contention altogether, which will put you in an unpleasant game theoretic >>situation with your colleagues. Do this carefully, if at all. >> >>7. We make our choices mostly on quality and fit, but we do want to open >>up BBS to as many individuals as possible. If you've written one or more >>other commentaries recently, your odds of having another one accepted >>will correspondingly go down, though not to zero. >> >>HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL VIA THE ONLINE SUBMISSION SYSTEM >> >>If you would like to nominate yourself for potential commentary >>invitation, you must submit a commentary proposal via our BBS Editorial >>Manager site: >> >>1. Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an author: >> >>https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edit >>o >>rialmanager.com%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104 >>c >>1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370 >>9 >>95241675&sdata=Me%2BTvDa2hmuk1zs6kUOoZJ97ZL4AoHx6ZfevwWTP34Q%3D&r >>e >>served=0 >> >>Username: DKirshner-489 >>Password: You will also need to enter your password. If you have >>forgotten it, you may click Send Login Details. >> >>If you do not have an account, please visit the site and register. >> >>2. Submit New Manuscript >> >>Within your author main menu please select Submit New Manuscript. >> >>3. Select Article Type >> >>Choose the article type of your manuscript from the pull-down menu. >>Commentary proposal article types are temporarily created for each >>accepted target article or book. Only select the commentary proposal >>article type that you wish to submit a proposal on. For example: >>"Commentary Proposal (Veissi?re)" >> >>4. Enter Title >> >>Please title your proposal submission by indicating the relevant first >>author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary >>Proposal on Veissi?re" >> >>5. Add Co-Authors >> >>If you are proposing to write a commentary with any co-authors, the >>system will not allow you to enter their information here. Instead, >>include their names at the top of the commentary proposal document you >>upload. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the commentary >>proposal itself. >> >>6. Attach Files >> >>The only required submission Item is your commentary proposal in .DOC(X) >>or .RTF format. In the description field please add the first author name >>of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on >>Veissi?re" >> >>7. Approve Your Submission >> >>Editorial Manager will process your commentary proposal submission and >>will create a PDF for your approval. On the "Submissions Waiting for >>Author's Approval" page, you can view your PDF, edit, approve, or remove >>the submission. (You might have to wait several minutes for the blue >>"Action" menu to appear, allowing you to approve.) Once you have Approved >>the Submission, the PDF will be sent to the editorial office. >> >>**It is VERY important that you check and approve your commentary >>proposal manuscript as described above. Otherwise, we cannot process your >>submission.** >> >>8. Editorial Office Decision >> >>At the conclusion of the commentary proposal period, the editors will >>review all the submitted commentary proposals. An undetermined number of >>commentary proposals will be approved and those author names will be >>added to the final commentary invitation list. At that time you will be >>notified of the decision. If you are formally invited to submit a >>commentary, you will be asked to confirm your intention to submit by the >>commentary deadline. >> >>Note: Before the commentary invitations are sent, the copy-edited and >>revised target article will be posted for invitees. >> >>Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an official >>invitation! >> >>BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST >> >>If you DO NOT wish to receive call for commentary proposals in the >>future, please reply to bbsjournal@cambridge.org, and type "remove" in >>the subject line. >> >>SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES >> >>To suggest others as possible commentators, or to nominate others for BBS >>Associateship status, please email bbsjournal@cambridge.org. >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Gennifer Levey >>Managing Editor, BBS >>Cambridge University Press >>bbsjournal@cambridge.org >>https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals >>. >>cambridge.org%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1 >>c >>ea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C63696437099 >>5 >>241675&sdata=Kuhexo7D3NNwBEWnA6b%2Bl%2BNRak4NiNZvcJVslKbNRsQ%3D&r >>e >>served=0 >>https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbbs.edmg >>r >>.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b >>8 >>7aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675& >>s >>data=M7ajsvG4zNo5%2FQ%2BmTH3x6MM%2FItcA%2FQa6jYt8cfzIBlQ%3D&reserved= >>0 >> >>__________________________________________________ >>In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we >>remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the >>following URL: >>https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.edi >>t >>orialmanager.com%2FBBS%2Flogin.asp%3Fa%3Dr&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40ls >>u >>.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f >>8 >>%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=r%2Fxx85sR5XRuoNOT2Y4835WgFULamaL >>G >>c40foi86umQ%3D&reserved=0). Please contact the publication office if >>you have any questions. >> > From mpacker@cantab.net Thu Jun 20 10:06:52 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:06:52 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_BBS_Call_for_Commentary_Proposals=3A_Veissi?= =?utf-8?b?w6hyZSBldCBhbC4=?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <034900BD-006C-4886-9831-F6C2A638CD29@cantab.net> Mike and have been thinking critically about this kind of model of culture and its acquisition for a while. It is becoming increasingly popular in developmental science, which I find concerning. I am attaching a paper in which we tried to develop a critique; perhaps it could be the basis for a response to the BBS article? (We would need first to send a proposal for a response.) By the way, the approach in the BBS article is not CHAT, but nor is it cross-cultural. I?ve been trying to think of a good descriptive label for it. Any ideas? Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190620/76c5fae1/attachment-0002.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Packer & Cole niches.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1522491 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190620/76c5fae1/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190620/76c5fae1/attachment-0003.html From andyb@marxists.org Thu Jun 20 18:30:14 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:30:14 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_BBS_Call_for_Commentary_Proposals=3A_Veissi?= =?utf-8?b?w6hyZSBldCBhbC4=?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Excellent proposal, David! Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/06/2019 7:35 pm, David H Kirshner wrote: > I'm reading through this upcoming article in BBS which takes as its primary problem, acquisition of culture. > BBS solicits commentaries on each article, and these are reviewed and then published along with it. > As there is not a single reference to Vygotsky or cultural historical theory in the article, I thought someone on XMCA might want to submit a commentary. > David > > > -----Original Message----- > From: em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com On Behalf Of Behavioral and Brain Sciences > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:46 AM > To: David H Kirshner > Subject: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. > > Dear Dr. Kirshner: > > We are writing you to announce that BBS has just accepted an article for open peer commentary in BBS. The article was already reviewed, and we are now accepting commentary proposals. If you are interested in writing a commentary, you are welcome to submit a short proposal (see instructions below). No action is required if you aren't interested. > > Please DO NOT submit a full commentary article unless you are formally invited---AFTER you submit a commentary *proposal*. We will review all commentary proposals and issue invitations in August. Also, please be aware that we typically receive far more commentary proposals than we can accommodate with formal invitations. When choosing invitations, we balance over multiple factors, including the interest of the commentary itself, the commentator's expertise, whether the commentator's work has been discussed in the target article, and other considerations. > > NOW PROCESSING COMMENTARY PROPOSALS ON: > > Target Article: Thinking Through Other Minds: A Variational Approach to Cognition and Culture > > Authors: Samuel P. L. Veissie?re, Axel Constant, Maxwell J. D. Ramstead, Karl J. Friston, and Laurence J. Kirmayer > > Deadline for Commentary Proposals: Tuesday July 9, 2019 > > Abstract: The processes underwriting the acquisition of culture remain unclear. How are shared habits, norms, and expectations learned and maintained with precision and reliability across large-scale sociocultural ensembles? Is there a unifying account of the mechanisms involved in the acquisition of culture? Notions such as 'shared expectations', the 'selective patterning of attention and behaviour', 'cultural evolution', 'cultural inheritance', and 'implicit learning' are the main candidates to underpin a unifying account of cognition and the acquisition of culture; however, their interactions require greater specification and clarification. In this paper, we integrate these candidates using the variational (free energy) approach to human cognition and culture in theoretical neuroscience. We describe the construction by humans of social niches that afford epistemic resources called cultural affordances. We argue that human agents learn the shared habits, norms, and expectations of > their culture through immersive participation in patterned cultural practices that selectively pattern attention and behaviour. We call this process "Thinking through Other Minds" (TTOM) - in effect, the process of inferring other agents' expectations about the world and how to behave in social context. We argue that for humans, information from and about other people's expectations constitutes the primary domain of statistical regularities that humans leverage to predict and organize behaviour. The integrative model we offer has implications that can advance theories of cognition, enculturation, adaptation, and psychopathology. Crucially, this formal (variational) treatment seeks to resolve key debates in current cognitive science, such as the distinction between internalist and externalist accounts of Theory of Mind abilities and the more fundamental distinction between dynamical and representational accounts of enactivism. > > > Keywords: Cognition and culture; Variational free energy principle; Social learning; Epistemic Affordances; Cultural affordances; Niche construction; Embodiment; Enactment > > > Download Target Article Preprint: > > (Depending on your browser, the PDF will either load in a separate window, from which you can download the PDF, or will download directly to your computer.) > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cambridge.org%2Fcore%2Fservices%2Faop-cambridge-core%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F9A10399BA85F428D5943DD847092C14A%2FS0140525X19001213a.pdf%2Fthinking_through_other_minds_a_variational_approach_to_cognition_and_culture.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995231679&sdata=WSKHJ3Jeqft8ZFCCROdHFfWbjlOHw9Sb71L3KhWsdZI%3D&reserved=0 > > > COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING > > 1. Name of the target article for which you are submitting a commentary proposal. > > 2. All authors, including any possible co-authors, listed at the top of your submission document. > > 3. What aspect of the target article or book you would anticipate commenting on. > > 4. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the target article or book. > > Please number these sections in your proposal: 1., 2., 3., 4. > > EDITORS' NOTES ON WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL > > In addition to the open "Call for Commentary Proposals," we invite commentators who do not submit proposals?these include reviewers of the paper, scholars whose work is discussed in the paper, and commentators suggested by the authors. (Obviously, these can be overlapping sets.) Once we subtract this set, only about 20 submitted proposals from the Call for Commentary Proposals can be invited to write a commentary. > > Commentary selection is necessarily multifactorial. It must be balanced to a degree across the various fields of cognitive science, point of view of the article, and several other aspects of academic diversity. The number of proposals can vary widely, however, depending on the topic, the range is from 15 to 150! In the latter case, when we can accept only a little over 1 in 10 of the proposals, a few things will facilitate a positive reading of a proposal, and hopefully acceptance, given the constraints: > > 1. The proposal for the commentary should not be longer than the commentary, 1,000 words. 100-500 is optimal, and we value succinctness. On the other hand, "I intend to comment on X aspect of the target article" is not enough. Are you for it, against it, or extending it? > > 2. Under no circumstances should proposers simply write a commentary and submit it to us. > > 3. Proposers should clearly state what aspect of the target article they intend to comment on. It's quite obvious when proposers are using the commentary forum only to promote their own research and not engage with the target article. Such proposals are routinely declined. > > 4. Concerning "the relevant expertise you would bring to bear": While the editors have a generally good idea of who is active in the fields of the target article, we must cover a wide range and may be unaware of the people who have been most productive and influential in a given area, or the scholars who have engaged in heated debate with the authors in the past. So, the editors will be greatly helped if every proposer states their position in the field and lists between 2-10 relevant publications, again succinctly. On the other side of the spectrum, under no circumstances should an entire CV be included. > > 5. BUT ? it's not all about articles previously published, or position in the field. It's not necessary to have published in the area, and it's not necessary to have a current academic appointment. We make efforts to include proposals coming both from established figures and total newcomers. An engaging idea elicited by the article, an illuminating application of the target article concept to an allied field, or a truly clever riposte is often all that's needed. > > 6. Being a co-author on multiple proposals directed to one target article will almost certainly remove one set of your co-authors or the other from contention altogether, which will put you in an unpleasant game theoretic situation with your colleagues. Do this carefully, if at all. > > 7. We make our choices mostly on quality and fit, but we do want to open up BBS to as many individuals as possible. If you've written one or more other commentaries recently, your odds of having another one accepted will correspondingly go down, though not to zero. > > HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL VIA THE ONLINE SUBMISSION SYSTEM > > If you would like to nominate yourself for potential commentary invitation, you must submit a commentary proposal via our BBS Editorial Manager site: > > 1. Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an author: > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorialmanager.com%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=Me%2BTvDa2hmuk1zs6kUOoZJ97ZL4AoHx6ZfevwWTP34Q%3D&reserved=0 > > Username: DKirshner-489 > Password: You will also need to enter your password. If you have forgotten it, you may click Send Login Details. > > If you do not have an account, please visit the site and register. > > 2. Submit New Manuscript > > Within your author main menu please select Submit New Manuscript. > > 3. Select Article Type > > Choose the article type of your manuscript from the pull-down menu. Commentary proposal article types are temporarily created for each accepted target article or book. Only select the commentary proposal article type that you wish to submit a proposal on. For example: "Commentary Proposal (Veissie?re)" > > 4. Enter Title > > Please title your proposal submission by indicating the relevant first author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on Veissie?re" > > 5. Add Co-Authors > > If you are proposing to write a commentary with any co-authors, the system will not allow you to enter their information here. Instead, include their names at the top of the commentary proposal document you upload. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the commentary proposal itself. > > 6. Attach Files > > The only required submission Item is your commentary proposal in .DOC(X) or .RTF format. In the description field please add the first author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on Veissie?re" > > 7. Approve Your Submission > > Editorial Manager will process your commentary proposal submission and will create a PDF for your approval. On the "Submissions Waiting for Author's Approval" page, you can view your PDF, edit, approve, or remove the submission. (You might have to wait several minutes for the blue "Action" menu to appear, allowing you to approve.) Once you have Approved the Submission, the PDF will be sent to the editorial office. > > **It is VERY important that you check and approve your commentary proposal manuscript as described above. Otherwise, we cannot process your submission.** > > 8. Editorial Office Decision > > At the conclusion of the commentary proposal period, the editors will review all the submitted commentary proposals. An undetermined number of commentary proposals will be approved and those author names will be added to the final commentary invitation list. At that time you will be notified of the decision. If you are formally invited to submit a commentary, you will be asked to confirm your intention to submit by the commentary deadline. > > Note: Before the commentary invitations are sent, the copy-edited and revised target article will be posted for invitees. > > Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an official invitation! > > BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST > > If you DO NOT wish to receive call for commentary proposals in the future, please reply to bbsjournal@cambridge.org, and type "remove" in the subject line. > > SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES > > To suggest others as possible commentators, or to nominate others for BBS Associateship status, please email bbsjournal@cambridge.org. > > > Regards, > > Gennifer Levey > Managing Editor, BBS > Cambridge University Press > bbsjournal@cambridge.org > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.cambridge.org%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=Kuhexo7D3NNwBEWnA6b%2Bl%2BNRak4NiNZvcJVslKbNRsQ%3D&reserved=0 > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbbs.edmgr.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=M7ajsvG4zNo5%2FQ%2BmTH3x6MM%2FItcA%2FQa6jYt8cfzIBlQ%3D&reserved=0 > > __________________________________________________ > In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the following URL: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorialmanager.com%2FBBS%2Flogin.asp%3Fa%3Dr&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=r%2Fxx85sR5XRuoNOT2Y4835WgFULamaLGc40foi86umQ%3D&reserved=0). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190621/844da6b6/attachment.html From dkirsh@lsu.edu Thu Jun 20 20:01:45 2019 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 03:01:45 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?q?_RE=3A__Re=3A_FW=3A_BBS_Call_for_Commentary_Proposals?= =?utf-8?q?=3A_Veissi=C3=A8re_et_al=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <1561035318485.33706@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: I've now read the 17-page introduction which outlines the theory, ?Thinking through Other Minds? (TTOM). They describe "selective patterning of salience and attention as the main process behind enculturation, which in turn enables the engagement of human agents with the sets of possible actions (or cultural affordances) that make up their local world" (p. 15). This places their work in a line of research based on cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience (though it is worth pointing out that the authors are not pursuing a cognitivist explanation based on the Theory Theory position that we build up explicit hypotheses about the declarative content of other's minds). Their approach seems to stress the ways in which new members of cultural community come to coordinate their perceptual apparatus with normative patterns of the community--a kind of seamless absorption of neophytes. This would seem to be in direct contrast to the focus of sociocultural theory on periods of crisis that overcome disjunctions between the basic focus and orientation of the neophyte to the broader culture. But I've read far enough to know whether their theory accounts for higher mental functions, so it is not clear the extent to which sociocultural theory may still prove complementary to the approach outlined in the article. David -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:09 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. Thanks, Alfredo. I remain at the disposal of who would like to work on it. Anne-Nelly -----Message d'origine----- De : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : jeudi, 20 juin 2019 ? 14:55 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. >Certainly, Anne-Nelly, the work you just shared would be relevant for >that commentary, Alfredo > > > >________________________________________ >From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly >> >Sent: 20 June 2019 11:53 >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re >et al. > >It would be great to have someone from XMCA who would comment and >enrich this debate (on these days I am not available to do it). >The underlying model in this upcoming article seems to rely mostly on >conformity, monological approaches, etc. In the paper (attached here) >we offer a completely different approach, much more inspired by >dialogism, cultural historical theory, and a serious account of the >activity that the child indulges in when answering. >Hoping to read you on these issues. > >Anne-Nelly > >Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont >Institut de psychologie et ?ducation >Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel >Espace Tilo-Frey 1 CH 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un >ine.ch%2Fipe%2Fpublications%2Fanne_nelly_perret_clermont&data=02%7C >01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7C0ea4e20deb904bde665e08d6f580c318%7C2d4dad3f50ae >47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636966330710069506&sdata=czF8vgXexZh >bw0fpJ0A2ZRA%2FpVO5vYyZQXR1AiqeefY%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : > on behalf of David H Kirshner >> R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> Date : jeudi, 20 juin 2019 ? 11:35 ? : >"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Objet : >[Xmca-l] FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. > >>I'm reading through this upcoming article in BBS which takes as its >>primary problem, acquisition of culture. >>BBS solicits commentaries on each article, and these are reviewed and >>then published along with it. >>As there is not a single reference to Vygotsky or cultural historical >>theory in the article, I thought someone on XMCA might want to submit >>a commentary. >>David >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com >>> On Behalf Of >>Behavioral and Brain Sciences >>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:46 AM >>To: David H Kirshner > >>Subject: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. >> >>Dear Dr. Kirshner: >> >>We are writing you to announce that BBS has just accepted an article >>for open peer commentary in BBS. The article was already reviewed, and >>we are now accepting commentary proposals. If you are interested in >>writing a commentary, you are welcome to submit a short proposal (see >>instructions below). No action is required if you aren't interested. >> >>Please DO NOT submit a full commentary article unless you are formally >>invited---AFTER you submit a commentary *proposal*. We will review all >>commentary proposals and issue invitations in August. Also, please be >>aware that we typically receive far more commentary proposals than we >>can accommodate with formal invitations. When choosing invitations, we >>balance over multiple factors, including the interest of the >>commentary itself, the commentator's expertise, whether the >>commentator's work has been discussed in the target article, and other considerations. >> >>NOW PROCESSING COMMENTARY PROPOSALS ON: >> >>Target Article: Thinking Through Other Minds: A Variational Approach >>to Cognition and Culture >> >>Authors: Samuel P. L. Veissi?re, Axel Constant, Maxwell J. D. >>Ramstead, Karl J. Friston, and Laurence J. Kirmayer >> >>Deadline for Commentary Proposals: Tuesday July 9, 2019 >> >>Abstract: The processes underwriting the acquisition of culture remain >>unclear. How are shared habits, norms, and expectations learned and >>maintained with precision and reliability across large-scale >>sociocultural ensembles? Is there a unifying account of the mechanisms >>involved in the acquisition of culture? Notions such as 'shared >>expectations', the 'selective patterning of attention and behaviour', >>'cultural evolution', 'cultural inheritance', and 'implicit learning' >>are the main candidates to underpin a unifying account of cognition >>and the acquisition of culture; however, their interactions require >>greater specification and clarification. In this paper, we integrate >>these candidates using the variational (free energy) approach to human >>cognition and culture in theoretical neuroscience. We describe the >>construction by humans of social niches that afford epistemic >>resources called cultural affordances. We argue that human agents >>learn the shared habits, norms, and expectations of their culture >>through immersive participation in patterned cultural practices that >>selectively pattern attention and behaviour. We call this process >>"Thinking through Other Minds" (TTOM) - in effect, the process of inferring other agents' >>expectations about the world and how to behave in social context. We >>argue that for humans, information from and about other people's >>expectations constitutes the primary domain of statistical >>regularities that humans leverage to predict and organize behaviour. >>The integrative model we offer has implications that can advance >>theories of cognition, enculturation, adaptation, and psychopathology. >>Crucially, this formal >>(variational) treatment seeks to resolve key debates in current >>cognitive science, such as the distinction between internalist and >>externalist accounts of Theory of Mind abilities and the more >>fundamental distinction between dynamical and representational accounts of enactivism. >> >> >>Keywords: Cognition and culture; Variational free energy principle; >>Social learning; Epistemic Affordances; Cultural affordances; Niche >>construction; Embodiment; Enactment >> >> >>Download Target Article Preprint: >> >>(Depending on your browser, the PDF will either load in a separate >>window, from which you can download the PDF, or will download directly >>to your computer.) >> >>https://www.cam >>b >>ridge.org%2Fcore%2Fservices%2Faop-cambridge-core%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F9A >>103 >>9 >>9BA85F428D5943DD847092C14A%2FS0140525X19001213a.pdf%2Fthinking_through >>_ot >>h >>er_minds_a_variational_approach_to_cognition_and_culture.pdf&data= >>02% >>7 >>C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50 >>ae4 >>7 >>d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995231679&sdata=WSKHJ3Jeqft8 >>ZFC >>C >>ROdHFfWbjlOHw9Sb71L3KhWsdZI%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >>COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING >> >>1. Name of the target article for which you are submitting a >>commentary proposal. >> >>2. All authors, including any possible co-authors, listed at the top >>of your submission document. >> >>3. What aspect of the target article or book you would anticipate >>commenting on. >> >>4. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the target >>article or book. >> >>Please number these sections in your proposal: 1., 2., 3., 4. >> >>EDITORS' NOTES ON WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL >> >>In addition to the open "Call for Commentary Proposals," we invite >>commentators who do not submit proposals?these include reviewers of >>the paper, scholars whose work is discussed in the paper, and >>commentators suggested by the authors. (Obviously, these can be >>overlapping sets.) Once we subtract this set, only about 20 submitted >>proposals from the Call for Commentary Proposals can be invited to write a commentary. >> >>Commentary selection is necessarily multifactorial. It must be >>balanced to a degree across the various fields of cognitive science, >>point of view of the article, and several other aspects of academic >>diversity. The number of proposals can vary widely, however, depending >>on the topic, the range is from 15 to 150! In the latter case, when we >>can accept only a little over 1 in 10 of the proposals, a few things >>will facilitate a positive reading of a proposal, and hopefully >>acceptance, given the >>constraints: >> >>1. The proposal for the commentary should not be longer than the >>commentary, 1,000 words. 100-500 is optimal, and we value succinctness. >>On the other hand, "I intend to comment on X aspect of the target >>article" is not enough. Are you for it, against it, or extending it? >> >>2. Under no circumstances should proposers simply write a commentary >>and submit it to us. >> >>3. Proposers should clearly state what aspect of the target article >>they intend to comment on. It's quite obvious when proposers are >>using the commentary forum only to promote their own research and not >>engage with the target article. Such proposals are routinely declined. >> >>4. Concerning "the relevant expertise you would bring to bear": While >>the editors have a generally good idea of who is active in the fields >>of the target article, we must cover a wide range and may be unaware >>of the people who have been most productive and influential in a given >>area, or the scholars who have engaged in heated debate with the >>authors in the past. So, the editors will be greatly helped if every >>proposer states their position in the field and lists between 2-10 >>relevant publications, again succinctly. On the other side of the >>spectrum, under no circumstances should an entire CV be included. >> >>5. BUT ? it's not all about articles previously published, or position >>in the field. It's not necessary to have published in the area, and >>it's not necessary to have a current academic appointment. We make >>efforts to include proposals coming both from established figures and >>total newcomers. An engaging idea elicited by the article, an >>illuminating application of the target article concept to an allied >>field, or a truly clever riposte is often all that's needed. >> >>6. Being a co-author on multiple proposals directed to one target >>article will almost certainly remove one set of your co-authors or the >>other from contention altogether, which will put you in an unpleasant >>game theoretic situation with your colleagues. Do this carefully, if at all. >> >>7. We make our choices mostly on quality and fit, but we do want to >>open up BBS to as many individuals as possible. If you've written one >>or more other commentaries recently, your odds of having another one >>accepted will correspondingly go down, though not to zero. >> >>HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL VIA THE ONLINE SUBMISSION SYSTEM >> >>If you would like to nominate yourself for potential commentary >>invitation, you must submit a commentary proposal via our BBS >>Editorial Manager site: >> >>1. Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an author: >> >>http://www.edit >>o >>rialmanager.com%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b >>104 >>c >>1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964 >>370 >>9 >>95241675&sdata=Me%2BTvDa2hmuk1zs6kUOoZJ97ZL4AoHx6ZfevwWTP34Q%3D&am >>p;r >>e >>served=0 >> >>Username: DKirshner-489 >>Password: You will also need to enter your password. If you have >>forgotten it, you may click Send Login Details. >> >>If you do not have an account, please visit the site and register. >> >>2. Submit New Manuscript >> >>Within your author main menu please select Submit New Manuscript. >> >>3. Select Article Type >> >>Choose the article type of your manuscript from the pull-down menu. >>Commentary proposal article types are temporarily created for each >>accepted target article or book. Only select the commentary proposal >>article type that you wish to submit a proposal on. For example: >>"Commentary Proposal (Veissi?re)" >> >>4. Enter Title >> >>Please title your proposal submission by indicating the relevant first >>author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary >>Proposal on Veissi?re" >> >>5. Add Co-Authors >> >>If you are proposing to write a commentary with any co-authors, the >>system will not allow you to enter their information here. Instead, >>include their names at the top of the commentary proposal document you >>upload. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the >>commentary proposal itself. >> >>6. Attach Files >> >>The only required submission Item is your commentary proposal in >>.DOC(X) or .RTF format. In the description field please add the first >>author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary >>Proposal on Veissi?re" >> >>7. Approve Your Submission >> >>Editorial Manager will process your commentary proposal submission and >>will create a PDF for your approval. On the "Submissions Waiting for >>Author's Approval" page, you can view your PDF, edit, approve, or >>remove the submission. (You might have to wait several minutes for the >>blue "Action" menu to appear, allowing you to approve.) Once you have >>Approved the Submission, the PDF will be sent to the editorial office. >> >>**It is VERY important that you check and approve your commentary >>proposal manuscript as described above. Otherwise, we cannot process >>your >>submission.** >> >>8. Editorial Office Decision >> >>At the conclusion of the commentary proposal period, the editors will >>review all the submitted commentary proposals. An undetermined number >>of commentary proposals will be approved and those author names will >>be added to the final commentary invitation list. At that time you >>will be notified of the decision. If you are formally invited to >>submit a commentary, you will be asked to confirm your intention to >>submit by the commentary deadline. >> >>Note: Before the commentary invitations are sent, the copy-edited and >>revised target article will be posted for invitees. >> >>Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an official >>invitation! >> >>BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST >> >>If you DO NOT wish to receive call for commentary proposals in the >>future, please reply to bbsjournal@cambridge.org, and type "remove" in >>the subject line. >> >>SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES >> >>To suggest others as possible commentators, or to nominate others for >>BBS Associateship status, please email bbsjournal@cambridge.org. >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Gennifer Levey >>Managing Editor, BBS >>Cambridge University Press >>bbsjournal@cambridge.org >>http://journals >>. >>cambridge.org%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b10 >>4c1 >>c >>ea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C63696437 >>099 >>5 >>241675&sdata=Kuhexo7D3NNwBEWnA6b%2Bl%2BNRak4NiNZvcJVslKbNRsQ%3D&am >>p;r >>e >>served=0 >>http://bbs.edmg >>r >>.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6 >>f3b >>8 >>7aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&a >>mp; >>s >>data=M7ajsvG4zNo5%2FQ%2BmTH3x6MM%2FItcA%2FQa6jYt8cfzIBlQ%3D&reserv >>ed= >>0 >> >>__________________________________________________ >>In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that >>we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the >>following URL: >>https://www.edi >>t >>orialmanager.com%2FBBS%2Flogin.asp%3Fa%3Dr&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%4 >>0ls >>u >>.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f4 >>66f >>8 >>%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=r%2Fxx85sR5XRuoNOT2Y4835WgFULa >>maL >>G >>c40foi86umQ%3D&reserved=0). Please contact the publication office >>if you have any questions. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190621/4ee93afe/attachment.html From s.franklin08@btinternet.com Fri Jun 21 10:07:09 2019 From: s.franklin08@btinternet.com (Shirley Franklin) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 18:07:09 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Gunther Kress Message-ID: <23AC6E66-60B2-4C39-A66D-6D2B9D62EE91@btinternet.com> Members of this list will be very upset to hear that sadly Gunther Kress died, suddenly, of a heart attack, in Italy. His work in semiotics, genres and meaning-making was inspired and inspiring. For me it was life- changing. I will never forget when he first came to the Institute of Education in 1991 and introduced a very different way of looking at texts, to the English department there. He continued to be a lifelong friend and colleague. Shirley Franklin From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Fri Jun 21 13:52:09 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 20:52:09 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Gunther Kress In-Reply-To: <23AC6E66-60B2-4C39-A66D-6D2B9D62EE91@btinternet.com> References: <23AC6E66-60B2-4C39-A66D-6D2B9D62EE91@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <1561150329066.32907@ils.uio.no> Thank you for sharing these very sad news, Shirley. Kress has been and continues to be a most important reference to any scholar interested in the role of communication in learning and education. Very sorry to hear of this loss. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Shirley Franklin Sent: 21 June 2019 19:07 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Gunther Kress Members of this list will be very upset to hear that sadly Gunther Kress died, suddenly, of a heart attack, in Italy. His work in semiotics, genres and meaning-making was inspired and inspiring. For me it was life- changing. I will never forget when he first came to the Institute of Education in 1991 and introduced a very different way of looking at texts, to the English department there. He continued to be a lifelong friend and colleague. Shirley Franklin From bazerman@education.ucsb.edu Sat Jun 22 20:32:09 2019 From: bazerman@education.ucsb.edu (Charles Bazerman) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 20:32:09 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Gunther Kress In-Reply-To: <1561150329066.32907@ils.uio.no> References: <23AC6E66-60B2-4C39-A66D-6D2B9D62EE91@btinternet.com> <1561150329066.32907@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: His works on children's writing and multimodality were foundational. He was a very decent, gentle, and open person who was always ready to discuss ideas and provide really interesting and useful perspectives. His absence will be palpable. Chuck ---- ?? ??????????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ????????? Los Estados Unidos es una naci?n de inmigrantes. The U.S. is a nation of immigrants. History will judge. https://bazerman.education.ucsb.edu/ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Charles_Bazerman http://www.isawr.org https://dailydoublespeak.com/ On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:54 PM Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Thank you for sharing these very sad news, Shirley. Kress has been and > continues to be a most important reference to any scholar interested in the > role of communication in learning and education. Very sorry to hear of this > loss. > > Alfredo > > > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Shirley Franklin > Sent: 21 June 2019 19:07 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Gunther Kress > > Members of this list will be very upset to hear that sadly Gunther Kress > died, suddenly, of a heart attack, in Italy. > > His work in semiotics, genres and meaning-making was inspired and > inspiring. For me it was life- changing. I will never forget when he first > came to the Institute of Education in 1991 and introduced a very different > way of looking at texts, to the English department there. He continued to > be a lifelong friend and colleague. > > Shirley Franklin > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190622/00b29e83/attachment.html From dkirsh@lsu.edu Sun Jun 23 11:33:59 2019 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 18:33:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?q?_RE=3A___RE=3A__Re=3A_FW=3A_BBS_Call_for_Commentary_Pr?= =?utf-8?q?oposals=3A_Veissi=C3=A8re_et_al=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <1561035318485.33706@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: The forthcoming BBS article presents a theory of acquisition of culture based around our capacity for ?Thinking through Other Minds? (TTOM). This is not a simplistic Theory of Mind (TOM) perspective that attributes strong inferential prowess to the individual agent to figure out the propositional contents of another?s mind. Rather we come to perceive things through the same lens as other members of our culture: ?The main role of others in this kind of social learning is to direct attention rather than to convey specific semantic content (Tomasello 2014). In effect, social learning involves immersion in local contexts through what we call regimes of attention and imitation that direct human agents to engage differentially in forms of shared intentionality. We have argued that such regimes of attention play a central role in the enculturation of human agents (Ramstead, Veissi?re, and Kirmayer 2016). Indeed, human beings seem particularly specialized for such forms of social learning (Sterelny 2012)? (p. 23). The theory is based on the Variational Free-Energy Principle (FEP) which I take to be at odds with sociocultural perspectives because its processes are incremental, hence without the possibility of crises that mark Vygotsky?s viewpoint: The generative model functions as a point of reference in a cyclical (action-perception) process that allows the organism to engage in active inference. Internal states of the agent (e.g., the states of its brain) encode a recognition density; that is, a probability distribution or Bayesian belief about the current state of affairs and contingencies causing sensory input. This (posterior) belief is encoded by neuronal activity, synaptic efficacy, and connection strength (Friston 2010). The mathematical formulation behind the FEP claims that all of these internal brain states change in a way to minimise variational free energy. By construction, the variational free energy is always greater than a quantity known as surprisal, self-information or, more simply, surprise in information theory. This means that minimising free energy minimises surprise, which can be quantified as the negative logarithm of the probability that ?a creature like me? would sample ?these sensations?. (pp. 30-31). This notion of ?a creature like me? plays into the theory in a central way. Interestingly, though, the bias toward our own kind is not a primitive construct in this system?we?re born with an emotional bond to our kind as a reflection of our dependence. Rather, it?s a result of how immersion in our home culture plays out in the statistical regularities we encounter: ?The reliance on social and cultural affordances co-constructed with and maintained by other people makes it important for us to distinguish between those who think like us and those whose thinking is either systematically different from our own or else unfamiliar and, hence, unpredictable ? and inherently surprising. This distinction marks off domains of in-group and out-group, with corresponding epistemic authority. Regimes of attention then make the right kinds of social solicitations stand out in context, thereby allowing the learning of socially relevant affordances in a given cultural niche, community or local world. ? (p. 24). The theory accounts for extension of culture, not just reproduction. This extensive quality insinuates itself into the theory through an imperative for novelty that balances the conservative minimizing of ?surprise? references above: ?The FEP deals with the issue of novelty seeking behaviour by formalising action as being in the game of maximising the epistemic value of action (or epistemic affordance). In essence, free energy minimizing agents seek to sample the world in the most efficient way possible. Since the information gain (i.e., salience) is the amount of uncertainty resolved, it makes good sense for the agent to selectively sample regions of environment with high uncertainty, which will yield the most informative observations? (p. 39). A strength of this theory is that it uses one set of constructs to account for ontogenesis as well as for broader time scales of cultural change: ?The exploitation of regimes of attention ? encoded in the niche ? is especially useful to track regularities unfolding over longer time scales of the history of a community, whose variability would be harder to assess over the timescale of an individual?s perceptual and procedural learning? (p. 42). This can include even ?the temporal scale of human cultural co-evolution. The 7R variant of the DRD4 gene (which encodes the D4 subtype of the dopamine receptor) appears to have become more widespread 50,000 years ago at a time of great migrations and a revolution in hunting technology among early Homo Sapiens? (p. 40). What?s more, the theory is specified to the level of representation in computational theory, and a level that is empirically testable: We have designed TTOM as a guide for the production of testable models in related domains. While TTOM per se would be difficult to test (due to its generality), one can derive specific, integrative models from TTOM to study specific forms of socio-cultural dynamics? (p. 60). A crucial difference between TTOM and sociocultural theory is that while TTOM represents culture, it doesn?t directly represent social engagement. Crisis in Vygotsky?s work is enabled and resolved through mutual appropriation as it plays out the level of individual engagement in social processes. One might object to TTOM (or any other computationally realized theory?) on ethical grounds, as dehumanizing. But beyond ideology it must be disturbing to XMCAers that sociocultural theory perspectives are not figured into an extensive theoretical treatment of acquisition of culture. BBS?s system of published commentaries provides for a possible corrective. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of David H Kirshner Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 10:02 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] RE: Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. I've now read the 17-page introduction which outlines the theory, ?Thinking through Other Minds? (TTOM). They describe "selective patterning of salience and attention as the main process behind enculturation, which in turn enables the engagement of human agents with the sets of possible actions (or cultural affordances) that make up their local world" (p. 15). This places their work in a line of research based on cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience (though it is worth pointing out that the authors are not pursuing a cognitivist explanation based on the Theory Theory position that we build up explicit hypotheses about the declarative content of other's minds). Their approach seems to stress the ways in which new members of cultural community come to coordinate their perceptual apparatus with normative patterns of the community--a kind of seamless absorption of neophytes. This would seem to be in direct contrast to the focus of sociocultural theory on periods of crisis that overcome disjunctions between the basic focus and orientation of the neophyte to the broader culture. But I've read far enough to know whether their theory accounts for higher mental functions, so it is not clear the extent to which sociocultural theory may still prove complementary to the approach outlined in the article. David -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:09 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. Thanks, Alfredo. I remain at the disposal of who would like to work on it. Anne-Nelly -----Message d'origine----- De : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : jeudi, 20 juin 2019 ? 14:55 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. >Certainly, Anne-Nelly, the work you just shared would be relevant for >that commentary, Alfredo > > > >________________________________________ >From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly >> >Sent: 20 June 2019 11:53 >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re >et al. > >It would be great to have someone from XMCA who would comment and >enrich this debate (on these days I am not available to do it). >The underlying model in this upcoming article seems to rely mostly on >conformity, monological approaches, etc. In the paper (attached here) >we offer a completely different approach, much more inspired by >dialogism, cultural historical theory, and a serious account of the >activity that the child indulges in when answering. >Hoping to read you on these issues. > >Anne-Nelly > >Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont >Institut de psychologie et ?ducation >Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel >Espace Tilo-Frey 1 CH 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un >ine.ch%2Fipe%2Fpublications%2Fanne_nelly_perret_clermont&data=02%7C >01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7C0ea4e20deb904bde665e08d6f580c318%7C2d4dad3f50ae >47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636966330710069506&sdata=czF8vgXexZh >bw0fpJ0A2ZRA%2FpVO5vYyZQXR1AiqeefY%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : > on behalf of David H Kirshner >> R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> Date : jeudi, 20 juin 2019 ? 11:35 ? : >"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Objet : >[Xmca-l] FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. > >>I'm reading through this upcoming article in BBS which takes as its >>primary problem, acquisition of culture. >>BBS solicits commentaries on each article, and these are reviewed and >>then published along with it. >>As there is not a single reference to Vygotsky or cultural historical >>theory in the article, I thought someone on XMCA might want to submit >>a commentary. >>David >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com >>> On Behalf Of >>Behavioral and Brain Sciences >>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:46 AM >>To: David H Kirshner > >>Subject: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. >> >>Dear Dr. Kirshner: >> >>We are writing you to announce that BBS has just accepted an article >>for open peer commentary in BBS. The article was already reviewed, and >>we are now accepting commentary proposals. If you are interested in >>writing a commentary, you are welcome to submit a short proposal (see >>instructions below). No action is required if you aren't interested. >> >>Please DO NOT submit a full commentary article unless you are formally >>invited---AFTER you submit a commentary *proposal*. We will review all >>commentary proposals and issue invitations in August. Also, please be >>aware that we typically receive far more commentary proposals than we >>can accommodate with formal invitations. When choosing invitations, we >>balance over multiple factors, including the interest of the >>commentary itself, the commentator's expertise, whether the >>commentator's work has been discussed in the target article, and other considerations. >> >>NOW PROCESSING COMMENTARY PROPOSALS ON: >> >>Target Article: Thinking Through Other Minds: A Variational Approach >>to Cognition and Culture >> >>Authors: Samuel P. L. Veissi?re, Axel Constant, Maxwell J. D. >>Ramstead, Karl J. Friston, and Laurence J. Kirmayer >> >>Deadline for Commentary Proposals: Tuesday July 9, 2019 >> >>Abstract: The processes underwriting the acquisition of culture remain >>unclear. How are shared habits, norms, and expectations learned and >>maintained with precision and reliability across large-scale >>sociocultural ensembles? Is there a unifying account of the mechanisms >>involved in the acquisition of culture? Notions such as 'shared >>expectations', the 'selective patterning of attention and behaviour', >>'cultural evolution', 'cultural inheritance', and 'implicit learning' >>are the main candidates to underpin a unifying account of cognition >>and the acquisition of culture; however, their interactions require >>greater specification and clarification. In this paper, we integrate >>these candidates using the variational (free energy) approach to human >>cognition and culture in theoretical neuroscience. We describe the >>construction by humans of social niches that afford epistemic >>resources called cultural affordances. We argue that human agents >>learn the shared habits, norms, and expectations of their culture >>through immersive participation in patterned cultural practices that >>selectively pattern attention and behaviour. We call this process >>"Thinking through Other Minds" (TTOM) - in effect, the process of inferring other agents' >>expectations about the world and how to behave in social context. We >>argue that for humans, information from and about other people's >>expectations constitutes the primary domain of statistical >>regularities that humans leverage to predict and organize behaviour. >>The integrative model we offer has implications that can advance >>theories of cognition, enculturation, adaptation, and psychopathology. >>Crucially, this formal >>(variational) treatment seeks to resolve key debates in current >>cognitive science, such as the distinction between internalist and >>externalist accounts of Theory of Mind abilities and the more >>fundamental distinction between dynamical and representational accounts of enactivism. >> >> >>Keywords: Cognition and culture; Variational free energy principle; >>Social learning; Epistemic Affordances; Cultural affordances; Niche >>construction; Embodiment; Enactment >> >> >>Download Target Article Preprint: >> >>(Depending on your browser, the PDF will either load in a separate >>window, from which you can download the PDF, or will download directly >>to your computer.) >> >>https://www.cam >>b >>ridge.org%2Fcore%2Fservices%2Faop-cambridge-core%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F9A >>103 >>9 >>9BA85F428D5943DD847092C14A%2FS0140525X19001213a.pdf%2Fthinking_through >>_ot >>h >>er_minds_a_variational_approach_to_cognition_and_culture.pdf&data= >>02% >>7 >>C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50 >>ae4 >>7 >>d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995231679&sdata=WSKHJ3Jeqft8 >>ZFC >>C >>ROdHFfWbjlOHw9Sb71L3KhWsdZI%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >>COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING >> >>1. Name of the target article for which you are submitting a >>commentary proposal. >> >>2. All authors, including any possible co-authors, listed at the top >>of your submission document. >> >>3. What aspect of the target article or book you would anticipate >>commenting on. >> >>4. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the target >>article or book. >> >>Please number these sections in your proposal: 1., 2., 3., 4. >> >>EDITORS' NOTES ON WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL >> >>In addition to the open "Call for Commentary Proposals," we invite >>commentators who do not submit proposals?these include reviewers of >>the paper, scholars whose work is discussed in the paper, and >>commentators suggested by the authors. (Obviously, these can be >>overlapping sets.) Once we subtract this set, only about 20 submitted >>proposals from the Call for Commentary Proposals can be invited to write a commentary. >> >>Commentary selection is necessarily multifactorial. It must be >>balanced to a degree across the various fields of cognitive science, >>point of view of the article, and several other aspects of academic >>diversity. The number of proposals can vary widely, however, depending >>on the topic, the range is from 15 to 150! In the latter case, when we >>can accept only a little over 1 in 10 of the proposals, a few things >>will facilitate a positive reading of a proposal, and hopefully >>acceptance, given the >>constraints: >> >>1. The proposal for the commentary should not be longer than the >>commentary, 1,000 words. 100-500 is optimal, and we value succinctness. >>On the other hand, "I intend to comment on X aspect of the target >>article" is not enough. Are you for it, against it, or extending it? >> >>2. Under no circumstances should proposers simply write a commentary >>and submit it to us. >> >>3. Proposers should clearly state what aspect of the target article >>they intend to comment on. It's quite obvious when proposers are >>using the commentary forum only to promote their own research and not >>engage with the target article. Such proposals are routinely declined. >> >>4. Concerning "the relevant expertise you would bring to bear": While >>the editors have a generally good idea of who is active in the fields >>of the target article, we must cover a wide range and may be unaware >>of the people who have been most productive and influential in a given >>area, or the scholars who have engaged in heated debate with the >>authors in the past. So, the editors will be greatly helped if every >>proposer states their position in the field and lists between 2-10 >>relevant publications, again succinctly. On the other side of the >>spectrum, under no circumstances should an entire CV be included. >> >>5. BUT ? it's not all about articles previously published, or position >>in the field. It's not necessary to have published in the area, and >>it's not necessary to have a current academic appointment. We make >>efforts to include proposals coming both from established figures and >>total newcomers. An engaging idea elicited by the article, an >>illuminating application of the target article concept to an allied >>field, or a truly clever riposte is often all that's needed. >> >>6. Being a co-author on multiple proposals directed to one target >>article will almost certainly remove one set of your co-authors or the >>other from contention altogether, which will put you in an unpleasant >>game theoretic situation with your colleagues. Do this carefully, if at all. >> >>7. We make our choices mostly on quality and fit, but we do want to >>open up BBS to as many individuals as possible. If you've written one >>or more other commentaries recently, your odds of having another one >>accepted will correspondingly go down, though not to zero. >> >>HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL VIA THE ONLINE SUBMISSION SYSTEM >> >>If you would like to nominate yourself for potential commentary >>invitation, you must submit a commentary proposal via our BBS >>Editorial Manager site: >> >>1. Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an author: >> >>http://www.edit >>o >>rialmanager.com%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b >>104 >>c >>1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964 >>370 >>9 >>95241675&sdata=Me%2BTvDa2hmuk1zs6kUOoZJ97ZL4AoHx6ZfevwWTP34Q%3D&am >>p;r >>e >>served=0 >> >>Username: DKirshner-489 >>Password: You will also need to enter your password. If you have >>forgotten it, you may click Send Login Details. >> >>If you do not have an account, please visit the site and register. >> >>2. Submit New Manuscript >> >>Within your author main menu please select Submit New Manuscript. >> >>3. Select Article Type >> >>Choose the article type of your manuscript from the pull-down menu. >>Commentary proposal article types are temporarily created for each >>accepted target article or book. Only select the commentary proposal >>article type that you wish to submit a proposal on. For example: >>"Commentary Proposal (Veissi?re)" >> >>4. Enter Title >> >>Please title your proposal submission by indicating the relevant first >>author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary >>Proposal on Veissi?re" >> >>5. Add Co-Authors >> >>If you are proposing to write a commentary with any co-authors, the >>system will not allow you to enter their information here. Instead, >>include their names at the top of the commentary proposal document you >>upload. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the >>commentary proposal itself. >> >>6. Attach Files >> >>The only required submission Item is your commentary proposal in >>.DOC(X) or .RTF format. In the description field please add the first >>author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary >>Proposal on Veissi?re" >> >>7. Approve Your Submission >> >>Editorial Manager will process your commentary proposal submission and >>will create a PDF for your approval. On the "Submissions Waiting for >>Author's Approval" page, you can view your PDF, edit, approve, or >>remove the submission. (You might have to wait several minutes for the >>blue "Action" menu to appear, allowing you to approve.) Once you have >>Approved the Submission, the PDF will be sent to the editorial office. >> >>**It is VERY important that you check and approve your commentary >>proposal manuscript as described above. Otherwise, we cannot process >>your >>submission.** >> >>8. Editorial Office Decision >> >>At the conclusion of the commentary proposal period, the editors will >>review all the submitted commentary proposals. An undetermined number >>of commentary proposals will be approved and those author names will >>be added to the final commentary invitation list. At that time you >>will be notified of the decision. If you are formally invited to >>submit a commentary, you will be asked to confirm your intention to >>submit by the commentary deadline. >> >>Note: Before the commentary invitations are sent, the copy-edited and >>revised target article will be posted for invitees. >> >>Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an official >>invitation! >> >>BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST >> >>If you DO NOT wish to receive call for commentary proposals in the >>future, please reply to bbsjournal@cambridge.org, and type "remove" in >>the subject line. >> >>SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES >> >>To suggest others as possible commentators, or to nominate others for >>BBS Associateship status, please email bbsjournal@cambridge.org. >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Gennifer Levey >>Managing Editor, BBS >>Cambridge University Press >>bbsjournal@cambridge.org >>http://journals >>. >>cambridge.org%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b10 >>4c1 >>c >>ea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C63696437 >>099 >>5 >>241675&sdata=Kuhexo7D3NNwBEWnA6b%2Bl%2BNRak4NiNZvcJVslKbNRsQ%3D&am >>p;r >>e >>served=0 >>http://bbs.edmg >>r >>.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6 >>f3b >>8 >>7aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&a >>mp; >>s >>data=M7ajsvG4zNo5%2FQ%2BmTH3x6MM%2FItcA%2FQa6jYt8cfzIBlQ%3D&reserv >>ed= >>0 >> >>__________________________________________________ >>In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that >>we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the >>following URL: >>https://www.edi >>t >>orialmanager.com%2FBBS%2Flogin.asp%3Fa%3Dr&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%4 >>0ls >>u >>.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f4 >>66f >>8 >>%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=r%2Fxx85sR5XRuoNOT2Y4835WgFULa >>maL >>G >>c40foi86umQ%3D&reserved=0). Please contact the publication office >>if you have any questions. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190623/c0a6713d/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 13:29:03 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:29:03 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_BBS_Call_for_Commentary_Proposals=3A_Veissi?= =?utf-8?b?w6hyZSBldCBhbC4=?= In-Reply-To: References: <1561035318485.33706@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: David, One of your difficulties, perhaps, is going to be presenting an agreed upon or standard CHAT. E.g. I doubt it is commonly recognised that the crises implicate different ontological bases to "shared" experience, i.e. that so called shared experience may actually be profoundly different, despite an illusion of identity, even assuming an approximately agreed upon intention. If you assert principles of AT or LSV, then you are on clearer ground. Then there is the role of agency in transformations of understanding, which again proponents of "dialogically shared experience" have shied away from, labelling it "rational" etc. >From the language used for TTOM, there doesn't appear to be a categorical difference with respect to "crises vs incremental change". In the language used, it seems probable that a "step function" is implicated in behavioural change. I think one can quite adequately express that there are many ways of learning about the world and making inferences about it. Bayesian models might model well certain kinds of inferences, but it seem unlikely to be universal. This issue pertains to whether claims are being made about he structure of knowing or whether one is simply making claims about the general shape of the outcomes. Probably more can be achieved by addressing the assumptions about attention and intention. There is no hand waving hear in AT or LSV, but rather treating these as fundamental mediatory principles which help to structure the forms of inference through signs. No doubt a thorough analysis would be a clarifying exercise, and probably help reveal the pedigree of AT/LSV. Best, Huw On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 19:36, David H Kirshner wrote: > The forthcoming BBS article presents a theory of acquisition of culture > based around our capacity for ?Thinking through Other Minds? (TTOM). > > This is not a simplistic Theory of Mind (TOM) perspective that attributes > strong inferential prowess to the individual agent to figure out the > propositional contents of another?s mind. Rather we come to perceive things > through the same lens as other members of our culture: ?The main role of > others in this kind of social learning is to direct attention rather than > to convey specific semantic content (Tomasello 2014). In effect, social > learning involves immersion in local contexts through what we call regimes > of attention and imitation that direct human agents to engage > differentially in forms of shared intentionality. We have argued that such *regimes > of attention* play a central role in the enculturation of human agents > (Ramstead, Veissi?re, and Kirmayer 2016). Indeed, human beings seem > particularly specialized for such forms of social learning (Sterelny 2012)? > (p. 23). > > > > The theory is based on the Variational Free-Energy Principle (FEP) which I > take to be at odds with sociocultural perspectives because its processes > are incremental, hence without the possibility of crises that mark > Vygotsky?s viewpoint: > > > > The generative model functions as a point of reference in a cyclical > (action-perception) process that allows the organism to engage in active > inference. Internal states of the agent (e.g., the states of its brain) > encode a *recognition* density; that is, a probability distribution or > Bayesian belief about the current state of affairs and contingencies > causing sensory input. This (posterior) belief is encoded by neuronal > activity, synaptic efficacy, and connection strength (Friston 2010). The > mathematical formulation behind the FEP claims that all of these internal > brain states change in a way to minimise variational free energy. By > construction, the variational free energy is always greater than a quantity > known as *surprisal, self-information* or, more simply, *surprise* in > information theory. This means that minimising free energy minimises > *surprise*, which can be quantified as the negative logarithm of the > probability that ?a creature like me? would sample ?these sensations?. (pp. > 30-31). > > > > This notion of ?a creature like me? plays into the theory in a central > way. Interestingly, though, the bias toward our own kind is not a primitive > construct in this system?we?re born with an emotional bond to our kind as a > reflection of our dependence. Rather, it?s a result of how immersion in our > home culture plays out in the statistical regularities we encounter: ?The > reliance on social and cultural affordances co-constructed with and > maintained by other people makes it important for us to distinguish between > those who think like us and those whose thinking is either systematically > different from our own or else unfamiliar and, hence, unpredictable ? and > inherently surprising. This distinction marks off domains of in-group and > out-group, with corresponding epistemic authority. Regimes of attention > then make the right kinds of social solicitations stand out in context, > thereby allowing the learning of socially relevant affordances in a given > cultural niche, community or local world. ? (p. 24). > > > > The theory accounts for extension of culture, not just reproduction. This > extensive quality insinuates itself into the theory through an imperative > for novelty that balances the conservative minimizing of ?surprise? > references above: ?The FEP deals with the issue of novelty seeking > behaviour by formalising action as being in the game of maximising the *epistemic > value of action* (or epistemic affordance). In essence, free energy > minimizing agents seek to sample the world in the most efficient way > possible. Since the information gain (i.e., salience) is the amount of > uncertainty resolved, it makes good sense for the agent to selectively > sample regions of environment with high uncertainty, which will yield the > most informative observations? (p. 39). > > > > A strength of this theory is that it uses one set of constructs to account > for ontogenesis as well as for broader time scales of cultural change: ?The > exploitation of regimes of attention ? encoded in the niche ? is especially > useful to track regularities unfolding over longer time scales of the > history of a community, whose variability would be harder to assess over > the timescale of an individual?s perceptual and procedural learning? (p. > 42). This can include even ?the temporal scale of human cultural > co-evolution. The 7R variant of the DRD4 gene (which encodes the D4 subtype > of the dopamine receptor) appears to have become more widespread 50,000 > years ago at a time of great migrations and a revolution in hunting > technology among early Homo Sapiens? (p. 40). > > > > What?s more, the theory is specified to the level of representation in > computational theory, and a level that is empirically testable: We have > designed TTOM as a guide for the production of *testable models* in > related domains. While TTOM per se would be difficult to test (due to its > generality), one can derive specific, integrative models from TTOM to study > specific forms of socio-cultural dynamics? (p. 60). > > > > A crucial difference between TTOM and sociocultural theory is that while > TTOM represents culture, it doesn?t directly represent social engagement. > Crisis in Vygotsky?s work is enabled and resolved through mutual > appropriation as it plays out the level of individual engagement in social > processes. One might object to TTOM (or any other computationally realized > theory?) on ethical grounds, as dehumanizing. But beyond ideology it must > be disturbing to XMCAers that sociocultural theory perspectives are not > figured into an extensive theoretical treatment of acquisition of culture. > BBS?s system of published commentaries provides for a possible corrective. > > > > David > > > > > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu *On > Behalf Of *David H Kirshner > *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2019 10:02 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] RE: Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: > Veissi?re et al. > > > > I've now read the 17-page introduction which outlines the theory, > ?Thinking through Other Minds? (TTOM). > > They describe "*selective patterning of salience and attention* as the > main process behind enculturation, which in turn enables the engagement of > human agents with the sets of possible actions (or cultural affordances) > that make up their local world" (p. 15). > > This places their work in a line of research based on cognitive psychology > and cognitive neuroscience (though it is worth pointing out that the > authors are not pursuing a cognitivist explanation based on the Theory > Theory position that we build up explicit hypotheses about the declarative > content of other's minds). > > Their approach seems to stress the ways in which new members of cultural > community come to coordinate their perceptual apparatus with normative > patterns of the community--a kind of seamless absorption of neophytes. > > This would seem to be in direct contrast to the focus of sociocultural > theory on periods of crisis that overcome disjunctions between the basic > focus and orientation of the neophyte to the broader culture. > > But I've read far enough to know whether their theory accounts for higher > mental functions, so it is not clear the extent to which sociocultural > theory may still prove complementary to the approach outlined in the > article. > > David > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:09 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et > al. > > > > Thanks, Alfredo. > > I remain at the disposal of who would like to work on it. > > Anne-Nelly > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@ils.uio.no> R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Date : jeudi, 20 juin 2019 ? 14:55 ? : "eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: > FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. > > > > >Certainly, Anne-Nelly, the work you just shared would be relevant for > > >that commentary, Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > >________________________________________ > > >From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > > > > > >Sent: 20 June 2019 11:53 > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re > > >et al. > > > > > >It would be great to have someone from XMCA who would comment and > > >enrich this debate (on these days I am not available to do it). > > >The underlying model in this upcoming article seems to rely mostly on > > >conformity, monological approaches, etc. In the paper (attached here) > > >we offer a completely different approach, much more inspired by > > >dialogism, cultural historical theory, and a serious account of the > > >activity that the child indulges in when answering. > > >Hoping to read you on these issues. > > > > > >Anne-Nelly > > > > > >Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont > > >Institut de psychologie et ?ducation > > >Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel > > >Espace Tilo-Frey 1 CH 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) > > >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un > > > >ine.ch%2Fipe%2Fpublications%2Fanne_nelly_perret_clermont&data=02%7C > > >01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7C0ea4e20deb904bde665e08d6f580c318%7C2d4dad3f50ae > > >47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636966330710069506&sdata=czF8vgXexZh > > >bw0fpJ0A2ZRA%2FpVO5vYyZQXR1AiqeefY%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Message d'origine----- > > >De : on behalf of David H Kirshner > > > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > Date : jeudi, 20 juin 2019 ? 11:35 ? : > > >"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : > > >[Xmca-l] FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. > > > > > >>I'm reading through this upcoming article in BBS which takes as its > > >>primary problem, acquisition of culture. > > >>BBS solicits commentaries on each article, and these are reviewed and > > >>then published along with it. > > >>As there is not a single reference to Vygotsky or cultural historical > > >>theory in the article, I thought someone on XMCA might want to submit > > >>a commentary. > > >>David > > >> > > >> > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com > > >> On Behalf Of > > >>Behavioral and Brain Sciences > > >>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:46 AM > > >>To: David H Kirshner > > >>Subject: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. > > >> > > >>Dear Dr. Kirshner: > > >> > > >>We are writing you to announce that BBS has just accepted an article > > >>for open peer commentary in BBS. The article was already reviewed, and > > >>we are now accepting commentary proposals. If you are interested in > > >>writing a commentary, you are welcome to submit a short proposal (see > > >>instructions below). No action is required if you aren't interested. > > >> > > >>Please DO NOT submit a full commentary article unless you are formally > > >>invited---AFTER you submit a commentary *proposal*. We will review all > > >>commentary proposals and issue invitations in August. Also, please be > > >>aware that we typically receive far more commentary proposals than we > > >>can accommodate with formal invitations. When choosing invitations, we > > >>balance over multiple factors, including the interest of the > > >>commentary itself, the commentator's expertise, whether the > > >>commentator's work has been discussed in the target article, and other > considerations. > > >> > > >>NOW PROCESSING COMMENTARY PROPOSALS ON: > > >> > > >>Target Article: Thinking Through Other Minds: A Variational Approach > > >>to Cognition and Culture > > >> > > >>Authors: Samuel P. L. Veissi?re, Axel Constant, Maxwell J. D. > > >>Ramstead, Karl J. Friston, and Laurence J. Kirmayer > > >> > > >>Deadline for Commentary Proposals: Tuesday July 9, 2019 > > >> > > >>Abstract: The processes underwriting the acquisition of culture remain > > >>unclear. How are shared habits, norms, and expectations learned and > > >>maintained with precision and reliability across large-scale > > >>sociocultural ensembles? Is there a unifying account of the mechanisms > > >>involved in the acquisition of culture? Notions such as 'shared > > >>expectations', the 'selective patterning of attention and behaviour', > > >>'cultural evolution', 'cultural inheritance', and 'implicit learning' > > >>are the main candidates to underpin a unifying account of cognition > > >>and the acquisition of culture; however, their interactions require > > >>greater specification and clarification. In this paper, we integrate > > >>these candidates using the variational (free energy) approach to human > > >>cognition and culture in theoretical neuroscience. We describe the > > >>construction by humans of social niches that afford epistemic > > >>resources called cultural affordances. We argue that human agents > > >>learn the shared habits, norms, and expectations of their culture > > >>through immersive participation in patterned cultural practices that > > >>selectively pattern attention and behaviour. We call this process > > >>"Thinking through Other Minds" (TTOM) - in effect, the process of > inferring other agents' > > >>expectations about the world and how to behave in social context. We > > >>argue that for humans, information from and about other people's > > >>expectations constitutes the primary domain of statistical > > >>regularities that humans leverage to predict and organize behaviour. > > >>The integrative model we offer has implications that can advance > > >>theories of cognition, enculturation, adaptation, and psychopathology. > > >>Crucially, this formal > > >>(variational) treatment seeks to resolve key debates in current > > >>cognitive science, such as the distinction between internalist and > > >>externalist accounts of Theory of Mind abilities and the more > > >>fundamental distinction between dynamical and representational accounts > of enactivism. > > >> > > >> > > >>Keywords: Cognition and culture; Variational free energy principle; > > >>Social learning; Epistemic Affordances; Cultural affordances; Niche > > >>construction; Embodiment; Enactment > > >> > > >> > > >>Download Target Article Preprint: > > >> > > >>(Depending on your browser, the PDF will either load in a separate > > >>window, from which you can download the PDF, or will download directly > > >>to your computer.) > > >> > > >>https://www.cam > > > >>b > > >>ridge.org%2Fcore%2Fservices%2Faop-cambridge-core%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F9A > > >>103 > > >>9 > > >>9BA85F428D5943DD847092C14A%2FS0140525X19001213a.pdf%2Fthinking_through > > >>_ot > > >>h > > >>er_minds_a_variational_approach_to_cognition_and_culture.pdf&data= > > >>02% > > >>7 > > >>C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50 > > >>ae4 > > >>7 > > >>d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995231679&sdata=WSKHJ3Jeqft8 > > >>ZFC > > >>C > > >>ROdHFfWbjlOHw9Sb71L3KhWsdZI%3D&reserved=0 > > >> > > >> > > >>COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING > > >> > > >>1. Name of the target article for which you are submitting a > > >>commentary proposal. > > >> > > >>2. All authors, including any possible co-authors, listed at the top > > >>of your submission document. > > >> > > >>3. What aspect of the target article or book you would anticipate > > >>commenting on. > > >> > > >>4. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the target > > >>article or book. > > >> > > >>Please number these sections in your proposal: 1., 2., 3., 4. > > >> > > >>EDITORS' NOTES ON WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL > > >> > > >>In addition to the open "Call for Commentary Proposals," we invite > > >>commentators who do not submit proposals?these include reviewers of > > >>the paper, scholars whose work is discussed in the paper, and > > >>commentators suggested by the authors. (Obviously, these can be > > >>overlapping sets.) Once we subtract this set, only about 20 submitted > > >>proposals from the Call for Commentary Proposals can be invited to write > a commentary. > > >> > > >>Commentary selection is necessarily multifactorial. It must be > > >>balanced to a degree across the various fields of cognitive science, > > >>point of view of the article, and several other aspects of academic > > >>diversity. The number of proposals can vary widely, however, depending > > >>on the topic, the range is from 15 to 150! In the latter case, when we > > >>can accept only a little over 1 in 10 of the proposals, a few things > > >>will facilitate a positive reading of a proposal, and hopefully > > >>acceptance, given the > > >>constraints: > > >> > > >>1. The proposal for the commentary should not be longer than the > > >>commentary, 1,000 words. 100-500 is optimal, and we value succinctness. > > >>On the other hand, "I intend to comment on X aspect of the target > > >>article" is not enough. Are you for it, against it, or extending it? > > >> > > >>2. Under no circumstances should proposers simply write a commentary > > >>and submit it to us. > > >> > > >>3. Proposers should clearly state what aspect of the target article > > >>they intend to comment on. It's quite obvious when proposers are > > >>using the commentary forum only to promote their own research and not > > >>engage with the target article. Such proposals are routinely declined. > > >> > > >>4. Concerning "the relevant expertise you would bring to bear": While > > >>the editors have a generally good idea of who is active in the fields > > >>of the target article, we must cover a wide range and may be unaware > > >>of the people who have been most productive and influential in a given > > >>area, or the scholars who have engaged in heated debate with the > > >>authors in the past. So, the editors will be greatly helped if every > > >>proposer states their position in the field and lists between 2-10 > > >>relevant publications, again succinctly. On the other side of the > > >>spectrum, under no circumstances should an entire CV be included. > > >> > > >>5. BUT ? it's not all about articles previously published, or position > > >>in the field. It's not necessary to have published in the area, and > > >>it's not necessary to have a current academic appointment. We make > > >>efforts to include proposals coming both from established figures and > > >>total newcomers. An engaging idea elicited by the article, an > > >>illuminating application of the target article concept to an allied > > >>field, or a truly clever riposte is often all that's needed. > > >> > > >>6. Being a co-author on multiple proposals directed to one target > > >>article will almost certainly remove one set of your co-authors or the > > >>other from contention altogether, which will put you in an unpleasant > > >>game theoretic situation with your colleagues. Do this carefully, if at > all. > > >> > > >>7. We make our choices mostly on quality and fit, but we do want to > > >>open up BBS to as many individuals as possible. If you've written one > > >>or more other commentaries recently, your odds of having another one > > >>accepted will correspondingly go down, though not to zero. > > >> > > >>HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL VIA THE ONLINE SUBMISSION SYSTEM > > >> > > >>If you would like to nominate yourself for potential commentary > > >>invitation, you must submit a commentary proposal via our BBS > > >>Editorial Manager site: > > >> > > >>1. Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an author: > > >> > > >>http://www.edit > > > >>o > > >>rialmanager.com%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b > > >>104 > > >>c > > >>1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964 > > >>370 > > >>9 > > >>95241675&sdata=Me%2BTvDa2hmuk1zs6kUOoZJ97ZL4AoHx6ZfevwWTP34Q%3D&am > > >>p;r > > >>e > > >>served=0 > > >> > > >>Username: DKirshner-489 > > >>Password: You will also need to enter your password. If you have > > >>forgotten it, you may click Send Login Details. > > >> > > >>If you do not have an account, please visit the site and register. > > >> > > >>2. Submit New Manuscript > > >> > > >>Within your author main menu please select Submit New Manuscript. > > >> > > >>3. Select Article Type > > >> > > >>Choose the article type of your manuscript from the pull-down menu. > > >>Commentary proposal article types are temporarily created for each > > >>accepted target article or book. Only select the commentary proposal > > >>article type that you wish to submit a proposal on. For example: > > >>"Commentary Proposal (Veissi?re)" > > >> > > >>4. Enter Title > > >> > > >>Please title your proposal submission by indicating the relevant first > > >>author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary > > >>Proposal on Veissi?re" > > >> > > >>5. Add Co-Authors > > >> > > >>If you are proposing to write a commentary with any co-authors, the > > >>system will not allow you to enter their information here. Instead, > > >>include their names at the top of the commentary proposal document you > > >>upload. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the > > >>commentary proposal itself. > > >> > > >>6. Attach Files > > >> > > >>The only required submission Item is your commentary proposal in > > >>.DOC(X) or .RTF format. In the description field please add the first > > >>author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary > > >>Proposal on Veissi?re" > > >> > > >>7. Approve Your Submission > > >> > > >>Editorial Manager will process your commentary proposal submission and > > >>will create a PDF for your approval. On the "Submissions Waiting for > > >>Author's Approval" page, you can view your PDF, edit, approve, or > > >>remove the submission. (You might have to wait several minutes for the > > >>blue "Action" menu to appear, allowing you to approve.) Once you have > > >>Approved the Submission, the PDF will be sent to the editorial office. > > >> > > >>**It is VERY important that you check and approve your commentary > > >>proposal manuscript as described above. Otherwise, we cannot process > > >>your > > >>submission.** > > >> > > >>8. Editorial Office Decision > > >> > > >>At the conclusion of the commentary proposal period, the editors will > > >>review all the submitted commentary proposals. An undetermined number > > >>of commentary proposals will be approved and those author names will > > >>be added to the final commentary invitation list. At that time you > > >>will be notified of the decision. If you are formally invited to > > >>submit a commentary, you will be asked to confirm your intention to > > >>submit by the commentary deadline. > > >> > > >>Note: Before the commentary invitations are sent, the copy-edited and > > >>revised target article will be posted for invitees. > > >> > > >>Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an official > > >>invitation! > > >> > > >>BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST > > >> > > >>If you DO NOT wish to receive call for commentary proposals in the > > >>future, please reply to bbsjournal@cambridge.org, and type "remove" in > > >>the subject line. > > >> > > >>SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES > > >> > > >>To suggest others as possible commentators, or to nominate others for > > >>BBS Associateship status, please email bbsjournal@cambridge.org. > > >> > > >> > > >>Regards, > > >> > > >>Gennifer Levey > > >>Managing Editor, BBS > > >>Cambridge University Press > > >>bbsjournal@cambridge.org > > >>http://journals > > >>. > > >>cambridge.org%2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b10 > > >>4c1 > > >>c > > >>ea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C63696437 > > >>099 > > >>5 > > >>241675&sdata=Kuhexo7D3NNwBEWnA6b%2Bl%2BNRak4NiNZvcJVslKbNRsQ%3D&am > > >>p;r > > >>e > > >>served=0 > > >>http://bbs.edmg > > > >>r > > >>.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6 > > >>f3b > > >>8 > > >>7aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&a > > >>mp; > > >>s > > >>data=M7ajsvG4zNo5%2FQ%2BmTH3x6MM%2FItcA%2FQa6jYt8cfzIBlQ%3D&reserv > > >>ed= > > >>0 > > >> > > >>__________________________________________________ > > >>In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that > > >>we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Use the > > >>following URL: > > >>https://www.edi > > > >>t > > >>orialmanager.com%2FBBS%2Flogin.asp%3Fa%3Dr&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%4 > > >>0ls > > >>u > > >>.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f4 > > >>66f > > >>8 > > >>%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=r%2Fxx85sR5XRuoNOT2Y4835WgFULa > > >>maL > > >>G > > >>c40foi86umQ%3D&reserved=0). Please contact the publication office > > >>if you have any questions. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190625/04bcf2ed/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 13:49:39 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:49:39 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Much belated regards for Larry Purss Message-ID: Whilst reading into Merleau-Ponty, I thought I'd browse for comments from Larry Purss, as M-P seemed to be a favourite of his. What I gather from a few internet pages is that he passed away two years ago (explaining his silence). I would like to think that the insights he gleaned / enjoyed form M-P and others helped to anchor his attention on relatedness. He was obviously a much-loved, caring father. Huw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190625/cc8025b6/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 14:07:53 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 22:07:53 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Much belated regards for Larry Purss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm so saddened to hear of this. I remember having separate discussion with Larry on semiotics and the commercialisation of higher education in England... James Huw Lloyd ? 2019?6?25??? 21:51??? > Whilst reading into Merleau-Ponty, I thought I'd browse for comments from > Larry Purss, as M-P seemed to be a favourite of his. What I gather from a > few internet pages is that he passed away two years ago (explaining his > silence). > > I would like to think that the insights he gleaned / enjoyed form M-P and > others helped to anchor his attention on relatedness. He was obviously a > much-loved, caring father. > > Huw > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190625/1f4d12aa/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 14:25:27 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 06:25:27 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Much belated regards for Larry Purss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Larry started me on M-P's aesthetic writings. I never really understood the love of Cezanne, or what Cezanne had to do with phenomenological astonishment. When I read M-P's lectures on child psychology I found them rather naive and crude (particularly in his anthropology); it was almost as if M-P was practicing phenomenological astonishment with Freud. I finally gave up on M-P after "Humanism and Terror". But I much appreciated Larry's erudition, his gentle patience, and his own unflagging devotion to M-P. I will miss them, as I have missed his contributions to the list these two years. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 6:10 AM James Ma wrote: > I'm so saddened to hear of this. I remember having separate discussion > with Larry on semiotics and the commercialisation of higher education in > England... > > James > > Huw Lloyd ? 2019?6?25??? 21:51??? > >> Whilst reading into Merleau-Ponty, I thought I'd browse for comments from >> Larry Purss, as M-P seemed to be a favourite of his. What I gather from a >> few internet pages is that he passed away two years ago (explaining his >> silence). >> >> I would like to think that the insights he gleaned / enjoyed form M-P and >> others helped to anchor his attention on relatedness. He was obviously a >> much-loved, caring father. >> >> Huw >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190626/7ac7640b/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Tue Jun 25 14:37:35 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:37:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Much belated regards for Larry Purss In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1561498655580.54981@ils.uio.no> Hi Huw, thanks for sharing this. Two years ago, I noticed he stopped writing. I thought it was very strange; we had even been talking about meeting for a coffee in Vancouver some time, since I was in Canada at that time. He was a curious soul, fascinated with ideas from phenomenology, and once shared with me that being able to contribute in xmca and engaging with others in substantial conversations was a real joy for him, his way of being relevant to those ideas he cherished. After his silence, I did some searches online to see if I could reach him and even called once to a phone number I found. As I shared with Mike at that time, I was afraid something had happened. To be honest, I stopped looking for him too early, I would have found out if I had kept on searching. But now you did, Huw. Thanks for sharing. I miss him. Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of James Ma Sent: 25 June 2019 23:07 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Much belated regards for Larry Purss I'm so saddened to hear of this. I remember having separate discussion with Larry on semiotics and the commercialisation of higher education in England... James Huw Lloyd > ? 2019?6?25??? 21:51??: Whilst reading into Merleau-Ponty, I thought I'd browse for comments from Larry Purss, as M-P seemed to be a favourite of his. What I gather from a few internet pages is that he passed away two years ago (explaining his silence). I would like to think that the insights he gleaned / enjoyed form M-P and others helped to anchor his attention on relatedness. He was obviously a much-loved, caring father. Huw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190625/4589cb6b/attachment.html From dkirsh@lsu.edu Tue Jun 25 14:45:24 2019 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:45:24 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Much belated regards for Larry Purss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Huw, If you can share pages you found about him, or an obituary, that would be appreciated. I?m not finding anything. I always appreciated his presence XMCA. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:50 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Much belated regards for Larry Purss Whilst reading into Merleau-Ponty, I thought I'd browse for comments from Larry Purss, as M-P seemed to be a favourite of his. What I gather from a few internet pages is that he passed away two years ago (explaining his silence). I would like to think that the insights he gleaned / enjoyed form M-P and others helped to anchor his attention on relatedness. He was obviously a much-loved, caring father. Huw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190625/ac0ba6d9/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 15:00:57 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 23:00:57 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Much belated regards for Larry Purss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://obittree.com/obituary/ca/british-columbia/vancouver/kearney-funeral-services/larry-purss/3262310/ On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 22:47, David H Kirshner wrote: > Huw, > > If you can share pages you found about him, or an obituary, that would be > appreciated. > > I?m not finding anything. > > I always appreciated his presence XMCA. > > David > > > > > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu *On > Behalf Of *Huw Lloyd > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:50 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Much belated regards for Larry Purss > > > > Whilst reading into Merleau-Ponty, I thought I'd browse for comments from > Larry Purss, as M-P seemed to be a favourite of his. What I gather from a > few internet pages is that he passed away two years ago (explaining his > silence). > > > > I would like to think that the insights he gleaned / enjoyed form M-P and > others helped to anchor his attention on relatedness. He was obviously a > much-loved, caring father. > > > > Huw > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190625/f16b64b5/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jun 25 15:36:04 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:36:04 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Much belated regards for Larry Purss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Huw Larry was always thoughtful and constructive. ... we were lucky to be in his company Mike On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 3:02 PM Huw Lloyd wrote: > > https://obittree.com/obituary/ca/british-columbia/vancouver/kearney-funeral-services/larry-purss/3262310/ > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 22:47, David H Kirshner wrote: > >> Huw, >> >> If you can share pages you found about him, or an obituary, that would be >> appreciated. >> >> I?m not finding anything. >> >> I always appreciated his presence XMCA. >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> *On Behalf Of *Huw Lloyd >> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:50 PM >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Much belated regards for Larry Purss >> >> >> >> Whilst reading into Merleau-Ponty, I thought I'd browse for comments from >> Larry Purss, as M-P seemed to be a favourite of his. What I gather from a >> few internet pages is that he passed away two years ago (explaining his >> silence). >> >> >> >> I would like to think that the insights he gleaned / enjoyed form M-P and >> others helped to anchor his attention on relatedness. He was obviously a >> much-loved, caring father. >> >> >> >> Huw >> > -- The struggle of (hu)mans against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting. ? Milan Kundera (slightly edited) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190625/d614cb90/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Jun 25 16:29:43 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:29:43 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_BBS_Call_for_Commentary_Proposals=3A_Veissi?= =?utf-8?b?w6hyZSBldCBhbC4=?= In-Reply-To: References: <1561035318485.33706@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: I think there is no point in trying to respond with a "standard CHAT." The point is to make one criticism which cuts through.I see no reason why 2 or 3 submissions from people on this list could not be made. andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 26/06/2019 6:29 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > David, > > One of your difficulties, perhaps, is going to be > presenting an agreed upon or standard CHAT.? E.g. I doubt > it is commonly recognised that the crises implicate > different ontological bases to "shared" experience, i.e. > that so called shared experience may actually be > profoundly different, despite an illusion of identity, > even assuming an approximately agreed upon intention. If > you assert principles of AT or LSV, then you are on > clearer ground. Then there is the role of agency in > transformations of understanding, which again proponents > of "dialogically shared experience" have shied away from, > labelling it "rational" etc. > > From the language used for TTOM, there doesn't appear to > be a categorical difference with respect to "crises vs > incremental change". In the language used, it seems > probable that a "step function" is implicated in > behavioural change. > > I think one can quite adequately express that there are > many ways of learning about the world and making > inferences about it. Bayesian models might model well > certain kinds of inferences, but it seem unlikely to be > universal. This issue pertains to whether claims are being > made about he structure of knowing or whether one is > simply making claims about the general shape of the outcomes. > > Probably more can be achieved by addressing the > assumptions about attention and intention. There is no > hand waving hear in AT or LSV, but rather treating these > as fundamental mediatory principles which help to > structure the forms of inference through signs. > > No doubt a thorough analysis would be a clarifying > exercise, and probably help reveal the pedigree of AT/LSV. > > Best, > Huw > > On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 19:36, David H Kirshner > > wrote: > > The forthcoming BBS article presents a theory of > acquisition of culture based around our capacity for > ?Thinking through Other Minds? (TTOM). > > This is not a simplistic Theory of Mind (TOM) > perspective that attributes strong inferential prowess > to the individual agent to figure out the > propositional contents of another?s mind. Rather we > come to perceive things through the same lens as other > members of our culture: ?The main role of others in > this kind of social learning is to direct attention > rather than to convey specific semantic content > (Tomasello 2014). In effect, social learning involves > immersion in local contexts through what we call > regimes of attention and imitation that direct human > agents to engage differentially in forms of shared > intentionality. We have argued that such /regimes of > attention/ play a central role in the enculturation of > human agents (Ramstead, Veissi?re, and Kirmayer 2016). > Indeed, human beings seem particularly specialized for > such forms of social learning (Sterelny 2012)? (p. 23). > > The theory is based on the Variational Free-Energy > Principle (FEP) which I take to be at odds with > sociocultural perspectives because its processes are > incremental, hence without the possibility of crises > that mark Vygotsky?s viewpoint: > > The generative model functions as a point of reference > in a cyclical (action-perception) process that allows > the organism to engage in active inference. Internal > states of the agent (e.g., the states of its brain) > encode a /recognition/ density; that is, a probability > distribution or Bayesian belief about the current > state of affairs and contingencies causing sensory > input. This (posterior) belief is encoded by neuronal > activity, synaptic efficacy, and connection strength > (Friston 2010). The mathematical formulation behind > the FEP claims that all of these internal brain states > change in a way to minimise variational free energy. > By construction, the variational free energy is always > greater than a quantity known as /surprisal, > self-information/ or, more simply, /surprise/ in > information theory. This means that minimising free > energy minimises /surprise/, which can be quantified > as the negative logarithm of the probability that ?a > creature like me? would sample ?these sensations?. > (pp. 30-31). > > This notion of ?a creature like me? plays into the > theory in a central way. Interestingly, though, the > bias toward our own kind is not a primitive construct > in this system?we?re born with an emotional bond to > our kind as a reflection of our dependence. Rather, > it?s a result of how immersion in our home culture > plays out in the statistical regularities we > encounter: ?The reliance on social and cultural > affordances co-constructed with and maintained by > other people makes it important for us to distinguish > between those who think like us and those whose > thinking is either systematically different from our > own or else unfamiliar and, hence, unpredictable ? and > inherently surprising. This distinction marks off > domains of in-group and out-group, with corresponding > epistemic authority. Regimes of attention then make > the right kinds of social solicitations stand out in > context, thereby allowing the learning of socially > relevant affordances in a given cultural niche, > community or local world. ? (p. 24). > > The theory accounts for extension of culture, not just > reproduction. This extensive quality insinuates itself > into the theory through an imperative for novelty that > balances the conservative minimizing of ?surprise? > references above: ?The FEP deals with the issue of > novelty seeking behaviour by formalising action as > being in the game of maximising the /epistemic value > of action/ (or epistemic affordance). In essence, free > energy minimizing agents seek to sample the world in > the most efficient way possible. Since the information > gain (i.e., salience) is the amount of uncertainty > resolved, it makes good sense for the agent to > selectively sample regions of environment with high > uncertainty, which will yield the most informative > observations? (p. 39). > > A strength of this theory is that it uses one set of > constructs to account for ontogenesis as well as for > broader time scales of cultural change: ?The > exploitation of regimes of attention ? encoded in the > niche ? is especially useful to track regularities > unfolding over longer time scales of the history of a > community, whose variability would be harder to assess > over the timescale of an individual?s perceptual and > procedural learning? (p. 42). This can include even > ?the temporal scale of human cultural co-evolution. > The 7R variant of the DRD4 gene (which encodes the D4 > subtype of the dopamine receptor) appears to have > become more widespread 50,000 years ago at a time of > great migrations and a revolution in hunting > technology among early Homo Sapiens? (p. 40). > > What?s more, the theory is specified to the level of > representation in computational theory, and a level > that is empirically testable: We have designed TTOM as > a guide for the production of /testable models/ in > related domains. While TTOM per se would be difficult > to test (due to its generality), one can derive > specific, integrative models from TTOM to study > specific forms of socio-cultural dynamics? (p. 60). > > A crucial difference between TTOM and sociocultural > theory is that while TTOM represents culture, it > doesn?t directly represent social engagement. Crisis > in Vygotsky?s work is enabled and resolved through > mutual appropriation as it plays out the level of > individual engagement in social processes. One might > object to TTOM (or any other computationally realized > theory?) on ethical grounds, as dehumanizing. But > beyond ideology it must be disturbing to XMCAers that > sociocultural theory perspectives are not figured into > an extensive theoretical treatment of acquisition of > culture. BBS?s system of published commentaries > provides for a possible corrective. > > David > > *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > *On Behalf > Of *David H Kirshner > *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2019 10:02 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] RE: Re: FW: BBS Call for > Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. > > I've now read the 17-page introduction which outlines > the theory, ?Thinking through Other Minds? (TTOM). > > They describe "/selective patterning of salience and > attention/ as the main process behind enculturation, > which in turn enables the engagement of human agents > with the sets of possible actions (or cultural > affordances) that make up their local world" (p. 15). > > This places their work in a line of research based on > cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience > (though it is worth pointing out that the authors are > not pursuing a cognitivist explanation based on the > Theory Theory position that we build up explicit > hypotheses about the declarative content of other's > minds). > > Their approach seems to stress the ways in which new > members of cultural community come to coordinate their > perceptual apparatus with normative patterns of the > community--a kind of seamless absorption of neophytes. > > This would seem to be in direct contrast to the focus > of sociocultural theory on periods of crisis that > overcome disjunctions between the basic focus and > orientation of the neophyte to the broader culture. > > But I've read far enough to know whether their theory > accounts for higher mental functions, so it is not > clear the extent to which sociocultural theory may > still prove complementary to the approach outlined in > the article. > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > On Behalf Of > PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:09 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary > Proposals: Veissi?re et al. > > Thanks, Alfredo. > > I remain at the disposal of who would like to work on it. > > Anne-Nelly > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : > on behalf of > Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : jeudi, 20 > juin 2019 ? 14:55 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: > FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. > > >Certainly, Anne-Nelly, the work you just shared would be > relevant for > > >that commentary, Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > >________________________________________ > > >From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > >on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > > > > > > >Sent: 20 June 2019 11:53 > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: > Veissi?re > > >et al. > > > > > >It would be great to have someone from XMCA who would > comment and > > >enrich this debate (on these days I am not available to do it). > > >The underlying model in this upcoming article seems to > rely mostly on > > >conformity, monological approaches, etc. In the paper (attached > here) > > >we offer a completely different approach, much more > inspired by > > >dialogism, cultural historical theory, and a serious account of the > > >activity that the child indulges in when answering. > > >Hoping to read you on these issues. > > > > > >Anne-Nelly > > > > > >Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont > > >Institut de psychologie et ?ducation > > >Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel > > >Espace Tilo-Frey 1?? CH 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) > > >https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un > > > >ine.ch > %2Fipe%2Fpublications%2Fanne_nelly_perret_clermont&data=02%7C > > >01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu > %7C0ea4e20deb904bde665e08d6f580c318%7C2d4dad3f50ae > > >47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636966330710069506&sdata=czF8vgXexZh > > >bw0fpJ0A2ZRA%2FpVO5vYyZQXR1AiqeefY%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Message d'origine----- > > >De : > on behalf of > David H Kirshner > > >> R?pondre ? : > "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > > Date : jeudi, 20 > juin 2019 ? 11:35 ? : > > >"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Objet : > > >[Xmca-l] FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. > > > > > >>I'm reading through this upcoming article in BBS which > takes as its > > >>primary problem, acquisition of culture. > > >>BBS solicits commentaries on each article, and these are > reviewed and > > >>then published along with it. > > >>As there is not a single reference to Vygotsky or > cultural historical > > >>theory in the article, I thought someone on XMCA might want > to submit > > >>a commentary. > > >>David > > >> > > >> > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com > > > >> > > On Behalf Of > > >>Behavioral and Brain Sciences > > >>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:46 AM > > >>To: David H Kirshner > > > >>Subject: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissi?re et al. > > >> > > >>Dear Dr. Kirshner: > > >> > > >>We are writing you to announce that BBS has just > accepted an article > > >>for open peer commentary in BBS. The article was already > reviewed, and > > >>we are now accepting commentary proposals. If you are > interested in > > >>writing a commentary, you are welcome to submit a short > proposal (see > > >>instructions below). No action is required if you aren't interested. > > >> > > >>Please DO NOT submit a full commentary article unless you > are formally > > >>invited---AFTER you submit a commentary *proposal*. We will review all > > >>commentary proposals and issue invitations in August. Also, > please be > > >>aware that we typically receive far more commentary > proposals than we > > >>can accommodate with formal invitations. When choosing > invitations, we > > >>balance over multiple factors, including the interest of the > > >>commentary itself, the commentator's expertise, whether the > > >>commentator's work has been discussed in the target article, and > other considerations. > > >> > > >>NOW PROCESSING COMMENTARY PROPOSALS ON: > > >> > > >>Target Article: Thinking Through Other Minds: A Variational > Approach > > >>to Cognition and Culture > > >> > > >>Authors: Samuel P. L. Veissi?re, Axel Constant, Maxwell J. D. > > >>Ramstead, Karl J. Friston, and Laurence J. Kirmayer > > >> > > >>Deadline for Commentary Proposals: Tuesday July 9, 2019 > > >> > > >>Abstract: The processes underwriting the acquisition of culture > remain > > >>unclear. How are shared habits, norms, and expectations > learned and > > >>maintained with precision and reliability across large-scale > > >>sociocultural ensembles? Is there a unifying account of the mechanisms > > >>involved in the acquisition of culture? Notions such as 'shared > > >>expectations', the 'selective patterning of attention and behaviour', > > >>'cultural evolution', 'cultural inheritance', and 'implicit > learning' > > >>are the main candidates to underpin a unifying account of > cognition > > >>and the acquisition of culture; however, their > interactions require > > >>greater specification and clarification. In this paper, we > integrate > > >>these candidates using the variational (free energy) > approach to human > > >>cognition and culture in theoretical neuroscience. We describe the > > >>construction by humans of social niches that afford epistemic > > >>resources called cultural affordances. We argue that human agents > > >>learn the shared habits, norms, and expectations of their > culture > > >>through immersive participation in patterned cultural > practices that > > >>selectively pattern attention and behaviour. We call this process > > >>"Thinking through Other Minds" (TTOM) - in effect, the process > of inferring other agents' > > >>expectations about the world and how to behave in social context. We > > >>argue that for humans, information from and about other > people's > > >>expectations constitutes the primary domain of statistical > > >>regularities that humans leverage to predict and organize behaviour. > > >>The integrative model we offer has implications that can > advance > > >>theories of cognition, enculturation, adaptation, and > psychopathology. > > >>Crucially, this formal > > >>(variational) treatment seeks to resolve key debates in current > > >>cognitive science, such as the distinction between internalist and > > >>externalist accounts of Theory of Mind abilities and the more > > >>fundamental distinction between dynamical and representational > accounts of enactivism. > > >> > > >> > > >>Keywords: Cognition and culture; Variational free energy > principle; > > >>Social learning; Epistemic Affordances; Cultural > affordances; Niche > > >>construction; Embodiment; Enactment > > >> > > >> > > >>Download Target Article Preprint: > > >> > > >>(Depending on your browser, the PDF will either load in a separate > > >>window, from which you can download the PDF, or will download > directly > > >>to your computer.) > > >> > > >>https://www.cam > > > >>b > > >>ridge.org > %2Fcore%2Fservices%2Faop-cambridge-core%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F9A > > >>103 > > >>9 > > >>9BA85F428D5943DD847092C14A%2FS0140525X19001213a.pdf%2Fthinking_through > > >>_ot > > >>h > > >>er_minds_a_variational_approach_to_cognition_and_culture.pdf&data= > > >>02% > > >>7 > > >>C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu > %7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50 > > >>ae4 > > >>7 > > >>d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995231679&sdata=WSKHJ3Jeqft8 > > >>ZFC > > >>C > > >>ROdHFfWbjlOHw9Sb71L3KhWsdZI%3D&reserved=0 > > >> > > >> > > >>COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING > > >> > > >>1. Name of the target article for which you are > submitting a > > >>commentary proposal. > > >> > > >>2. All authors, including any possible co-authors, > listed at the top > > >>of your submission document. > > >> > > >>3. What aspect of the target article or book you would > anticipate > > >>commenting on. > > >> > > >>4. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the > target > > >>article or book. > > >> > > >>Please number these sections in your proposal: 1., 2., 3., 4. > > >> > > >>EDITORS' NOTES ON WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL > > >> > > >>In addition to the open "Call for Commentary Proposals," > we invite > > >>commentators who do not submit proposals?these include reviewers of > > >>the paper, scholars whose work is discussed in the paper, > and > > >>commentators suggested by the authors. (Obviously, these can be > > >>overlapping sets.) Once we subtract this set, only about 20 > submitted > > >>proposals from the Call for Commentary Proposals can be invited > to write a commentary. > > >> > > >>Commentary selection is necessarily multifactorial. It must be > > >>balanced to a degree across the various fields of cognitive > science, > > >>point of view of the article, and several other aspects of > academic > > >>diversity. The number of proposals can vary widely, however, > depending > > >>on the topic, the range is from 15 to 150! In the latter > case, when we > > >>can accept only a little over 1 in 10 of the proposals, a > few things > > >>will facilitate a positive reading of a proposal, and > hopefully > > >>acceptance, given the > > >>constraints: > > >> > > >>1. The proposal for the commentary should not be longer > than the > > >>commentary, 1,000 words. 100-500 is optimal, and we value > succinctness. > > >>On the other hand, "I intend to comment on X aspect of > the target > > >>article" is not enough.? Are you for it, against it, or > extending it? > > >> > > >>2. Under no circumstances should proposers simply write > a commentary > > >>and submit it to us. > > >> > > >>3. Proposers should clearly state what aspect of the > target article > > >>they intend to comment on.? It's quite obvious when > proposers are > > >>using the commentary forum only to promote their own > research and not > > >>engage with the target article. Such proposals are routinely > declined. > > >> > > >>4. Concerning "the relevant expertise you would bring to > bear": While > > >>the editors have a generally good idea of who is active > in the fields > > >>of the target article, we must cover a wide range and > may be unaware > > >>of the people who have been most productive and > influential in a given > > >>area, or the scholars who have engaged in heated debate > with the > > >>authors in the past. So, the editors will be greatly helped > if every > > >>proposer states their position in the field and lists between > 2-10 > > >>relevant publications, again succinctly. On the other side of the > > >>spectrum, under no circumstances should an entire CV be included. > > >> > > >>5. BUT ? it's not all about articles previously > published, or position > > >>in the field. It's not necessary to have published in > the area, and > > >>it's not necessary to have a current academic > appointment.? We make > > >>efforts to include proposals coming both from established > figures and > > >>total newcomers. An engaging idea elicited by the article, an > > >>illuminating application of the target article concept to an allied > > >>field, or a truly clever riposte is often all that's needed. > > >> > > >>6. Being a co-author on multiple proposals directed to > one target > > >>article will almost certainly remove one set of your > co-authors or the > > >>other from contention altogether, which will put you in an > unpleasant > > >>game theoretic situation with your colleagues. Do this > carefully, if at all. > > >> > > >>7. We make our choices mostly on quality and fit, but we > do want to > > >>open up BBS to as many individuals as possible. If you've > written one > > >>or more other commentaries recently, your odds of having > another one > > >>accepted will correspondingly go down, though not to zero. > > >> > > >>HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL VIA THE ONLINE > SUBMISSION SYSTEM > > >> > > >>If you would like to nominate yourself for potential > commentary > > >>invitation, you must submit a commentary proposal via our BBS > > >>Editorial Manager site: > > >> > > >>1. Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an > author: > > >> > > >>http://www.edit > > > >>o > > >>rialmanager.com > %2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu > %7Ce1f5a84b1b > > >>104 > > >>c > > >>1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964 > > >>370 > > >>9 > > >>95241675&sdata=Me%2BTvDa2hmuk1zs6kUOoZJ97ZL4AoHx6ZfevwWTP34Q%3D&am > > >>p;r > > >>e > > >>served=0 > > >> > > >>Username: DKirshner-489 > > >>Password: You will also need to enter your password. If you have > > >>forgotten it, you may click Send Login Details. > > >> > > >>If you do not have an account, please visit the site and > register. > > >> > > >>2. Submit New Manuscript > > >> > > >>Within your author main menu please select Submit New > Manuscript. > > >> > > >>3. Select Article Type > > >> > > >>Choose the article type of your manuscript from the > pull-down menu. > > >>Commentary proposal article types are temporarily created for each > > >>accepted target article or book. Only select the commentary > proposal > > >>article type that you wish to submit a proposal on. For example: > > >>"Commentary Proposal (Veissi?re)" > > >> > > >>4. Enter Title > > >> > > >>Please title your proposal submission by indicating the > relevant first > > >>author name of the target article or book. For example: > "Commentary > > >>Proposal on Veissi?re" > > >> > > >>5. Add Co-Authors > > >> > > >>If you are proposing to write a commentary with any > co-authors, the > > >>system will not allow you to enter their information here. > Instead, > > >>include their names at the top of the commentary proposal > document you > > >>upload. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the > > >>commentary proposal itself. > > >> > > >>6. Attach Files > > >> > > >>The only required submission Item is your commentary > proposal in > > >>.DOC(X) or .RTF format. In the description field please add > the first > > >>author name of the target article or book. For example: > "Commentary > > >>Proposal on Veissi?re" > > >> > > >>7. Approve Your Submission > > >> > > >>Editorial Manager will process your commentary proposal > submission and > > >>will create a PDF for your approval. On the "Submissions > Waiting for > > >>Author's Approval" page, you can view your PDF, edit, approve, or > > >>remove the submission. (You might have to wait several > minutes for the > > >>blue "Action" menu to appear, allowing you to approve.) > Once you have > > >>Approved the Submission, the PDF will be sent to the editorial > office. > > >> > > >>**It is VERY important that you check and approve your > commentary > > >>proposal manuscript as described above. Otherwise, we cannot > process > > >>your > > >>submission.** > > >> > > >>8. Editorial Office Decision > > >> > > >>At the conclusion of the commentary proposal period, the > editors will > > >>review all the submitted commentary proposals. An > undetermined number > > >>of commentary proposals will be approved and those > author names will > > >>be added to the final commentary invitation list. At > that time you > > >>will be notified of the decision. If you are formally > invited to > > >>submit a commentary, you will be asked to confirm your > intention to > > >>submit by the commentary deadline. > > >> > > >>Note: Before the commentary invitations are sent, the > copy-edited and > > >>revised target article will be posted for invitees. > > >> > > >>Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an > official > > >>invitation! > > >> > > >>BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST > > >> > > >>If you DO NOT wish to receive call for commentary > proposals in the > > >>future, please reply to bbsjournal@cambridge.org > , and type "remove" in > > >>the subject line. > > >> > > >>SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES > > >> > > >>To suggest others as possible commentators, or to > nominate others for > > >>BBS Associateship status, please email > bbsjournal@cambridge.org > . > > >> > > >> > > >>Regards, > > >> > > >>Gennifer Levey > > >>Managing Editor, BBS > > >>Cambridge University Press > > >>bbsjournal@cambridge.org > > >>http://journals > > >>. > > >>cambridge.org > %2Fbbs&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu > %7Ce1f5a84b1b10 > > >>4c1 > > >>c > > >>ea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C63696437 > > >>099 > > >>5 > > >>241675&sdata=Kuhexo7D3NNwBEWnA6b%2Bl%2BNRak4NiNZvcJVslKbNRsQ%3D&am > > >>p;r > > >>e > > >>served=0 > > >>http://bbs.edmg > > > >>r > > >>.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu %7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6 > > >>f3b > > >>8 > > >>7aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&a > > >>mp; > > >>s > > >>data=M7ajsvG4zNo5%2FQ%2BmTH3x6MM%2FItcA%2FQa6jYt8cfzIBlQ%3D&reserv > > >>ed= > > >>0 > > >> > > >>__________________________________________________ > > >>In compliance with data protection regulations, you may > request that > > >>we remove your personal registration details at any > time.? (Use the > > >>following URL: > > >>https://www.edi > > > >>t > > >>orialmanager.com > %2FBBS%2Flogin.asp%3Fa%3Dr&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%4 > > >>0ls > > >>u > > >>.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f4 > > >>66f > > >>8 > > >>%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&sdata=r%2Fxx85sR5XRuoNOT2Y4835WgFULa > > >>maL > > >>G > > >>c40foi86umQ%3D&reserved=0). Please contact the publication office > > >>if you have any questions. > > >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190626/810b9cdc/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Jun 25 16:38:38 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:38:38 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Much belated regards for Larry Purss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89e77494-8954-dc31-2094-8bffb8d137ed@marxists.org> Oh! What sad news. He was always such an endlessly curious and amenable discussant on this list. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 26/06/2019 6:49 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Whilst reading into Merleau-Ponty, I thought I'd browse > for comments from Larry Purss, as M-P seemed to be a > favourite of his. What I gather from a few internet pages > is that he passed away two years ago (explaining his > silence). > > I would like to think that the insights he gleaned / > enjoyed form M-P and others helped to anchor his attention > on relatedness. He was obviously a much-loved, caring father. > > Huw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190626/a29e7964/attachment.html From goncu@uic.edu Tue Jun 25 19:39:20 2019 From: goncu@uic.edu (Goncu, Artin) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:39:20 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Much belated regards for Larry Purss In-Reply-To: <89e77494-8954-dc31-2094-8bffb8d137ed@marxists.org> References: <89e77494-8954-dc31-2094-8bffb8d137ed@marxists.org> Message-ID: This saddens me.. He was a kind soul.. Artin Goncu, Ph.D Professor, Emeritus University of Illinois at Chicago www.artingoncu.com/ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 6:39 PM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Much belated regards for Larry Purss Oh! What sad news. He was always such an endlessly curious and amenable discussant on this list. Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 26/06/2019 6:49 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: Whilst reading into Merleau-Ponty, I thought I'd browse for comments from Larry Purss, as M-P seemed to be a favourite of his. What I gather from a few internet pages is that he passed away two years ago (explaining his silence). I would like to think that the insights he gleaned / enjoyed form M-P and others helped to anchor his attention on relatedness. He was obviously a much-loved, caring father. Huw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190626/e3abbf8b/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Jun 25 19:48:46 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 20:48:46 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Much belated regards for Larry Purss In-Reply-To: References: <89e77494-8954-dc31-2094-8bffb8d137ed@marxists.org> Message-ID: Just a note that it looks like you can post a tribute to Larry on the obit site. Here is the link again: https://obittree.com/obituary/ca/british-columbia/vancouver/kearney-funeral-services/larry-purss/3262310/ Click on the "Tributes" tab and you should be able to leave a tribute/condolence. I suspect his family would appreciate hearing of how he touched the lives of folks here in the ether of XMCA. -greg On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:41 PM Goncu, Artin wrote: > This saddens me.. He was a kind soul.. > > > > Artin Goncu, Ph.D > > Professor, Emeritus > > University of Illinois at Chicago > > www.artingoncu.com/ > > > > > > > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of *Andy Blunden > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2019 6:39 PM > *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Much belated regards for Larry Purss > > > > Oh! What sad news. He was always such an endlessly curious and amenable > discussant on this list. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 26/06/2019 6:49 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Whilst reading into Merleau-Ponty, I thought I'd browse for comments from > Larry Purss, as M-P seemed to be a favourite of his. What I gather from a > few internet pages is that he passed away two years ago (explaining his > silence). > > > > I would like to think that the insights he gleaned / enjoyed form M-P and > others helped to anchor his attention on relatedness. He was obviously a > much-loved, caring father. > > > > Huw > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190625/c40537b5/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Wed Jun 26 05:06:35 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:06:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?iso-8859-1?q?InMemoriam_Gonz=E1lez_Rey?= Message-ID: <1561550795041.53752@ils.uio.no> Dear all, I asked Daniel M. Goulart for permission to share his InMemoriam of Fernando Gonz?lez Rey. I thought people in the list might appreciate being able to read it and connect with Fernando through the lenses of someone who was a student, friend, and colleague of him. He's happy to share. In the same issue, we also publish an article by Fernando, which we had accepted just few days before Fernando passed away, and where he discusses Bozhovich's legacy. I am attaching the editorial, which offers an overview of the articles. If people in the list would like to discuss some of the issues in the articles, I could share copy for discussion if authors agree. Best, Alfredo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190626/52ef4dee/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Subjectivity and life in memory of Fernando Gonz lez Rey.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 742440 bytes Desc: Subjectivity and life in memory of Fernando Gonz lez Rey.pdf Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190626/52ef4dee/attachment-0002.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Scholarly work and as passion.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 635593 bytes Desc: Scholarly work and as passion.pdf Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190626/52ef4dee/attachment-0003.pdf From tuimviotto@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 05:16:57 2019 From: tuimviotto@gmail.com (Tuim Viotto) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:16:57 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?q?InMemoriam_Gonz=C3=A1lez_Rey?= In-Reply-To: <1561550795041.53752@ils.uio.no> References: <1561550795041.53752@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: HI ALFREDO MY NAME IS TUIM VIOTTO FROM S?O PAULO STATE UNIVERSITY -UNESP AND IAM MEMBER OF XMCA. I WAS STUDENT OF REY AT SOCIAL POS GRADUATION PROGRAM IN PUC/SP. THANK YOU FOR SHARING THE ARTICLE. ID LIKE TO KEEP IN TOUCH WITH YOU TO BRING YOU TO BRAZIL SOMETIME BECAUSE MY UNIVERSITY HAS FUNDS FOR VISITORS. PLEASE THINK ABOUT THAT! BEST TUIM Em Qua, 26 de jun de 2019 09:08, Alfredo Jornet Gil escreveu: > Dear all, > > > I asked Daniel M. Goulart for permission to share his InMemoriam of > Fernando Gonz?lez Rey. I thought people in the list might appreciate being > able to read it and connect with Fernando through the lenses of someone who > was a student, friend, and colleague of him. He's happy to share. > > > In the same issue, we also publish an article by Fernando, which we had > accepted just few days before Fernando passed away, and where he discusses > Bozhovich's legacy. I am attaching the editorial, which offers an overview > of the articles. If people in the list would like to discuss some of the > issues in the articles, I could share copy for discussion if authors agree. > > > Best, > > Alfredo > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190626/0fc6d2ce/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 09:23:03 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 10:23:03 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? Message-ID: Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? (this is for a student of mine) Thanks, Greg -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190626/652c9998/attachment.html From kplakits@gmail.com Wed Jun 26 11:00:02 2019 From: kplakits@gmail.com (Katerina Plakitsi) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:00:02 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?q?InMemoriam_Gonz=C3=A1lez_Rey?= In-Reply-To: References: <1561550795041.53752@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: I will fw to the ISCAR 2020 organizers in Brazil Katerina Plakitsi *ISCAR President* *Professor of Science Education* *Head of the Dept. of E**arly Childhood Education* *School of Education * *University of Ioannina, Greece* *tel. +302651005771* *fax. +302651005842* *mobile.phone +306972898463* *Skype name: katerina.plakitsi3* https://www.iscar.org/ http://users.uoi.gr/kplakits www.epoque-project.eu http://bdfprojects.wixsite.com/mindset http://www.lib.uoi.gr/serp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isZAbefnRmo&t=7s ???? ???, 26 ???? 2019 ???? 3:19 ?.?., ?/? Tuim Viotto ??????: > HI ALFREDO > MY NAME IS TUIM VIOTTO FROM S?O PAULO STATE UNIVERSITY -UNESP AND IAM > MEMBER OF XMCA. > I WAS STUDENT OF REY AT SOCIAL POS GRADUATION PROGRAM IN PUC/SP. > THANK YOU FOR SHARING THE ARTICLE. > ID LIKE TO KEEP IN TOUCH WITH YOU TO BRING YOU TO BRAZIL SOMETIME BECAUSE > MY UNIVERSITY HAS FUNDS FOR VISITORS. PLEASE THINK ABOUT THAT! > BEST > TUIM > > Em Qua, 26 de jun de 2019 09:08, Alfredo Jornet Gil > escreveu: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> I asked Daniel M. Goulart for permission to share his InMemoriam of >> Fernando Gonz?lez Rey. I thought people in the list might appreciate being >> able to read it and connect with Fernando through the lenses of someone who >> was a student, friend, and colleague of him. He's happy to share. >> >> >> In the same issue, we also publish an article by Fernando, which we had >> accepted just few days before Fernando passed away, and where he discusses >> Bozhovich's legacy. I am attaching the editorial, which offers an overview >> of the articles. If people in the list would like to discuss some of the >> issues in the articles, I could share copy for discussion if authors agree. >> >> >> Best, >> >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190626/94903959/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Wed Jun 26 17:37:08 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 00:37:08 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be very interested in reading her/his work. A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being described. (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. Best,? Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Greg Thompson Sent: 26 June 2019 18:23 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? (this is for a student of mine) Thanks, Greg -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190627/2f138d41/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Thu Jun 27 04:18:11 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:18:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> References: , <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and dehumanisation? Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: 27 June 2019 02:37 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be very interested in reading her/his work. A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being described. (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. Best,? Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Greg Thompson Sent: 26 June 2019 18:23 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? (this is for a student of mine) Thanks, Greg -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190627/c6437fd6/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 05:05:27 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:05:27 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: It's about a living community which is expressed through participation (in which learning is a by-product), in the same way that gifts can be tokens for the expression of love. So, in principle one can explore how conviviality (Illich's term denoting access to processes of production) is a necessary factor in nurturing a community. But contrary to LLP's focus there is also strife, striving, and suffering, in which will and consciousness are mustered against hazard, of which cognitive development can be seen to be an example. This is where the agency of the individual plays its part and is excluded from the LPP accounts, such as the the butcher's 'apprentices' who spend all their time on one repetitive task. In a life of striving one does not wait timidly for an opportunity to engage in a new skill. Hence one can also be 'gifted' with problem situations which allow one to realise agency. The two needn't be seen as disparate or polarities, of course. But without agency, situated practice can also be seen to be oppressive, like a communal song that entrains affect according to prescribed thoughts. Hence here we have a portrayal of the kind of understandings that a researcher has having influence upon what they discover -- wheels within wheels. Huw On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 12:20, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a > framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help > when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and > dehumanisation? > > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > *Sent:* 27 June 2019 02:37 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and > Legitimate Peripheral Participation? > > > I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically > connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be > very interested in reading her/his work. > > > A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who > visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I > was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being > described. > > > (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 > > > Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" > for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the > periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in > Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to > being a refugee or immigrant? > > > Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach > to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. > > > Best, > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Greg Thompson > *Sent:* 26 June 2019 18:23 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and > Legitimate Peripheral Participation? > > Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on > refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or > otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of > practice)? > > (this is for a student of mine) > > Thanks, > Greg > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190627/431d515e/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 06:13:02 2019 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 09:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <5A854C93-BC9D-46BF-801E-E4EE4937EFCB@gmail.com> Alfredo ? Try turning the question around: how does CHAT surface (make visible to the researcher) the activities that are taking place in a community of practice where people are fighting oppression and de-humanisation? What are these people doing to carry on the fight? CHAT?s power to reveal conflict and contradiction comes into play here. This is an issue that kept rising and then sinking during the consensus points discussion for Re-Gen. helenaworthen@gmail.com helena.worthen1 > On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and dehumanisation? > > Alfredo > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: 27 June 2019 02:37 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? > > I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be very interested in reading her/his work. > > A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being described. > > (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 > > Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? > > Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. > > Best,? > Alfredo > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Greg Thompson > Sent: 26 June 2019 18:23 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? > > Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? > > (this is for a student of mine) > > Thanks, > Greg > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190627/4cd549b3/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Thu Jun 27 06:35:09 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 23:35:09 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: Alfredo, I think it is precisely by participation in a common activity (or project or community of practice) that oppression takes place. The apprentice voluntarily submits themself to the activity and the division of labour, roles, etc., inherent in it. The master necessarily has power over the apprentice, and active attention is required to avoid exploitation and oppression to avoid the master exploiting the apprentice in the process of inducting them into the practice. If, for example, the apprentice already had the skills and tools required for the relevant practice then they would need an apprenticeship and would not be vulnerable to exploitation. Although exploitation and oppression probably does occur when the master does not have anything that the apprentice needs, but I think that is exceptional. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 27/06/2019 9:18 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about > is, how?does a framework that takes apprenticeship and > community as starting point help when the object of > research is one that concerns oppression and dehumanisation? > > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Alfredo > Jornet Gil > *Sent:* 27 June 2019 02:37 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Research on > refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral > Participation? > > I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work > specifically connecting the?two.?But if your student gets > to write about that, I'd be very interested in reading > her/his work. > > > A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview > with a lawyer who visited children?detention centres in > the US?border. I literally cried as I was commuting to > work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being described. > > > (Interview here:) > https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 > > > Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is > "legitimate participation" for a child in a detention > center? What is the center and what the periphery in?such > a context? And for a Syrian?refugee in a shelter in > Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice > that belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? > > > Not that I am sceptical about?or questioning the relevance > of the approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, > would like to know. > > > Best,? > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Greg > Thompson > *Sent:* 26 June 2019 18:23 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Research on > refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral > Participation? > Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to > research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate > Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former > with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? > > (this is for a student of mine) > > Thanks, > Greg > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190627/e705799e/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Thu Jun 27 06:44:28 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 23:44:28 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: Oops. typos ... fixed ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 27/06/2019 11:35 pm, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Alfredo, I think it is precisely by participation in a > common activity (or project or community of practice) that > oppression takes place. The apprentice voluntarily submits > themself to the activity and the division of labour, > roles, etc., inherent in it. The master necessarily has > power over the apprentice, and active attention is > required to avoid exploitation and oppression to avoid the > master exploiting the apprentice in the process of > inducting them into the practice. > > If, for example, the apprentice already had the skills and > tools required for the relevant practice then they > would*not *need an apprenticeship and would not be > vulnerable to exploitation. > > Although exploitation and oppression probably does occur > when the master does not have anything that the apprentice > needs, but I think that is exceptional. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 27/06/2019 9:18 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> >> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more >> about is, how?does a framework that takes apprenticeship >> and community as starting point help when the object of >> research is one that concerns oppression and dehumanisation? >> >> >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of Alfredo >> Jornet Gil >> *Sent:* 27 June 2019 02:37 >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Research on >> refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral >> Participation? >> >> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work >> specifically connecting the?two.?But if your student gets >> to write about that, I'd be very interested in reading >> her/his work. >> >> >> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview >> with a lawyer who visited children?detention centres in >> the US?border. I literally cried as I was commuting to >> work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being described. >> >> >> (Interview here:) >> https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >> >> >> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is >> "legitimate participation" for a child in a detention >> center? What is the center and what the periphery in?such >> a context? And for a Syrian?refugee in a shelter in >> Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice >> that belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? >> >> >> Not that I am sceptical about?or questioning the >> relevance of the approach to the issue. Just that I don't >> know how, would like to know. >> >> >> Best,? >> >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of Greg >> Thompson >> *Sent:* 26 June 2019 18:23 >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Research on >> refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral >> Participation? >> Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to >> research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate >> Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former >> with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? >> >> (this is for a student of mine) >> >> Thanks, >> Greg >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190627/a798324b/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 07:01:48 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:01:48 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: "If, for example, the apprentice already had the skills and tools required for the relevant practice then they would* not *need an apprenticeship and would not be vulnerable to exploitation." Those forms of exploitation come via the necessity credentials, certification, probationary periods etc. Of course, if one genuinely has the skill, then one may find (the rare) employers who are able to recognise it. There are mobility issues to being stupefied through indoctrination, just as there are mobility issues to declining it. :) On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 14:47, Andy Blunden wrote: > Oops. typos ... fixed > ------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 27/06/2019 11:35 pm, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Alfredo, I think it is precisely by participation in a common activity (or > project or community of practice) that oppression takes place. The > apprentice voluntarily submits themself to the activity and the division of > labour, roles, etc., inherent in it. The master necessarily has power over > the apprentice, and active attention is required to avoid exploitation > and oppression to avoid the master exploiting the apprentice in the > process of inducting them into the practice. > > If, for example, the apprentice already had the skills and tools required > for the relevant practice then they would* not *need an apprenticeship > and would not be vulnerable to exploitation. > > Although exploitation and oppression probably does occur when the master > does not have anything that the apprentice needs, but I think that is > exceptional. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 27/06/2019 9:18 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a > framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help > when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and > dehumanisation? > > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > *Sent:* 27 June 2019 02:37 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and > Legitimate Peripheral Participation? > > > I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically > connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be > very interested in reading her/his work. > > > A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who > visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I > was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being > described. > > > (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 > > > Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" > for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the > periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in > Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to > being a refugee or immigrant? > > > Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach > to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. > > > Best,? > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Greg Thompson > > *Sent:* 26 June 2019 18:23 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and > Legitimate Peripheral Participation? > > Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on > refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or > otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of > practice)? > > (this is for a student of mine) > > Thanks, > Greg > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190627/6efa2699/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Thu Jun 27 07:07:08 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 00:07:08 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: Yes, of course. This does no contradict the point I am making at all. Just an elaboration of it. andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 28/06/2019 12:01 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > "If, for example, the apprentice already had the skills > and tools required for the relevant practice then they > would*?not *need an apprenticeship and would not be > vulnerable to exploitation." > > Those forms of exploitation come via the necessity > credentials, certification, probationary periods etc. Of > course, if one genuinely has the skill, then one may find > (the rare) employers who are able to recognise it. There > are mobility issues to being stupefied through > indoctrination, just as there are mobility issues to > declining it. :) > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 14:47, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Oops. typos ... fixed > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 27/06/2019 11:35 pm, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> Alfredo, I think it is precisely by participation in >> a common activity (or project or community of >> practice) that oppression takes place. The apprentice >> voluntarily submits themself to the activity and the >> division of labour, roles, etc., inherent in it. The >> master necessarily has power over the apprentice, and >> active attention is required to avoid exploitation >> and oppression to avoid the master exploiting the >> apprentice in the process of inducting them into the >> practice. >> >> If, for example, the apprentice already had the >> skills and tools required for the relevant practice >> then they would*not *need an apprenticeship and would >> not be vulnerable to exploitation. >> >> Although exploitation and oppression probably does >> occur when the master does not have anything that the >> apprentice needs, but I think that is exceptional. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 27/06/2019 9:18 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> >>> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more >>> about is, how?does a framework that takes >>> apprenticeship and community as starting point help >>> when the object of research is one that concerns >>> oppression and dehumanisation? >>> >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> >>> >>> on behalf >>> of Alfredo Jornet Gil >>> >>> *Sent:* 27 June 2019 02:37 >>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Research on >>> refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate >>> Peripheral Participation? >>> >>> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of >>> work specifically connecting the?two.?But if your >>> student gets to write about that, I'd be very >>> interested in reading her/his work. >>> >>> >>> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's >>> interview with a lawyer who visited >>> children?detention centres in the US?border. I >>> literally cried as I was commuting to work listening >>> to the horrendous inhumanity being described. >>> >>> >>> (Interview here:) >>> https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >>> >>> >>> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is >>> "legitimate participation" for a child in a >>> detention center? What is the center and what the >>> periphery in?such a context? And for a >>> Syrian?refugee in a shelter in Turkey? Is there >>> anything like a community of practice that belongs >>> to being a refugee or immigrant? >>> >>> >>> Not that I am sceptical about?or questioning the >>> relevance of the approach to the issue. Just that I >>> don't know how, would like to know. >>> >>> >>> Best,? >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> >>> >>> on behalf >>> of Greg Thompson >>> >>> *Sent:* 26 June 2019 18:23 >>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Research on >>> refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate >>> Peripheral Participation? >>> Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to >>> research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and >>> Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or otherwise >>> connect the former with Lave and Wenger's >>> communities of practice)? >>> >>> (this is for a student of mine) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Greg >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>> >>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190628/4f4bf34d/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 07:36:53 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:36:53 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: Well, you say it is exceptional to be exploited in that manner. Rather it seems unexceptional. It is only exceptional if one takes the position that one is only being exploited if one is conscious of it ... which may be the case. On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 15:11, Andy Blunden wrote: > Yes, of course. This does no contradict the point I am making at all. Just > an elaboration of it. > > andy > ------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 28/06/2019 12:01 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > "If, for example, the apprentice already had the skills and tools required > for the relevant practice then they would* not *need an apprenticeship > and would not be vulnerable to exploitation." > > Those forms of exploitation come via the necessity credentials, > certification, probationary periods etc. Of course, if one genuinely has > the skill, then one may find (the rare) employers who are able to recognise > it. There are mobility issues to being stupefied through indoctrination, > just as there are mobility issues to declining it. :) > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 14:47, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Oops. typos ... fixed >> ------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 27/06/2019 11:35 pm, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> Alfredo, I think it is precisely by participation in a common activity >> (or project or community of practice) that oppression takes place. The >> apprentice voluntarily submits themself to the activity and the division of >> labour, roles, etc., inherent in it. The master necessarily has power over >> the apprentice, and active attention is required to avoid exploitation >> and oppression to avoid the master exploiting the apprentice in the >> process of inducting them into the practice. >> >> If, for example, the apprentice already had the skills and tools required >> for the relevant practice then they would* not *need an apprenticeship >> and would not be vulnerable to exploitation. >> >> Although exploitation and oppression probably does occur when the master >> does not have anything that the apprentice needs, but I think that is >> exceptional. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 27/06/2019 9:18 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> >> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a >> framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help >> when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and >> dehumanisation? >> >> >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil >> >> *Sent:* 27 June 2019 02:37 >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and >> Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >> >> >> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically >> connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be >> very interested in reading her/his work. >> >> >> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who >> visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I >> was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being >> described. >> >> >> (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >> >> >> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate >> participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and >> what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a >> shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that >> belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? >> >> >> Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the >> approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. >> >> >> Best,? >> >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of Greg Thompson >> >> *Sent:* 26 June 2019 18:23 >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and >> Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >> >> Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on >> refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or >> otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of >> practice)? >> >> (this is for a student of mine) >> >> Thanks, >> Greg >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190627/5248c496/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Thu Jun 27 07:41:40 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 00:41:40 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <501fba63-d0b2-42a3-7fc0-69addee8ea1e@marxists.org> I don't agree with that. The classic mode of exploitation is private ownership of the social means of production, but being "conscious" of this as a means of exploitation labels you as a Communist, which the majority are not andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 28/06/2019 12:36 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Well, you say it is exceptional to be exploited in that > manner. Rather it seems unexceptional. It is only > exceptional if one takes the position that one is only > being exploited if one is conscious of it ... which may be > the case. > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 15:11, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Yes, of course. This does no contradict the point I am > making at all. Just an elaboration of it. > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 28/06/2019 12:01 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> "If, for example, the apprentice already had the >> skills and tools required for the relevant practice >> then they would*?not *need an apprenticeship and >> would not be vulnerable to exploitation." >> >> Those forms of exploitation come via the necessity >> credentials, certification, probationary periods etc. >> Of course, if one genuinely has the skill, then one >> may find (the rare) employers who are able to >> recognise it. There are mobility issues to being >> stupefied through indoctrination, just as there are >> mobility issues to declining it. :) >> >> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 14:47, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> Oops. typos ... fixed >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 27/06/2019 11:35 pm, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>> Alfredo, I think it is precisely by >>> participation in a common activity (or project >>> or community of practice) that oppression takes >>> place. The apprentice voluntarily submits >>> themself to the activity and the division of >>> labour, roles, etc., inherent in it. The master >>> necessarily has power over the apprentice, and >>> active attention is required to avoid >>> exploitation and oppression to avoid the master >>> exploiting the apprentice in the process of >>> inducting them into the practice. >>> >>> If, for example, the apprentice already had the >>> skills and tools required for the relevant >>> practice then they would*not *need an >>> apprenticeship and would not be vulnerable to >>> exploitation. >>> >>> Although exploitation and oppression probably >>> does occur when the master does not have >>> anything that the apprentice needs, but I think >>> that is exceptional. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 27/06/2019 9:18 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>> >>>> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn >>>> more about is, how?does a framework that takes >>>> apprenticeship and community as starting point >>>> help when the object of research is one that >>>> concerns oppression and dehumanisation? >>>> >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> on >>>> behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>> >>>> *Sent:* 27 June 2019 02:37 >>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Research on >>>> refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate >>>> Peripheral Participation? >>>> >>>> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't >>>> know of work specifically connecting >>>> the?two.?But if your student gets to write >>>> about that, I'd be very interested in reading >>>> her/his work. >>>> >>>> >>>> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's >>>> interview with a lawyer who visited >>>> children?detention centres in the US?border. I >>>> literally cried as I was commuting to work >>>> listening to the horrendous inhumanity being >>>> described. >>>> >>>> >>>> (Interview here:) >>>> https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >>>> >>>> >>>> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is >>>> "legitimate participation" for a child in a >>>> detention center? What is the center and what >>>> the periphery in?such a context? And for a >>>> Syrian?refugee in a shelter in Turkey? Is there >>>> anything like a community of practice that >>>> belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? >>>> >>>> >>>> Not that I am sceptical about?or questioning >>>> the relevance of the approach to the issue. >>>> Just that I don't know how, would like to know. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best,? >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> on >>>> behalf of Greg Thompson >>>> >>>> >>>> *Sent:* 26 June 2019 18:23 >>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Research on >>>> refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate >>>> Peripheral Participation? >>>> Just wondering if anyone out there could point >>>> me to research on refugees/immigrants/migrants >>>> and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or >>>> otherwise connect the former with Lave and >>>> Wenger's communities of practice)? >>>> >>>> (this is for a student of mine) >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Anthropology >>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>>> >>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190628/096143bb/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 07:49:59 2019 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:49:59 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <5596738C-73CC-4AA4-83F0-723EFBBD08AE@gmail.com> For a closeup of apprenticeship social relations, especially in the traditionally White-dominated union crafts in the US (plumbing, heat/ventilation, electrical) see my chapter What Happens in On-The-Job Training? in Stephen Billet?s book on vocational education, Learning Through Practice (https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789048139385?aid=&mid=6223250&uid=0&wt_mc=Alerts.NBA.Jun-10_EAST_6223250 ) Helena helenaworthen@gmail.com helena.worthen1 > On Jun 27, 2019, at 10:36 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Well, you say it is exceptional to be exploited in that manner. Rather it seems unexceptional. It is only exceptional if one takes the position that one is only being exploited if one is conscious of it ... which may be the case. > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 15:11, Andy Blunden > wrote: > Yes, of course. This does no contradict the point I am making at all. Just an elaboration of it. > > andy > Andy Blunden > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 28/06/2019 12:01 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> "If, for example, the apprentice already had the skills and tools required for the relevant practice then they would not need an apprenticeship and would not be vulnerable to exploitation." >> >> Those forms of exploitation come via the necessity credentials, certification, probationary periods etc. Of course, if one genuinely has the skill, then one may find (the rare) employers who are able to recognise it. There are mobility issues to being stupefied through indoctrination, just as there are mobility issues to declining it. :) >> >> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 14:47, Andy Blunden > wrote: >> Oops. typos ... fixed >> Andy Blunden >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 27/06/2019 11:35 pm, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> Alfredo, I think it is precisely by participation in a common activity (or project or community of practice) that oppression takes place. The apprentice voluntarily submits themself to the activity and the division of labour, roles, etc., inherent in it. The master necessarily has power over the apprentice, and active attention is required to avoid exploitation and oppression to avoid the master exploiting the apprentice in the process of inducting them into the practice. >>> >>> If, for example, the apprentice already had the skills and tools required for the relevant practice then they would not need an apprenticeship and would not be vulnerable to exploitation. >>> >>> Although exploitation and oppression probably does occur when the master does not have anything that the apprentice needs, but I think that is exceptional. >>> Andy >>> Andy Blunden >>> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 27/06/2019 9:18 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and dehumanisation? >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> >>>> >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>> Sent: 27 June 2019 02:37 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>>> >>>> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be very interested in reading her/his work. >>>> >>>> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being described. >>>> >>>> (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >>>> >>>> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best,? >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> >>>> >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Greg Thompson >>>> Sent: 26 June 2019 18:23 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>>> >>>> Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? >>>> >>>> (this is for a student of mine) >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Anthropology >>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190627/4a756ab3/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 08:20:39 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:20:39 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: <501fba63-d0b2-42a3-7fc0-69addee8ea1e@marxists.org> References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> <501fba63-d0b2-42a3-7fc0-69addee8ea1e@marxists.org> Message-ID: Yes, but interestingly this may only be "potentially exploitation" in the circumstances of apprenticeship to distinguish genuine participatory learning from "doing porridge". I can entertain the notion that strife serves an important function and in doing so the tyranny of inaccessible means of production may have some virtue. That's probably not very communist. On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 15:44, Andy Blunden wrote: > I don't agree with that. The classic mode of exploitation is private > ownership of the social means of production, but being "conscious" of this > as a means of exploitation labels you as a Communist, which the majority > are not > > andy > ------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 28/06/2019 12:36 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Well, you say it is exceptional to be exploited in that manner. Rather it > seems unexceptional. It is only exceptional if one takes the position that > one is only being exploited if one is conscious of it ... which may be the > case. > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 15:11, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Yes, of course. This does no contradict the point I am making at all. >> Just an elaboration of it. >> >> andy >> ------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 28/06/2019 12:01 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> >> "If, for example, the apprentice already had the skills and tools >> required for the relevant practice then they would* not *need an >> apprenticeship and would not be vulnerable to exploitation." >> >> Those forms of exploitation come via the necessity credentials, >> certification, probationary periods etc. Of course, if one genuinely has >> the skill, then one may find (the rare) employers who are able to recognise >> it. There are mobility issues to being stupefied through indoctrination, >> just as there are mobility issues to declining it. :) >> >> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 14:47, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> Oops. typos ... fixed >>> ------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 27/06/2019 11:35 pm, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>> Alfredo, I think it is precisely by participation in a common activity >>> (or project or community of practice) that oppression takes place. The >>> apprentice voluntarily submits themself to the activity and the division of >>> labour, roles, etc., inherent in it. The master necessarily has power over >>> the apprentice, and active attention is required to avoid exploitation >>> and oppression to avoid the master exploiting the apprentice in the >>> process of inducting them into the practice. >>> >>> If, for example, the apprentice already had the skills and tools >>> required for the relevant practice then they would* not *need an >>> apprenticeship and would not be vulnerable to exploitation. >>> >>> Although exploitation and oppression probably does occur when the master >>> does not have anything that the apprentice needs, but I think that is >>> exceptional. >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 27/06/2019 9:18 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> >>> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does >>> a framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help >>> when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and >>> dehumanisation? >>> >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on >>> behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil >>> *Sent:* 27 June 2019 02:37 >>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and >>> Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>> >>> >>> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically >>> connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be >>> very interested in reading her/his work. >>> >>> >>> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer >>> who visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried >>> as I was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being >>> described. >>> >>> >>> (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >>> >>> >>> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate >>> participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and >>> what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a >>> shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that >>> belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? >>> >>> >>> Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the >>> approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on >>> behalf of Greg Thompson >>> >>> *Sent:* 26 June 2019 18:23 >>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and >>> Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>> >>> Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on >>> refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or >>> otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of >>> practice)? >>> >>> (this is for a student of mine) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Greg >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190627/91cc4086/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Thu Jun 27 08:23:15 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 09:23:15 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Refugee education and Communities of Practice? Message-ID: I'm starting a new thread bc I failed to be adequately descriptive in the other thread and there are important conversations being had there that aren't quite relevant to my student's work. And yet I don't want to disrupt those conversations, hence a new thread. So to clarify the situation at hand for me, my student is a refugee from the Middle East who is here in the U.S. and has been working in the field of refugee education and is now conducting research in that field for his PhD. He is studying a multi-year program that trains refugees in entrepreneurship (specifically, to start their own restaurants here in the U.S.). His basic question is: What kinds of programs can help refugees to get settled in the U.S.? He is using CoP as a way of thinking about this specific task of restauranteur-ship. But he's also kicking around whether CoP could be useful for the task of moving to a new country/place and figuring out how things work in that country/place, and perhaps even whether CoP could be used to think about the task of becoming a citizen to a new country. Thinking about apprenticeship into restauranteur-ship using CoP seems fairly straightforward. But thinking about CoP in the second sense seems a little more complicated. What is the "community" of which one is becoming a part? Is a nation-state too large of a community to put CoP thinking to work? Or is it not sufficiently defined to be called a CoP? (and even as I am doubting this second use of CoP, I can't help but feel that restauranteur-ship in the U.S. cannot NOT be connected to the question of U.S. citizenship). The other thread is not unhelpful for these questions but they aren't what this student is "up to" in his research (and I generally prefer not to be too recalcitrant in my advising of students - and, more importantly, I am not his dissertation chair). I would add that CoP was an attempt to move away from previous more assimilationist frameworks, so it was a step towards being more critical. (and I'm happy to have this conversation merge into that one if that seems like what is necessary). But I will keep those suggestions in mind as a way of continually encouraging a more critical take on things. Hopefully the above provides a better sense of what I'm looking for (even if that might be problematic). -greg -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190627/0d066067/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 03:20:30 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 11:20:30 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Refugee education and Communities of Practice? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The usual advice is to refine the question. In terms of "what can help refugees", there are an enormous potential number of factors. Almost anything goes in being helpful, whereas "what constitutes an effective program" (with a high rate of success) might enable some high level views onto such a rich tapestry indicating various forms of coherence. From a student's real interest, however, it may be that they simply want to know more about a certain subject (the indication was cultural participation and the propagation of values etc), which might actually be more directly answered by studying the literature (potentially contradicting a course's emphasis on field work by setting it up as a performance rather than as a natural extension to the enquiry). I state this partially out of the "solution-probleming" manner in which the task is cast, with an emphasis upon CoP rather than on a question, but perhaps one could say participation rather than a performance (depending upon the understandings that the student brings). If one takes localization as a factor, then you have the requirement for assimilating all of the legislative requirements for running a restaurant "above board". For this aspect, one can look at various ways in which these are effectively adopted. Such as comparing a formal course upfront vs ongoing support in working in a restaurant. Alternatively one can compare the program with a traditional business school, with an eye to particular community needs. Perhaps from a simple descriptive approach one can simply interview participants about their experiences and then seek to make sense of them -- I'm not sure you'd learn anything profound, but it might satisfy the PhD. Perhaps you will get more seasoned advice concerning managing the requirements for a PhD. Personally, the "PhD" I began has become considerable in size, but then I have generally followed "knowledge in depth" and the requirements for a PhD that I encountered were quite superficial. Huw On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 16:51, Greg Thompson wrote: > I'm starting a new thread bc I failed to be adequately descriptive in the > other thread and there are important conversations being had there that > aren't quite relevant to my student's work. And yet I don't want to disrupt > those conversations, hence a new thread. > > So to clarify the situation at hand for me, my student is a refugee from > the Middle East who is here in the U.S. and has been working in the field > of refugee education and is now conducting research in that field for his > PhD. He is studying a multi-year program that trains refugees in > entrepreneurship (specifically, to start their own restaurants here in the > U.S.). His basic question is: What kinds of programs can help refugees to > get settled in the U.S.? > > He is using CoP as a way of thinking about this specific task of > restauranteur-ship. But he's also kicking around whether CoP could be > useful for the task of moving to a new country/place and figuring out how > things work in that country/place, and perhaps even whether CoP could be > used to think about the task of becoming a citizen to a new country. > Thinking about apprenticeship into restauranteur-ship using CoP seems > fairly straightforward. But thinking about CoP in the second sense seems a > little more complicated. What is the "community" of which one is becoming a > part? Is a nation-state too large of a community to put CoP thinking to > work? Or is it not sufficiently defined to be called a CoP? (and even as I > am doubting this second use of CoP, I can't help but feel that > restauranteur-ship in the U.S. cannot NOT be connected to the question of > U.S. citizenship). > > The other thread is not unhelpful for these questions but they aren't what > this student is "up to" in his research (and I generally prefer not to be > too recalcitrant in my advising of students - and, more importantly, I am > not his dissertation chair). I would add that CoP was an attempt to move > away from previous more assimilationist frameworks, so it was a step > towards being more critical. (and I'm happy to have this conversation merge > into that one if that seems like what is necessary). But I will keep those > suggestions in mind as a way of continually encouraging a more critical > take on things. > > Hopefully the above provides a better sense of what I'm looking for (even > if that might be problematic). > > -greg > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190628/3cff1708/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Fri Jun 28 04:03:38 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 11:03:38 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: <5A854C93-BC9D-46BF-801E-E4EE4937EFCB@gmail.com> References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no>, <5A854C93-BC9D-46BF-801E-E4EE4937EFCB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1561719818697.15383@ils.uio.no> Hi Helena, all, yes, I can see how CHAT can be relevant to fighting oppression and de-humanisation. I was wondering more about the peripheral participation metaphor in Lave and Wenger. I guess my question has to do with the challenge of thinking of participation in a context in which all opportunities to pursue the satisfaction of your basic human needs are shutdown and taken away from you through violence. Andy seems to imply in his response that this is still some form of participation. Not sure about that. I wonder if the notion of participation holds when agency no longer is a possibility. But of course, I was reducing the question to the very narrow case of children being held in inhumane conditions. I thought that this reduction to the extreme may be useful for thinking the limits of our theoretical premises, an exercise that may be particularly relevant in the context of existential crisis in which we find ourselves; as a means to imagine how far we can go with our current ideas and what sort of action/thinking needs to be done in a context in which we may be pushed to the limit, right before the point of no longer being. Sorry Greg for having taken your initial request for a walk... Thanks for having opening the other thread to more properly address your initial question. Alfredo ________________________________ From: Helena Worthen Sent: 27 June 2019 15:13 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? Alfredo ? Try turning the question around: how does CHAT surface (make visible to the researcher) the activities that are taking place in a community of practice where people are fighting oppression and de-humanisation? What are these people doing to carry on the fight? CHAT?s power to reveal conflict and contradiction comes into play here. This is an issue that kept rising and then sinking during the consensus points discussion for Re-Gen. helenaworthen@gmail.com helena.worthen1 On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and dehumanisation? Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: 27 June 2019 02:37 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be very interested in reading her/his work. A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being described. (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. Best,? Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Sent: 26 June 2019 18:23 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? (this is for a student of mine) Thanks, Greg -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190628/9fea28d6/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Fri Jun 28 05:29:06 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 22:29:06 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: <1561719818697.15383@ils.uio.no> References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> <5A854C93-BC9D-46BF-801E-E4EE4937EFCB@gmail.com> <1561719818697.15383@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: My interest, Alfredo, rather than taking something to an extreme to prove a point, was to try to see the situation (peripheral participation, apprenticeship, maser/servant relations, etc.) as normal, ethically sanctioned, everyday relations. In my view, it is in such everyday relations that exploitation and oppression happens. The very person or organisation which you turn to to meet your needs may be the vehicle for your exploitation. Think of employment, the Catholic Church, the family, political parties, ... Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 28/06/2019 9:03 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Hi Helena, all, > > > yes,?I can see how CHAT can be relevant to fighting > oppression and de-humanisation. I was wondering more about > the peripheral participation metaphor in Lave and Wenger. > I guess my question has to do with the challenge of > thinking of participation in a context in which all > opportunities to pursue the satisfaction of your > basic?human needs are shutdown and taken away from you > through violence. Andy seems to imply in his response that > this is still some form of participation. Not sure about > that.?I wonder if the notion of participation holds when > agency no longer?is a possibility. But of course, I was > reducing the question to the very narrow case of children > being held in inhumane conditions. I thought that this > reduction to the extreme may be useful for thinking the > limits of our theoretical premises, an exercise that may > be particularly relevant in the context of existential > crisis in which we find ourselves;?as a means to imagine > how far we can go with our current ideas and what sort of > action/thinking needs to be done in a context in which we > may be pushed to the limit, right before the point of no > longer being. > > > Sorry Greg for having taken your initial request for?a > walk... Thanks for having opening the other thread to more > properly address your initial question. > > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Helena Worthen > *Sent:* 27 June 2019 15:13 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Cc:* Alfredo Jornet Gil > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on > refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral > Participation? > Alfredo ? Try turning the question around: how does CHAT > surface (make visible to the researcher) the activities > that are taking place in a community of practice where > people are fighting oppression and de-humanisation? What > are these people doing to carry on the fight? > > CHAT?s power to reveal conflict and contradiction comes > into play here. > > This is an issue that kept rising and then sinking during > ?the consensus points discussion for Re-Gen. > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helena.worthen1 > >> On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil >> > wrote: >> >> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more >> about is, how?does a framework that takes apprenticeship >> and community as starting point help when the object of >> research is one that concerns oppression and dehumanisation? >> >> >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >> > > on behalf of >> Alfredo Jornet Gil > > >> *Sent:* 27 June 2019 02:37 >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Research on >> refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral >> Participation? >> >> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work >> specifically connecting the?two.?But if your student gets >> to write about that, I'd be very interested in reading >> her/his work. >> >> >> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview >> with a lawyer who visited children?detention centres in >> the US?border. I literally cried as I was commuting to >> work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being described. >> >> >> (Interview here:) >> https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >> >> >> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is >> "legitimate participation" for a child in a detention >> center? What is the center and what the periphery in?such >> a context? And for a Syrian?refugee in a shelter in >> Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice >> that belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? >> >> >> Not that I am sceptical about?or questioning the >> relevance of the approach to the issue. Just that I don't >> know how, would like to know. >> >> >> Best,? >> >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >> > > on behalf of >> Greg Thompson > > >> *Sent:* 26 June 2019 18:23 >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Research on >> refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral >> Participation? >> Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to >> research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate >> Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former >> with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? >> >> (this is for a student of mine) >> >> Thanks, >> Greg >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190628/a015ab3b/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 06:21:31 2019 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:21:31 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: <1561719818697.15383@ils.uio.no> References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> <5A854C93-BC9D-46BF-801E-E4EE4937EFCB@gmail.com> <1561719818697.15383@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <3D607827-0373-4631-B80A-7880E633BAA3@gmail.com> Hi, Alfredo et al - The question that Lave and Wenger were asking in their 1991 book was ?How does a community pass on the knowledge that it has created to the next generation, given that we are not talking about school learning?? (That was clumsily expressed, but it?s the point.) How does the midwife pass on midwifery to the next generation, given that there?s not midwife training program? Same with the tailors in the marketplace; the members of AA, etc. To answer this question, L&W look at descriptions of communities where the practice survives (midwifery, AA, tailoring, quartermastering) and where it does not (the butcher department in a grocery store). From what they see, they propose guidelines. These propose what a community has to be doing in order for the knowledge that the community has collectively created to make the leap across generations (which means that the practice, and thus the community itself will survive). LPP is what they call the kind of participation that they identify as making this possible. The guidelines are that the participants in the community have to feel that they are legitimately there and have a right to learn how to become ?experts? in the craft (that would mean a right to ask questions, to demand full explanations, to be listened to, to feel that their learning is one of the purposes of their participation); that their participation involves doing real work that contributes to the real productivity of the community (not ?make-work,? as in, in being given a fruitless assignment or just something ot keep them busy); and that the path from novice (these are L&W?s terms) to expert or insider is transparent and known to all (no secrets, no hidden passwords to getting more knowledge ? equal access). In other words if you want to use Lave and Wenger to understand what is going on with the children being held at the border, the answer is no ? their LPP theory won?t help. Why not? Because how are you going to identify the community that generates the practice that is going to get passed along, or not, to the next generation? You?ve got three concepts there that don?t fit the situation. A typical place where the L&W approach is useful is when you?re looking at an institution or organization that is having a hard time finding someone younger to take over ? organizations that age out under the same leader and then expire becuase they haven?t been building the next generation. (Re-Gen should come to mind, here, as an example of an attempt to build the next generation.) Using Engestrom?s activity theory unit of analysis could help clarify what?s going on, however, and at least make it possible to plan the research. H helenaworthen@gmail.com helena.worthen1 > On Jun 28, 2019, at 7:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Hi Helena, all, > > yes, I can see how CHAT can be relevant to fighting oppression and de-humanisation. I was wondering more about the peripheral participation metaphor in Lave and Wenger. I guess my question has to do with the challenge of thinking of participation in a context in which all opportunities to pursue the satisfaction of your basic human needs are shutdown and taken away from you through violence. Andy seems to imply in his response that this is still some form of participation. Not sure about that. I wonder if the notion of participation holds when agency no longer is a possibility. But of course, I was reducing the question to the very narrow case of children being held in inhumane conditions. I thought that this reduction to the extreme may be useful for thinking the limits of our theoretical premises, an exercise that may be particularly relevant in the context of existential crisis in which we find ourselves; as a means to imagine how far we can go with our current ideas and what sort of action/thinking needs to be done in a context in which we may be pushed to the limit, right before the point of no longer being. > > Sorry Greg for having taken your initial request for a walk... Thanks for having opening the other thread to more properly address your initial question. > > Alfredo > > > From: Helena Worthen > Sent: 27 June 2019 15:13 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? > > Alfredo ? Try turning the question around: how does CHAT surface (make visible to the researcher) the activities that are taking place in a community of practice where people are fighting oppression and de-humanisation? What are these people doing to carry on the fight? > > CHAT?s power to reveal conflict and contradiction comes into play here. > > This is an issue that kept rising and then sinking during the consensus points discussion for Re-Gen. > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helena.worthen1 > >> On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: >> >> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and dehumanisation? >> >> Alfredo >> >> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> Sent: 27 June 2019 02:37 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >> >> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be very interested in reading her/his work. >> >> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being described. >> >> (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >> >> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? >> >> Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. >> >> Best,? >> Alfredo >> >> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Greg Thompson > >> Sent: 26 June 2019 18:23 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >> >> Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? >> >> (this is for a student of mine) >> >> Thanks, >> Greg >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190628/7ef34b46/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 06:40:11 2019 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:40:11 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> <5A854C93-BC9D-46BF-801E-E4EE4937EFCB@gmail.com> <1561719818697.15383@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: Hi ? To see if L&W?s theory of LLP could be applied usefully to the examples given by Andy (employment, the Catholic Church, many families ? I put in ?many?, etc) you could just ask the questions implied by the three guidelines that I mentioned in my previous message. For example, employment: In your job in a restaurant, are you confident that you have a right to learn the whole craft or skill set required to take any position, from doing the dishes to hosting at the front desk to ordering the supplies to doing the accounting and balancing the books? If yes, go to the next question. Is the path to learning all these different things clear, transparent, and recognized by everyeone else? And incentivized? If yes, go to the next question: right now, are you doing real work that is necessary to the success of the restaurant? Are all the other people around you doing real work? Or is someone being excluded, kept on one job month after month, clueless about the overall functioning of the place? If yes, then you?re probably working in a co-op project that was set up in advance by a group of people who had a certain vision of a restaurant, and you?re lucky!! You could use L&W?s guidelines as a way to monitor the culture of the restaurant as the years go by and new people get brought in. There will undoubtedly be people coming in who don?t understand the culture, who just want to treat it as a job, and others who are willing to let this happen. The founders will be getting old and no one seems to be interested in stepping up, and the group has failed to incentiveize the rising of new leadership. This will probably lead to a big meeting of the members of the co-op and a decision to either re-up the collective culture or else sell the place (which is probably a successful business), divide up the shares, and go home. In the 1990s, in the US, as ?job training? became the official response to de-industrialiation and the movement of good union jobs overseas, a counter-movement within the job training community (and there was huge money to be made in job training!) existed that took the position that job training to include ?all aspects of the industry.? (This was somewhere in the Perkins Act which funded vocational training.) In the case of training for culinary/hospitality work ?all aspects of the industry? would mean that you would learn not just how to clean rooms or how to operate dishwashers, but the whole history and economy of the industry, including the role of unions. This effort did exist but since it did not support the main neo-liberal agenda of lowering the cost of labor, it faded away. Helena helenaworthen@gmail.com helena.worthen1 > On Jun 28, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > My interest, Alfredo, rather than taking something to an extreme to prove a point, was to try to see the situation (peripheral participation, apprenticeship, maser/servant relations, etc.) as normal, ethically sanctioned, everyday relations. In my view, it is in such everyday relations that exploitation and oppression happens. The very person or organisation which you turn to to meet your needs may be the vehicle for your exploitation. > Think of employment, the Catholic Church, the family, political parties, ... > Andy > Andy Blunden > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 28/06/2019 9:03 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> Hi Helena, all, >> >> yes, I can see how CHAT can be relevant to fighting oppression and de-humanisation. I was wondering more about the peripheral participation metaphor in Lave and Wenger. I guess my question has to do with the challenge of thinking of participation in a context in which all opportunities to pursue the satisfaction of your basic human needs are shutdown and taken away from you through violence. Andy seems to imply in his response that this is still some form of participation. Not sure about that. I wonder if the notion of participation holds when agency no longer is a possibility. But of course, I was reducing the question to the very narrow case of children being held in inhumane conditions. I thought that this reduction to the extreme may be useful for thinking the limits of our theoretical premises, an exercise that may be particularly relevant in the context of existential crisis in which we find ourselves; as a means to imagine how far we can go with our current ideas and what sort of action/thinking needs to be done in a context in which we may be pushed to the limit, right before the point of no longer being. >> >> Sorry Greg for having taken your initial request for a walk... Thanks for having opening the other thread to more properly address your initial question. >> >> Alfredo >> >> >> From: Helena Worthen >> Sent: 27 June 2019 15:13 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >> >> Alfredo ? Try turning the question around: how does CHAT surface (make visible to the researcher) the activities that are taking place in a community of practice where people are fighting oppression and de-humanisation? What are these people doing to carry on the fight? >> >> CHAT?s power to reveal conflict and contradiction comes into play here. >> >> This is an issue that kept rising and then sinking during the consensus points discussion for Re-Gen. >> >> >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> helena.worthen1 >> >>> On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: >>> >>> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and dehumanisation? >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > >>> Sent: 27 June 2019 02:37 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>> >>> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be very interested in reading her/his work. >>> >>> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being described. >>> >>> (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >>> >>> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? >>> >>> Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. >>> >>> Best,? >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Greg Thompson > >>> Sent: 26 June 2019 18:23 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>> >>> Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? >>> >>> (this is for a student of mine) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Greg >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190628/2d6acd3a/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 06:41:36 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:41:36 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Refugee education and Communities of Practice? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Huw, this is helpful. And thanks for reminding me of that wacky CoP called ?academia? (with all its localized realizations) that is critical to his work as well! Greg On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 4:23 AM Huw Lloyd wrote: > The usual advice is to refine the question. In terms of "what can help > refugees", there are an enormous potential number of factors. Almost > anything goes in being helpful, whereas "what constitutes an effective > program" (with a high rate of success) might enable some high level views > onto such a rich tapestry indicating various forms of coherence. From a > student's real interest, however, it may be that they simply want to know > more about a certain subject (the indication was cultural participation and > the propagation of values etc), which might actually be more directly > answered by studying the literature (potentially contradicting a course's > emphasis on field work by setting it up as a performance rather than as a > natural extension to the enquiry). I state this partially out of the > "solution-probleming" manner in which the task is cast, with an emphasis > upon CoP rather than on a question, but perhaps one could say participation > rather than a performance (depending upon the understandings that the > student brings). > > If one takes localization as a factor, then you have the requirement for > assimilating all of the legislative requirements for running a restaurant > "above board". For this aspect, one can look at various ways in which these > are effectively adopted. Such as comparing a formal course upfront vs > ongoing support in working in a restaurant. Alternatively one can compare > the program with a traditional business school, with an eye to particular > community needs. Perhaps from a simple descriptive approach one can simply > interview participants about their experiences and then seek to make sense > of them -- I'm not sure you'd learn anything profound, but it might satisfy > the PhD. Perhaps you will get more seasoned advice concerning managing the > requirements for a PhD. Personally, the "PhD" I began has become > considerable in size, but then I have generally followed "knowledge in > depth" and the requirements for a PhD that I encountered were quite > superficial. > > Huw > > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 16:51, Greg Thompson > wrote: > >> I'm starting a new thread bc I failed to be adequately descriptive in the >> other thread and there are important conversations being had there that >> aren't quite relevant to my student's work. And yet I don't want to disrupt >> those conversations, hence a new thread. >> >> So to clarify the situation at hand for me, my student is a refugee from >> the Middle East who is here in the U.S. and has been working in the field >> of refugee education and is now conducting research in that field for his >> PhD. He is studying a multi-year program that trains refugees in >> entrepreneurship (specifically, to start their own restaurants here in the >> U.S.). His basic question is: What kinds of programs can help refugees to >> get settled in the U.S.? >> >> He is using CoP as a way of thinking about this specific task of >> restauranteur-ship. But he's also kicking around whether CoP could be >> useful for the task of moving to a new country/place and figuring out how >> things work in that country/place, and perhaps even whether CoP could be >> used to think about the task of becoming a citizen to a new country. >> Thinking about apprenticeship into restauranteur-ship using CoP seems >> fairly straightforward. But thinking about CoP in the second sense seems a >> little more complicated. What is the "community" of which one is becoming a >> part? Is a nation-state too large of a community to put CoP thinking to >> work? Or is it not sufficiently defined to be called a CoP? (and even as I >> am doubting this second use of CoP, I can't help but feel that >> restauranteur-ship in the U.S. cannot NOT be connected to the question of >> U.S. citizenship). >> >> The other thread is not unhelpful for these questions but they aren't >> what this student is "up to" in his research (and I generally prefer not to >> be too recalcitrant in my advising of students - and, more importantly, I >> am not his dissertation chair). I would add that CoP was an attempt to move >> away from previous more assimilationist frameworks, so it was a step >> towards being more critical. (and I'm happy to have this conversation merge >> into that one if that seems like what is necessary). But I will keep those >> suggestions in mind as a way of continually encouraging a more critical >> take on things. >> >> Hopefully the above provides a better sense of what I'm looking for (even >> if that might be problematic). >> >> -greg >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190628/99954147/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 07:14:42 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:14:42 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> <5A854C93-BC9D-46BF-801E-E4EE4937EFCB@gmail.com> <1561719818697.15383@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: This is one of the 'issues' with LPP, regarding Helena's third question and 'real work'. Because LLP, as it is described, does not venture into the structure and validity of the community's practice, but rather treats it as a given working (different meaning to 'real work' Helena refers to) practice, it becomes more difficult to apply a blanket assumption that the communal practice actually works when it is only concerned with part of an undertaking, e.g. a process of accreditation rather than actual production. This is not to say that the accreditation is necessarily phoney, but rather that many practices are required to be regulated. And the nature of that regulation has a bearing upon the community and its practices. For instance, one can look to the 'situated' practice of a professional as something that takes place concurrently with their membership of (or affinity with) a professional body. This is why it seems to me that the authenticity of the participation is closely related to the viability of the practice. When you cannot take the viability for granted (when the practice doesn't speak for itself) the nature of the participation becomes more of a question -- exactly what kinds of 'exploitation' are being bought into, what trade-offs are being made? The CoP in this sense seems to be a convenient simplification, omitting questions about the viability of the practice and the developmental aspects of the agents, to focus instead on the participation. Huw On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 14:43, Helena Worthen wrote: > Hi ? > > To see if L&W?s theory of LLP could be applied usefully to the examples > given by Andy (employment, the Catholic Church, many families ? I put in > ?many?, etc) you could just ask the questions implied by the three > guidelines that I mentioned in my previous message. > > For example, employment: In your job in a restaurant, are you confident > that you have a right to learn the whole craft or skill set required to > take any position, from doing the dishes to hosting at the front desk to > ordering the supplies to doing the accounting and balancing the books? If > yes, go to the next question. Is the path to learning all these different > things clear, transparent, and recognized by everyeone else? And > incentivized? If yes, go to the next question: right now, are you doing > real work that is necessary to the success of the restaurant? Are all the > other people around you doing real work? Or is someone being excluded, kept > on one job month after month, clueless about the overall functioning of the > place? > > If yes, then you?re probably working in a co-op project that was set up in > advance by a group of people who had a certain vision of a restaurant, and > you?re lucky!! You could use L&W?s guidelines as a way to monitor the > culture of the restaurant as the years go by and new people get brought in. > There will undoubtedly be people coming in who don?t understand the > culture, who just want to treat it as a job, and others who are willing to > let this happen. The founders will be getting old and no one seems to be > interested in stepping up, and the group has failed to incentiveize the > rising of new leadership. This will probably lead to a big meeting of the > members of the co-op and a decision to either re-up the collective culture > or else sell the place (which is probably a successful business), divide up > the shares, and go home. > > In the 1990s, in the US, as ?job training? became the official response to > de-industrialiation and the movement of good union jobs overseas, a > counter-movement within the job training community (and there was huge > money to be made in job training!) existed that took the position that job > training to include ?all aspects of the industry.? (This was somewhere in > the Perkins Act which funded vocational training.) In the case of training > for culinary/hospitality work ?all aspects of the industry? would mean that > you would learn not just how to clean rooms or how to operate dishwashers, > but the whole history and economy of the industry, including the role of > unions. This effort did exist but since it did not support the main > neo-liberal agenda of lowering the cost of labor, it faded away. > > Helena > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > My interest, Alfredo, rather than taking something to an extreme to prove > a point, was to try to see the situation (peripheral participation, > apprenticeship, maser/servant relations, etc.) as normal, ethically > sanctioned, everyday relations. In my view, it is in such everyday > relations that exploitation and oppression happens. The very person or > organisation which you turn to to meet your needs may be the vehicle for > your exploitation. > > Think of employment, the Catholic Church, the family, political parties, > ... > > Andy > ------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 28/06/2019 9:03 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Hi Helena, all, > > > yes, I can see how CHAT can be relevant to fighting oppression and > de-humanisation. I was wondering more about the peripheral participation > metaphor in Lave and Wenger. I guess my question has to do with the > challenge of thinking of participation in a context in which all > opportunities to pursue the satisfaction of your basic human needs are > shutdown and taken away from you through violence. Andy seems to imply in > his response that this is still some form of participation. Not sure about > that. I wonder if the notion of participation holds when agency no > longer is a possibility. But of course, I was reducing the question to the > very narrow case of children being held in inhumane conditions. I thought > that this reduction to the extreme may be useful for thinking the limits of > our theoretical premises, an exercise that may be particularly relevant in > the context of existential crisis in which we find ourselves; as a means to > imagine how far we can go with our current ideas and what sort of > action/thinking needs to be done in a context in which we may be pushed to > the limit, right before the point of no longer being. > > > Sorry Greg for having taken your initial request for a walk... Thanks for > having opening the other thread to more properly address your initial > question. > > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Helena Worthen > *Sent:* 27 June 2019 15:13 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Cc:* Alfredo Jornet Gil > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and > Legitimate Peripheral Participation? > > Alfredo ? Try turning the question around: how does CHAT surface (make > visible to the researcher) the activities that are taking place in a > community of practice where people are fighting oppression and > de-humanisation? What are these people doing to carry on the fight? > > CHAT?s power to reveal conflict and contradiction comes into play here. > > This is an issue that kept rising and then sinking during the consensus > points discussion for Re-Gen. > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helena.worthen1 > > On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > > Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a > framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help > when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and > dehumanisation? > > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > *Sent:* 27 June 2019 02:37 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and > Legitimate Peripheral Participation? > > > I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically > connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be > very interested in reading her/his work. > > > A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who > visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I > was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being > described. > > > (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 > > > Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" > for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the > periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in > Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to > being a refugee or immigrant? > > > Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach > to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. > > > Best,? > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Greg Thompson > *Sent:* 26 June 2019 18:23 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and > Legitimate Peripheral Participation? > > Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on > refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or > otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of > practice)? > > (this is for a student of mine) > > Thanks, > Greg > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190628/a087c79f/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 09:46:27 2019 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:46:27 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> <5A854C93-BC9D-46BF-801E-E4EE4937EFCB@gmail.com> <1561719818697.15383@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <1FF87750-649D-4091-BF8F-BACDF61FBDE1@gmail.com> Huw - you?re right. I do not remember (don?t have the book in front of me) anything in LPP about the value to society or ethical character of a practice. So you could have a cult that survived across many generations and it would satisfy the three guidelines. Lave herself did not at all like having the LPP theory turned into a ?how to? recipe. That?s behind her distancing herself as much as possible from Wenger as time went on. But they don?t claim that LPP is a total theory. It?s what they (or she) saw when looking at the five examples of practices, and it?s an answer to a specific question. It?s one way to slice the cake, not the bakery itself. In order to slice a different way, you need another theory. Maybe four or five. helenaworthen@gmail.com helena.worthen1 > On Jun 28, 2019, at 10:14 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > This is one of the 'issues' with LPP, regarding Helena's third question and 'real work'. Because LLP, as it is described, does not venture into the structure and validity of the community's practice, but rather treats it as a given working (different meaning to 'real work' Helena refers to) practice, it becomes more difficult to apply a blanket assumption that the communal practice actually works when it is only concerned with part of an undertaking, e.g. a process of accreditation rather than actual production. This is not to say that the accreditation is necessarily phoney, but rather that many practices are required to be regulated. And the nature of that regulation has a bearing upon the community and its practices. For instance, one can look to the 'situated' practice of a professional as something that takes place concurrently with their membership of (or affinity with) a professional body. This is why it seems to me that the authenticity of the participation is closely related to the viability of the practice. When you cannot take the viability for granted (when the practice doesn't speak for itself) the nature of the participation becomes more of a question -- exactly what kinds of 'exploitation' are being bought into, what trade-offs are being made? > > The CoP in this sense seems to be a convenient simplification, omitting questions about the viability of the practice and the developmental aspects of the agents, to focus instead on the participation. > > Huw > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 14:43, Helena Worthen > wrote: > Hi ? > > To see if L&W?s theory of LLP could be applied usefully to the examples given by Andy (employment, the Catholic Church, many families ? I put in ?many?, etc) you could just ask the questions implied by the three guidelines that I mentioned in my previous message. > > For example, employment: In your job in a restaurant, are you confident that you have a right to learn the whole craft or skill set required to take any position, from doing the dishes to hosting at the front desk to ordering the supplies to doing the accounting and balancing the books? If yes, go to the next question. Is the path to learning all these different things clear, transparent, and recognized by everyeone else? And incentivized? If yes, go to the next question: right now, are you doing real work that is necessary to the success of the restaurant? Are all the other people around you doing real work? Or is someone being excluded, kept on one job month after month, clueless about the overall functioning of the place? > > If yes, then you?re probably working in a co-op project that was set up in advance by a group of people who had a certain vision of a restaurant, and you?re lucky!! You could use L&W?s guidelines as a way to monitor the culture of the restaurant as the years go by and new people get brought in. There will undoubtedly be people coming in who don?t understand the culture, who just want to treat it as a job, and others who are willing to let this happen. The founders will be getting old and no one seems to be interested in stepping up, and the group has failed to incentiveize the rising of new leadership. This will probably lead to a big meeting of the members of the co-op and a decision to either re-up the collective culture or else sell the place (which is probably a successful business), divide up the shares, and go home. > > In the 1990s, in the US, as ?job training? became the official response to de-industrialiation and the movement of good union jobs overseas, a counter-movement within the job training community (and there was huge money to be made in job training!) existed that took the position that job training to include ?all aspects of the industry.? (This was somewhere in the Perkins Act which funded vocational training.) In the case of training for culinary/hospitality work ?all aspects of the industry? would mean that you would learn not just how to clean rooms or how to operate dishwashers, but the whole history and economy of the industry, including the role of unions. This effort did exist but since it did not support the main neo-liberal agenda of lowering the cost of labor, it faded away. > > Helena > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 28, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >> >> My interest, Alfredo, rather than taking something to an extreme to prove a point, was to try to see the situation (peripheral participation, apprenticeship, maser/servant relations, etc.) as normal, ethically sanctioned, everyday relations. In my view, it is in such everyday relations that exploitation and oppression happens. The very person or organisation which you turn to to meet your needs may be the vehicle for your exploitation. >> >> Think of employment, the Catholic Church, the family, political parties, ... >> Andy >> Andy Blunden >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 28/06/2019 9:03 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> Hi Helena, all, >>> >>> >>> yes, I can see how CHAT can be relevant to fighting oppression and de-humanisation. I was wondering more about the peripheral participation metaphor in Lave and Wenger. I guess my question has to do with the challenge of thinking of participation in a context in which all opportunities to pursue the satisfaction of your basic human needs are shutdown and taken away from you through violence. Andy seems to imply in his response that this is still some form of participation. Not sure about that. I wonder if the notion of participation holds when agency no longer is a possibility. But of course, I was reducing the question to the very narrow case of children being held in inhumane conditions. I thought that this reduction to the extreme may be useful for thinking the limits of our theoretical premises, an exercise that may be particularly relevant in the context of existential crisis in which we find ourselves; as a means to imagine how far we can go with our current ideas and what sort of action/thinking needs to be done in a context in which we may be pushed to the limit, right before the point of no longer being. >>> >>> Sorry Greg for having taken your initial request for a walk... Thanks for having opening the other thread to more properly address your initial question. >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> From: Helena Worthen >>> Sent: 27 June 2019 15:13 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil >>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>> >>> Alfredo ? Try turning the question around: how does CHAT surface (make visible to the researcher) the activities that are taking place in a community of practice where people are fighting oppression and de-humanisation? What are these people doing to carry on the fight? >>> >>> CHAT?s power to reveal conflict and contradiction comes into play here. >>> >>> This is an issue that kept rising and then sinking during the consensus points discussion for Re-Gen. >>> >>> >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>> helena.worthen1 >>> >>>> On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: >>>> >>>> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and dehumanisation? >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> >>>> >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > >>>> Sent: 27 June 2019 02:37 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>>> >>>> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be very interested in reading her/his work. >>>> >>>> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being described. >>>> >>>> (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >>>> >>>> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best,? >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> >>>> >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Greg Thompson > >>>> Sent: 26 June 2019 18:23 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>>> >>>> Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? >>>> >>>> (this is for a student of mine) >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Anthropology >>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190628/9fc2ed07/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 10:05:36 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 11:05:36 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> <5A854C93-BC9D-46BF-801E-E4EE4937EFCB@gmail.com> <1561719818697.15383@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: Helena, Thank you for these recent posts. Your down-to-earth practical (rising to the concrete?) approach and deep knowledge of labor and labor organizing is as helpful as it is inspiring. Thank you, Greg On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 7:43 AM Helena Worthen wrote: > Hi ? > > To see if L&W?s theory of LLP could be applied usefully to the examples > given by Andy (employment, the Catholic Church, many families ? I put in > ?many?, etc) you could just ask the questions implied by the three > guidelines that I mentioned in my previous message. > > For example, employment: In your job in a restaurant, are you confident > that you have a right to learn the whole craft or skill set required to > take any position, from doing the dishes to hosting at the front desk to > ordering the supplies to doing the accounting and balancing the books? If > yes, go to the next question. Is the path to learning all these different > things clear, transparent, and recognized by everyeone else? And > incentivized? If yes, go to the next question: right now, are you doing > real work that is necessary to the success of the restaurant? Are all the > other people around you doing real work? Or is someone being excluded, kept > on one job month after month, clueless about the overall functioning of the > place? > > If yes, then you?re probably working in a co-op project that was set up in > advance by a group of people who had a certain vision of a restaurant, and > you?re lucky!! You could use L&W?s guidelines as a way to monitor the > culture of the restaurant as the years go by and new people get brought in. > There will undoubtedly be people coming in who don?t understand the > culture, who just want to treat it as a job, and others who are willing to > let this happen. The founders will be getting old and no one seems to be > interested in stepping up, and the group has failed to incentiveize the > rising of new leadership. This will probably lead to a big meeting of the > members of the co-op and a decision to either re-up the collective culture > or else sell the place (which is probably a successful business), divide up > the shares, and go home. > > In the 1990s, in the US, as ?job training? became the official response to > de-industrialiation and the movement of good union jobs overseas, a > counter-movement within the job training community (and there was huge > money to be made in job training!) existed that took the position that job > training to include ?all aspects of the industry.? (This was somewhere in > the Perkins Act which funded vocational training.) In the case of training > for culinary/hospitality work ?all aspects of the industry? would mean that > you would learn not just how to clean rooms or how to operate dishwashers, > but the whole history and economy of the industry, including the role of > unions. This effort did exist but since it did not support the main > neo-liberal agenda of lowering the cost of labor, it faded away. > > Helena > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > My interest, Alfredo, rather than taking something to an extreme to prove > a point, was to try to see the situation (peripheral participation, > apprenticeship, maser/servant relations, etc.) as normal, ethically > sanctioned, everyday relations. In my view, it is in such everyday > relations that exploitation and oppression happens. The very person or > organisation which you turn to to meet your needs may be the vehicle for > your exploitation. > > Think of employment, the Catholic Church, the family, political parties, > ... > > Andy > ------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 28/06/2019 9:03 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Hi Helena, all, > > > yes, I can see how CHAT can be relevant to fighting oppression and > de-humanisation. I was wondering more about the peripheral participation > metaphor in Lave and Wenger. I guess my question has to do with the > challenge of thinking of participation in a context in which all > opportunities to pursue the satisfaction of your basic human needs are > shutdown and taken away from you through violence. Andy seems to imply in > his response that this is still some form of participation. Not sure about > that. I wonder if the notion of participation holds when agency no > longer is a possibility. But of course, I was reducing the question to the > very narrow case of children being held in inhumane conditions. I thought > that this reduction to the extreme may be useful for thinking the limits of > our theoretical premises, an exercise that may be particularly relevant in > the context of existential crisis in which we find ourselves; as a means to > imagine how far we can go with our current ideas and what sort of > action/thinking needs to be done in a context in which we may be pushed to > the limit, right before the point of no longer being. > > > Sorry Greg for having taken your initial request for a walk... Thanks for > having opening the other thread to more properly address your initial > question. > > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Helena Worthen > *Sent:* 27 June 2019 15:13 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Cc:* Alfredo Jornet Gil > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and > Legitimate Peripheral Participation? > > Alfredo ? Try turning the question around: how does CHAT surface (make > visible to the researcher) the activities that are taking place in a > community of practice where people are fighting oppression and > de-humanisation? What are these people doing to carry on the fight? > > CHAT?s power to reveal conflict and contradiction comes into play here. > > This is an issue that kept rising and then sinking during the consensus > points discussion for Re-Gen. > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helena.worthen1 > > On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > > Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a > framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help > when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and > dehumanisation? > > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > *Sent:* 27 June 2019 02:37 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and > Legitimate Peripheral Participation? > > > I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically > connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be > very interested in reading her/his work. > > > A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who > visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I > was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being > described. > > > (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 > > > Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" > for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the > periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in > Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to > being a refugee or immigrant? > > > Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach > to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. > > > Best,? > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Greg Thompson > *Sent:* 26 June 2019 18:23 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and > Legitimate Peripheral Participation? > > Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on > refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or > otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of > practice)? > > (this is for a student of mine) > > Thanks, > Greg > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190628/8894c1ea/attachment.html From ewall@umich.edu Fri Jun 28 16:08:25 2019 From: ewall@umich.edu (Edward Wall) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:08:25 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: <3D607827-0373-4631-B80A-7880E633BAA3@gmail.com> References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> <5A854C93-BC9D-46BF-801E-E4EE4937EFCB@gmail.com> <1561719818697.15383@ils.uio.no> <3D607827-0373-4631-B80A-7880E633BAA3@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with Helena about Lave and Wenger as regards the border situation. There is Garfinkel?s ethnmethodology (and I seem to remember some conversations between ethnomethodlogists and SFLers - perhaps David has comments) which seems like it might provide some insight into some of the questions that are being asked. A very quick search turned up this: "Exploring adaptation and quality of life of refugees in the United States" at https://twu-ir.tdl.org/handle/11274/4888 Ed > On Jun 28, 2019, at 8:21 AM, Helena Worthen wrote: > > Hi, Alfredo et al - > > The question that Lave and Wenger were asking in their 1991 book was ?How does a community pass on the knowledge that it has created to the next generation, given that we are not talking about school learning?? (That was clumsily expressed, but it?s the point.) How does the midwife pass on midwifery to the next generation, given that there?s not midwife training program? Same with the tailors in the marketplace; the members of AA, etc. To answer this question, L&W look at descriptions of communities where the practice survives (midwifery, AA, tailoring, quartermastering) and where it does not (the butcher department in a grocery store). From what they see, they propose guidelines. These propose what a community has to be doing in order for the knowledge that the community has collectively created to make the leap across generations (which means that the practice, and thus the community itself will survive). LPP is what they call the kind of participation that they identify as making this possible. The guidelines are that the participants in the community have to feel that they are legitimately there and have a right to learn how to become ?experts? in the craft (that would mean a right to ask questions, to demand full explanations, to be listened to, to feel that their learning is one of the purposes of their participation); that their participation involves doing real work that contributes to the real productivity of the community (not ?make-work,? as in, in being given a fruitless assignment or just something ot keep them busy); and that the path from novice (these are L&W?s terms) to expert or insider is transparent and known to all (no secrets, no hidden passwords to getting more knowledge ? equal access). > > In other words if you want to use Lave and Wenger to understand what is going on with the children being held at the border, the answer is no ? their LPP theory won?t help. Why not? Because how are you going to identify the community that generates the practice that is going to get passed along, or not, to the next generation? You?ve got three concepts there that don?t fit the situation. > > A typical place where the L&W approach is useful is when you?re looking at an institution or organization that is having a hard time finding someone younger to take over ? organizations that age out under the same leader and then expire becuase they haven?t been building the next generation. (Re-Gen should come to mind, here, as an example of an attempt to build the next generation.) > > Using Engestrom?s activity theory unit of analysis could help clarify what?s going on, however, and at least make it possible to plan the research. > > H > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 28, 2019, at 7:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> >> Hi Helena, all, >> >> yes, I can see how CHAT can be relevant to fighting oppression and de-humanisation. I was wondering more about the peripheral participation metaphor in Lave and Wenger. I guess my question has to do with the challenge of thinking of participation in a context in which all opportunities to pursue the satisfaction of your basic human needs are shutdown and taken away from you through violence. Andy seems to imply in his response that this is still some form of participation. Not sure about that. I wonder if the notion of participation holds when agency no longer is a possibility. But of course, I was reducing the question to the very narrow case of children being held in inhumane conditions. I thought that this reduction to the extreme may be useful for thinking the limits of our theoretical premises, an exercise that may be particularly relevant in the context of existential crisis in which we find ourselves; as a means to imagine how far we can go with our current ideas and what sort of action/thinking needs to be done in a context in which we may be pushed to the limit, right before the point of no longer being. >> >> Sorry Greg for having taken your initial request for a walk... Thanks for having opening the other thread to more properly address your initial question. >> >> Alfredo >> >> >> From: Helena Worthen >> Sent: 27 June 2019 15:13 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >> >> Alfredo ? Try turning the question around: how does CHAT surface (make visible to the researcher) the activities that are taking place in a community of practice where people are fighting oppression and de-humanisation? What are these people doing to carry on the fight? >> >> CHAT?s power to reveal conflict and contradiction comes into play here. >> >> This is an issue that kept rising and then sinking during the consensus points discussion for Re-Gen. >> >> >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> helena.worthen1 >> >>> On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> >>> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and dehumanisation? >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil >>> Sent: 27 June 2019 02:37 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>> >>> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be very interested in reading her/his work. >>> >>> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being described. >>> >>> (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >>> >>> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? >>> >>> Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. >>> >>> Best,? >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Greg Thompson >>> Sent: 26 June 2019 18:23 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>> >>> Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? >>> >>> (this is for a student of mine) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Greg >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sat Jun 29 06:23:22 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:23:22 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: <1FF87750-649D-4091-BF8F-BACDF61FBDE1@gmail.com> References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> <5A854C93-BC9D-46BF-801E-E4EE4937EFCB@gmail.com> <1561719818697.15383@ils.uio.no> <1FF87750-649D-4091-BF8F-BACDF61FBDE1@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Helena. There was advocacy for learning as participation. But yes, I wouldn't think of it as a method, rather an area of focus, literally following the meaning of the words rather than assuming "CoP" means something in particular. If one wanted to characterise "CoP" as it is historically described, then a key part of its history seems to be emphasising that there is much more to learning that formal learning of information, but this is combined with a reluctance to investigate exactly how and where that information manifests, along with other aspects of activity. I would describe it as a moment in cultural studies rather than a theory per se. On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 18:20, Helena Worthen wrote: > Huw - you?re right. I do not remember (don?t have the book in front of me) > anything in LPP about the value to society or ethical character of a > practice. So you could have a cult that survived across many generations > and it would satisfy the three guidelines. > > Lave herself did not at all like having the LPP theory turned into a ?how > to? recipe. That?s behind her distancing herself as much as possible from > Wenger as time went on. > > But they don?t claim that LPP is a total theory. It?s what they (or she) > saw when looking at the five examples of practices, and it?s an answer to a > specific question. It?s one way to slice the cake, not the bakery itself. > In order to slice a different way, you need another theory. Maybe four or > five. > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 2019, at 10:14 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > This is one of the 'issues' with LPP, regarding Helena's third question > and 'real work'. Because LLP, as it is described, does not venture into the > structure and validity of the community's practice, but rather treats it as > a given working (different meaning to 'real work' Helena refers to) > practice, it becomes more difficult to apply a blanket assumption that the > communal practice actually works when it is only concerned with part of an > undertaking, e.g. a process of accreditation rather than actual production. > This is not to say that the accreditation is necessarily phoney, but rather > that many practices are required to be regulated. And the nature of that > regulation has a bearing upon the community and its practices. For > instance, one can look to the 'situated' practice of a professional as > something that takes place concurrently with their membership of (or > affinity with) a professional body. This is why it seems to me that the > authenticity of the participation is closely related to the viability of > the practice. When you cannot take the viability for granted (when the > practice doesn't speak for itself) the nature of the participation becomes > more of a question -- exactly what kinds of 'exploitation' are being bought > into, what trade-offs are being made? > > The CoP in this sense seems to be a convenient simplification, omitting > questions about the viability of the practice and the developmental aspects > of the agents, to focus instead on the participation. > > Huw > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 14:43, Helena Worthen > wrote: > >> Hi ? >> >> To see if L&W?s theory of LLP could be applied usefully to the examples >> given by Andy (employment, the Catholic Church, many families ? I put in >> ?many?, etc) you could just ask the questions implied by the three >> guidelines that I mentioned in my previous message. >> >> For example, employment: In your job in a restaurant, are you confident >> that you have a right to learn the whole craft or skill set required to >> take any position, from doing the dishes to hosting at the front desk to >> ordering the supplies to doing the accounting and balancing the books? If >> yes, go to the next question. Is the path to learning all these different >> things clear, transparent, and recognized by everyeone else? And >> incentivized? If yes, go to the next question: right now, are you doing >> real work that is necessary to the success of the restaurant? Are all the >> other people around you doing real work? Or is someone being excluded, kept >> on one job month after month, clueless about the overall functioning of the >> place? >> >> If yes, then you?re probably working in a co-op project that was set up >> in advance by a group of people who had a certain vision of a restaurant, >> and you?re lucky!! You could use L&W?s guidelines as a way to monitor the >> culture of the restaurant as the years go by and new people get brought in. >> There will undoubtedly be people coming in who don?t understand the >> culture, who just want to treat it as a job, and others who are willing to >> let this happen. The founders will be getting old and no one seems to be >> interested in stepping up, and the group has failed to incentiveize the >> rising of new leadership. This will probably lead to a big meeting of the >> members of the co-op and a decision to either re-up the collective culture >> or else sell the place (which is probably a successful business), divide up >> the shares, and go home. >> >> In the 1990s, in the US, as ?job training? became the official response >> to de-industrialiation and the movement of good union jobs overseas, a >> counter-movement within the job training community (and there was huge >> money to be made in job training!) existed that took the position that job >> training to include ?all aspects of the industry.? (This was somewhere in >> the Perkins Act which funded vocational training.) In the case of training >> for culinary/hospitality work ?all aspects of the industry? would mean that >> you would learn not just how to clean rooms or how to operate dishwashers, >> but the whole history and economy of the industry, including the role of >> unions. This effort did exist but since it did not support the main >> neo-liberal agenda of lowering the cost of labor, it faded away. >> >> Helena >> >> >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 28, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> My interest, Alfredo, rather than taking something to an extreme to prove >> a point, was to try to see the situation (peripheral participation, >> apprenticeship, maser/servant relations, etc.) as normal, ethically >> sanctioned, everyday relations. In my view, it is in such everyday >> relations that exploitation and oppression happens. The very person or >> organisation which you turn to to meet your needs may be the vehicle for >> your exploitation. >> >> Think of employment, the Catholic Church, the family, political parties, >> ... >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 28/06/2019 9:03 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> >> Hi Helena, all, >> >> >> yes, I can see how CHAT can be relevant to fighting oppression and >> de-humanisation. I was wondering more about the peripheral participation >> metaphor in Lave and Wenger. I guess my question has to do with the >> challenge of thinking of participation in a context in which all >> opportunities to pursue the satisfaction of your basic human needs are >> shutdown and taken away from you through violence. Andy seems to imply in >> his response that this is still some form of participation. Not sure about >> that. I wonder if the notion of participation holds when agency no >> longer is a possibility. But of course, I was reducing the question to the >> very narrow case of children being held in inhumane conditions. I thought >> that this reduction to the extreme may be useful for thinking the limits of >> our theoretical premises, an exercise that may be particularly relevant in >> the context of existential crisis in which we find ourselves; as a means to >> imagine how far we can go with our current ideas and what sort of >> action/thinking needs to be done in a context in which we may be pushed to >> the limit, right before the point of no longer being. >> >> >> Sorry Greg for having taken your initial request for a walk... Thanks for >> having opening the other thread to more properly address your initial >> question. >> >> >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Helena Worthen >> >> *Sent:* 27 June 2019 15:13 >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Cc:* Alfredo Jornet Gil >> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and >> Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >> >> Alfredo ? Try turning the question around: how does CHAT surface (make >> visible to the researcher) the activities that are taking place in a >> community of practice where people are fighting oppression and >> de-humanisation? What are these people doing to carry on the fight? >> >> CHAT?s power to reveal conflict and contradiction comes into play here. >> >> This is an issue that kept rising and then sinking during the consensus >> points discussion for Re-Gen. >> >> >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> helena.worthen1 >> >> On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil >> wrote: >> >> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a >> framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help >> when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and >> dehumanisation? >> >> >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil >> *Sent:* 27 June 2019 02:37 >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and >> Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >> >> >> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically >> connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be >> very interested in reading her/his work. >> >> >> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who >> visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I >> was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being >> described. >> >> >> (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >> >> >> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate >> participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and >> what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a >> shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that >> belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? >> >> >> Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the >> approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. >> >> >> Best,? >> >> Alfredo >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of Greg Thompson >> *Sent:* 26 June 2019 18:23 >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and >> Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >> >> Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on >> refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or >> otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of >> practice)? >> >> (this is for a student of mine) >> >> Thanks, >> Greg >> >> -- >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Anthropology >> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >> Brigham Young University >> Provo, UT 84602 >> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190629/0ea7d0bf/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Sat Jun 29 07:19:22 2019 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:19:22 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> <5A854C93-BC9D-46BF-801E-E4EE4937EFCB@gmail.com> <1561719818697.15383@ils.uio.no> <1FF87750-649D-4091-BF8F-BACDF61FBDE1@gmail.com> Message-ID: Two comments, Huw ? A moment in cultural studies, yes. Of course it depends on your purpose in characterising something. My purposes are short-term practical what-can-I-use-to-address-this-problem, and the problems I address (in labor education) are collective employment-related social justice problems, so that?s a very specific arc of human experience. My main question is ?How can I use this?? Your purposes ? although I should let you define them yourself ? are much more from the perspective of the researcher, cultural historian, academic,maybe something like ?What does this mean in the big picture of psychology?" Second comment ? I don?t understand what you mean by "reluctance to investigate exactly how and where that information manifests, along with other aspects of activity.? How does ?information manifest?? Thanks ? Helena > On Jun 29, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Thanks, Helena. > > There was advocacy for learning as participation. But yes, I wouldn't think of it as a method, rather an area of focus, literally following the meaning of the words rather than assuming "CoP" means something in particular. If one wanted to characterise "CoP" as it is historically described, then a key part of its history seems to be emphasising that there is much more to learning that formal learning of information, but this is combined with a reluctance to investigate exactly how and where that information manifests, along with other aspects of activity. I would describe it as a moment in cultural studies rather than a theory per se. > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 18:20, Helena Worthen > wrote: > Huw - you?re right. I do not remember (don?t have the book in front of me) anything in LPP about the value to society or ethical character of a practice. So you could have a cult that survived across many generations and it would satisfy the three guidelines. > > Lave herself did not at all like having the LPP theory turned into a ?how to? recipe. That?s behind her distancing herself as much as possible from Wenger as time went on. > > But they don?t claim that LPP is a total theory. It?s what they (or she) saw when looking at the five examples of practices, and it?s an answer to a specific question. It?s one way to slice the cake, not the bakery itself. In order to slice a different way, you need another theory. Maybe four or five. > > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 28, 2019, at 10:14 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: >> >> This is one of the 'issues' with LPP, regarding Helena's third question and 'real work'. Because LLP, as it is described, does not venture into the structure and validity of the community's practice, but rather treats it as a given working (different meaning to 'real work' Helena refers to) practice, it becomes more difficult to apply a blanket assumption that the communal practice actually works when it is only concerned with part of an undertaking, e.g. a process of accreditation rather than actual production. This is not to say that the accreditation is necessarily phoney, but rather that many practices are required to be regulated. And the nature of that regulation has a bearing upon the community and its practices. For instance, one can look to the 'situated' practice of a professional as something that takes place concurrently with their membership of (or affinity with) a professional body. This is why it seems to me that the authenticity of the participation is closely related to the viability of the practice. When you cannot take the viability for granted (when the practice doesn't speak for itself) the nature of the participation becomes more of a question -- exactly what kinds of 'exploitation' are being bought into, what trade-offs are being made? >> >> The CoP in this sense seems to be a convenient simplification, omitting questions about the viability of the practice and the developmental aspects of the agents, to focus instead on the participation. >> >> Huw >> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 14:43, Helena Worthen > wrote: >> Hi ? >> >> To see if L&W?s theory of LLP could be applied usefully to the examples given by Andy (employment, the Catholic Church, many families ? I put in ?many?, etc) you could just ask the questions implied by the three guidelines that I mentioned in my previous message. >> >> For example, employment: In your job in a restaurant, are you confident that you have a right to learn the whole craft or skill set required to take any position, from doing the dishes to hosting at the front desk to ordering the supplies to doing the accounting and balancing the books? If yes, go to the next question. Is the path to learning all these different things clear, transparent, and recognized by everyeone else? And incentivized? If yes, go to the next question: right now, are you doing real work that is necessary to the success of the restaurant? Are all the other people around you doing real work? Or is someone being excluded, kept on one job month after month, clueless about the overall functioning of the place? >> >> If yes, then you?re probably working in a co-op project that was set up in advance by a group of people who had a certain vision of a restaurant, and you?re lucky!! You could use L&W?s guidelines as a way to monitor the culture of the restaurant as the years go by and new people get brought in. There will undoubtedly be people coming in who don?t understand the culture, who just want to treat it as a job, and others who are willing to let this happen. The founders will be getting old and no one seems to be interested in stepping up, and the group has failed to incentiveize the rising of new leadership. This will probably lead to a big meeting of the members of the co-op and a decision to either re-up the collective culture or else sell the place (which is probably a successful business), divide up the shares, and go home. >> >> In the 1990s, in the US, as ?job training? became the official response to de-industrialiation and the movement of good union jobs overseas, a counter-movement within the job training community (and there was huge money to be made in job training!) existed that took the position that job training to include ?all aspects of the industry.? (This was somewhere in the Perkins Act which funded vocational training.) In the case of training for culinary/hospitality work ?all aspects of the industry? would mean that you would learn not just how to clean rooms or how to operate dishwashers, but the whole history and economy of the industry, including the role of unions. This effort did exist but since it did not support the main neo-liberal agenda of lowering the cost of labor, it faded away. >> >> Helena >> >> >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 28, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>> >>> My interest, Alfredo, rather than taking something to an extreme to prove a point, was to try to see the situation (peripheral participation, apprenticeship, maser/servant relations, etc.) as normal, ethically sanctioned, everyday relations. In my view, it is in such everyday relations that exploitation and oppression happens. The very person or organisation which you turn to to meet your needs may be the vehicle for your exploitation. >>> >>> Think of employment, the Catholic Church, the family, political parties, ... >>> Andy >>> Andy Blunden >>> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 28/06/2019 9:03 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>> Hi Helena, all, >>>> >>>> >>>> yes, I can see how CHAT can be relevant to fighting oppression and de-humanisation. I was wondering more about the peripheral participation metaphor in Lave and Wenger. I guess my question has to do with the challenge of thinking of participation in a context in which all opportunities to pursue the satisfaction of your basic human needs are shutdown and taken away from you through violence. Andy seems to imply in his response that this is still some form of participation. Not sure about that. I wonder if the notion of participation holds when agency no longer is a possibility. But of course, I was reducing the question to the very narrow case of children being held in inhumane conditions. I thought that this reduction to the extreme may be useful for thinking the limits of our theoretical premises, an exercise that may be particularly relevant in the context of existential crisis in which we find ourselves; as a means to imagine how far we can go with our current ideas and what sort of action/thinking needs to be done in a context in which we may be pushed to the limit, right before the point of no longer being. >>>> >>>> Sorry Greg for having taken your initial request for a walk... Thanks for having opening the other thread to more properly address your initial question. >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Helena Worthen >>>> Sent: 27 June 2019 15:13 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>>> >>>> Alfredo ? Try turning the question around: how does CHAT surface (make visible to the researcher) the activities that are taking place in a community of practice where people are fighting oppression and de-humanisation? What are these people doing to carry on the fight? >>>> >>>> CHAT?s power to reveal conflict and contradiction comes into play here. >>>> >>>> This is an issue that kept rising and then sinking during the consensus points discussion for Re-Gen. >>>> >>>> >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>> helena.worthen1 >>>> >>>>> On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and dehumanisation? >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > >>>>> Sent: 27 June 2019 02:37 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>>>> >>>>> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be very interested in reading her/his work. >>>>> >>>>> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being described. >>>>> >>>>> (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >>>>> >>>>> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best,? >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Greg Thompson > >>>>> Sent: 26 June 2019 18:23 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>>>> >>>>> Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? >>>>> >>>>> (this is for a student of mine) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Greg >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> > Helena Worthen 21 San Mateo Road Berkeley, CA 94707 hworthen@illinois.edu 510-828-2745 Skype Helena.worthen1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190629/9c10946d/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sat Jun 29 08:38:47 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 16:38:47 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> <5A854C93-BC9D-46BF-801E-E4EE4937EFCB@gmail.com> <1561719818697.15383@ils.uio.no> <1FF87750-649D-4091-BF8F-BACDF61FBDE1@gmail.com> Message-ID: It manifests as an "in-forming", changing or regulating the shape of activity through signs and attention. The "information" of formal instruction is not necessarily the same kind of informing, with its focus upon notation without recognising the necessity for orientation and construal. I think I'm correct in saying that this doesn't show up in the "CoP" accounts, I certainly don't recall any explicit regard for it. Thanks for your elaborations, Helena. Huw On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 at 15:22, Helena Worthen wrote: > Two comments, Huw ? > > A moment in cultural studies, yes. Of course it depends on your purpose in > characterising something. My purposes are short-term practical > what-can-I-use-to-address-this-problem, and the problems I address (in > labor education) are collective employment-related social justice problems, > so that?s a very specific arc of human experience. My main question is ?How > can I use this?? Your purposes ? although I should let you define them > yourself ? are much more from the perspective of the researcher, cultural > historian, academic,maybe something like ?What does this mean in the big > picture of psychology?" > > Second comment ? I don?t understand what you mean by "reluctance to > investigate exactly how and where that information manifests, along with > other aspects of activity.? How does ?information manifest?? > > Thanks ? Helena > > > > On Jun 29, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Thanks, Helena. > > There was advocacy for learning as participation. But yes, I wouldn't > think of it as a method, rather an area of focus, literally following the > meaning of the words rather than assuming "CoP" means something in > particular. If one wanted to characterise "CoP" as it is historically > described, then a key part of its history seems to be emphasising that > there is much more to learning that formal learning of information, but > this is combined with a reluctance to investigate exactly how and where > that information manifests, along with other aspects of activity. I would > describe it as a moment in cultural studies rather than a theory per se. > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 18:20, Helena Worthen > wrote: > >> Huw - you?re right. I do not remember (don?t have the book in front of >> me) anything in LPP about the value to society or ethical character of a >> practice. So you could have a cult that survived across many generations >> and it would satisfy the three guidelines. >> >> Lave herself did not at all like having the LPP theory turned into a ?how >> to? recipe. That?s behind her distancing herself as much as possible from >> Wenger as time went on. >> >> But they don?t claim that LPP is a total theory. It?s what they (or she) >> saw when looking at the five examples of practices, and it?s an answer to a >> specific question. It?s one way to slice the cake, not the bakery itself. >> In order to slice a different way, you need another theory. Maybe four or >> five. >> >> >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 28, 2019, at 10:14 AM, Huw Lloyd >> wrote: >> >> This is one of the 'issues' with LPP, regarding Helena's third question >> and 'real work'. Because LLP, as it is described, does not venture into the >> structure and validity of the community's practice, but rather treats it as >> a given working (different meaning to 'real work' Helena refers to) >> practice, it becomes more difficult to apply a blanket assumption that the >> communal practice actually works when it is only concerned with part of an >> undertaking, e.g. a process of accreditation rather than actual production. >> This is not to say that the accreditation is necessarily phoney, but rather >> that many practices are required to be regulated. And the nature of that >> regulation has a bearing upon the community and its practices. For >> instance, one can look to the 'situated' practice of a professional as >> something that takes place concurrently with their membership of (or >> affinity with) a professional body. This is why it seems to me that the >> authenticity of the participation is closely related to the viability of >> the practice. When you cannot take the viability for granted (when the >> practice doesn't speak for itself) the nature of the participation becomes >> more of a question -- exactly what kinds of 'exploitation' are being bought >> into, what trade-offs are being made? >> >> The CoP in this sense seems to be a convenient simplification, omitting >> questions about the viability of the practice and the developmental aspects >> of the agents, to focus instead on the participation. >> >> Huw >> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 14:43, Helena Worthen >> wrote: >> >>> Hi ? >>> >>> To see if L&W?s theory of LLP could be applied usefully to the examples >>> given by Andy (employment, the Catholic Church, many families ? I put in >>> ?many?, etc) you could just ask the questions implied by the three >>> guidelines that I mentioned in my previous message. >>> >>> For example, employment: In your job in a restaurant, are you confident >>> that you have a right to learn the whole craft or skill set required to >>> take any position, from doing the dishes to hosting at the front desk to >>> ordering the supplies to doing the accounting and balancing the books? If >>> yes, go to the next question. Is the path to learning all these different >>> things clear, transparent, and recognized by everyeone else? And >>> incentivized? If yes, go to the next question: right now, are you doing >>> real work that is necessary to the success of the restaurant? Are all the >>> other people around you doing real work? Or is someone being excluded, kept >>> on one job month after month, clueless about the overall functioning of the >>> place? >>> >>> If yes, then you?re probably working in a co-op project that was set up >>> in advance by a group of people who had a certain vision of a restaurant, >>> and you?re lucky!! You could use L&W?s guidelines as a way to monitor the >>> culture of the restaurant as the years go by and new people get brought in. >>> There will undoubtedly be people coming in who don?t understand the >>> culture, who just want to treat it as a job, and others who are willing to >>> let this happen. The founders will be getting old and no one seems to be >>> interested in stepping up, and the group has failed to incentiveize the >>> rising of new leadership. This will probably lead to a big meeting of the >>> members of the co-op and a decision to either re-up the collective culture >>> or else sell the place (which is probably a successful business), divide up >>> the shares, and go home. >>> >>> In the 1990s, in the US, as ?job training? became the official response >>> to de-industrialiation and the movement of good union jobs overseas, a >>> counter-movement within the job training community (and there was huge >>> money to be made in job training!) existed that took the position that job >>> training to include ?all aspects of the industry.? (This was somewhere in >>> the Perkins Act which funded vocational training.) In the case of training >>> for culinary/hospitality work ?all aspects of the industry? would mean that >>> you would learn not just how to clean rooms or how to operate dishwashers, >>> but the whole history and economy of the industry, including the role of >>> unions. This effort did exist but since it did not support the main >>> neo-liberal agenda of lowering the cost of labor, it faded away. >>> >>> Helena >>> >>> >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>> helena.worthen1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 28, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>> My interest, Alfredo, rather than taking something to an extreme to >>> prove a point, was to try to see the situation (peripheral participation, >>> apprenticeship, maser/servant relations, etc.) as normal, ethically >>> sanctioned, everyday relations. In my view, it is in such everyday >>> relations that exploitation and oppression happens. The very person or >>> organisation which you turn to to meet your needs may be the vehicle for >>> your exploitation. >>> >>> Think of employment, the Catholic Church, the family, political parties, >>> ... >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 28/06/2019 9:03 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> >>> Hi Helena, all, >>> >>> >>> yes, I can see how CHAT can be relevant to fighting oppression and >>> de-humanisation. I was wondering more about the peripheral participation >>> metaphor in Lave and Wenger. I guess my question has to do with the >>> challenge of thinking of participation in a context in which all >>> opportunities to pursue the satisfaction of your basic human needs are >>> shutdown and taken away from you through violence. Andy seems to imply in >>> his response that this is still some form of participation. Not sure about >>> that. I wonder if the notion of participation holds when agency no >>> longer is a possibility. But of course, I was reducing the question to the >>> very narrow case of children being held in inhumane conditions. I thought >>> that this reduction to the extreme may be useful for thinking the limits of >>> our theoretical premises, an exercise that may be particularly relevant in >>> the context of existential crisis in which we find ourselves; as a means to >>> imagine how far we can go with our current ideas and what sort of >>> action/thinking needs to be done in a context in which we may be pushed to >>> the limit, right before the point of no longer being. >>> >>> >>> Sorry Greg for having taken your initial request for a walk... Thanks >>> for having opening the other thread to more properly address your initial >>> question. >>> >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Helena Worthen >>> >>> *Sent:* 27 June 2019 15:13 >>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> *Cc:* Alfredo Jornet Gil >>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants >>> and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>> >>> Alfredo ? Try turning the question around: how does CHAT surface (make >>> visible to the researcher) the activities that are taking place in a >>> community of practice where people are fighting oppression and >>> de-humanisation? What are these people doing to carry on the fight? >>> >>> CHAT?s power to reveal conflict and contradiction comes into play here. >>> >>> This is an issue that kept rising and then sinking during the consensus >>> points discussion for Re-Gen. >>> >>> >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>> helena.worthen1 >>> >>> On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil >>> wrote: >>> >>> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does >>> a framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help >>> when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and >>> dehumanisation? >>> >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil >>> *Sent:* 27 June 2019 02:37 >>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and >>> Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>> >>> >>> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically >>> connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be >>> very interested in reading her/his work. >>> >>> >>> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer >>> who visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried >>> as I was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being >>> described. >>> >>> >>> (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >>> >>> >>> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate >>> participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and >>> what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a >>> shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that >>> belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? >>> >>> >>> Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the >>> approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. >>> >>> >>> Best,? >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on behalf of Greg Thompson >>> *Sent:* 26 June 2019 18:23 >>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and >>> Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>> >>> Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on >>> refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or >>> otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of >>> practice)? >>> >>> (this is for a student of mine) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Greg >>> >>> -- >>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Anthropology >>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>> Brigham Young University >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > Helena Worthen > 21 San Mateo Road > Berkeley, CA 94707 > hworthen@illinois.edu > 510-828-2745 > Skype Helena.worthen1 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190629/564b295f/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Sat Jun 29 13:58:01 2019 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 16:58:01 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? In-Reply-To: References: <1561595828372.21990@ils.uio.no> <1561634291278.32009@ils.uio.no> <5A854C93-BC9D-46BF-801E-E4EE4937EFCB@gmail.com> <1561719818697.15383@ils.uio.no> <1FF87750-649D-4091-BF8F-BACDF61FBDE1@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi ? I don?t see it in CoP accounts either. Thanks for the explanation. H > On Jun 29, 2019, at 11:38 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > It manifests as an "in-forming", changing or regulating the shape of activity through signs and attention. The "information" of formal instruction is not necessarily the same kind of informing, with its focus upon notation without recognising the necessity for orientation and construal. I think I'm correct in saying that this doesn't show up in the "CoP" accounts, I certainly don't recall any explicit regard for it. > > Thanks for your elaborations, Helena. > > Huw > > > > On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 at 15:22, Helena Worthen > wrote: > Two comments, Huw ? > > A moment in cultural studies, yes. Of course it depends on your purpose in characterising something. My purposes are short-term practical what-can-I-use-to-address-this-problem, and the problems I address (in labor education) are collective employment-related social justice problems, so that?s a very specific arc of human experience. My main question is ?How can I use this?? Your purposes ? although I should let you define them yourself ? are much more from the perspective of the researcher, cultural historian, academic,maybe something like ?What does this mean in the big picture of psychology?" > > Second comment ? I don?t understand what you mean by "reluctance to investigate exactly how and where that information manifests, along with other aspects of activity.? How does ?information manifest?? > > Thanks ? Helena > > >> On Jun 29, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: >> >> Thanks, Helena. >> >> There was advocacy for learning as participation. But yes, I wouldn't think of it as a method, rather an area of focus, literally following the meaning of the words rather than assuming "CoP" means something in particular. If one wanted to characterise "CoP" as it is historically described, then a key part of its history seems to be emphasising that there is much more to learning that formal learning of information, but this is combined with a reluctance to investigate exactly how and where that information manifests, along with other aspects of activity. I would describe it as a moment in cultural studies rather than a theory per se. >> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 18:20, Helena Worthen > wrote: >> Huw - you?re right. I do not remember (don?t have the book in front of me) anything in LPP about the value to society or ethical character of a practice. So you could have a cult that survived across many generations and it would satisfy the three guidelines. >> >> Lave herself did not at all like having the LPP theory turned into a ?how to? recipe. That?s behind her distancing herself as much as possible from Wenger as time went on. >> >> But they don?t claim that LPP is a total theory. It?s what they (or she) saw when looking at the five examples of practices, and it?s an answer to a specific question. It?s one way to slice the cake, not the bakery itself. In order to slice a different way, you need another theory. Maybe four or five. >> >> >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 28, 2019, at 10:14 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: >>> >>> This is one of the 'issues' with LPP, regarding Helena's third question and 'real work'. Because LLP, as it is described, does not venture into the structure and validity of the community's practice, but rather treats it as a given working (different meaning to 'real work' Helena refers to) practice, it becomes more difficult to apply a blanket assumption that the communal practice actually works when it is only concerned with part of an undertaking, e.g. a process of accreditation rather than actual production. This is not to say that the accreditation is necessarily phoney, but rather that many practices are required to be regulated. And the nature of that regulation has a bearing upon the community and its practices. For instance, one can look to the 'situated' practice of a professional as something that takes place concurrently with their membership of (or affinity with) a professional body. This is why it seems to me that the authenticity of the participation is closely related to the viability of the practice. When you cannot take the viability for granted (when the practice doesn't speak for itself) the nature of the participation becomes more of a question -- exactly what kinds of 'exploitation' are being bought into, what trade-offs are being made? >>> >>> The CoP in this sense seems to be a convenient simplification, omitting questions about the viability of the practice and the developmental aspects of the agents, to focus instead on the participation. >>> >>> Huw >>> >>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 14:43, Helena Worthen > wrote: >>> Hi ? >>> >>> To see if L&W?s theory of LLP could be applied usefully to the examples given by Andy (employment, the Catholic Church, many families ? I put in ?many?, etc) you could just ask the questions implied by the three guidelines that I mentioned in my previous message. >>> >>> For example, employment: In your job in a restaurant, are you confident that you have a right to learn the whole craft or skill set required to take any position, from doing the dishes to hosting at the front desk to ordering the supplies to doing the accounting and balancing the books? If yes, go to the next question. Is the path to learning all these different things clear, transparent, and recognized by everyeone else? And incentivized? If yes, go to the next question: right now, are you doing real work that is necessary to the success of the restaurant? Are all the other people around you doing real work? Or is someone being excluded, kept on one job month after month, clueless about the overall functioning of the place? >>> >>> If yes, then you?re probably working in a co-op project that was set up in advance by a group of people who had a certain vision of a restaurant, and you?re lucky!! You could use L&W?s guidelines as a way to monitor the culture of the restaurant as the years go by and new people get brought in. There will undoubtedly be people coming in who don?t understand the culture, who just want to treat it as a job, and others who are willing to let this happen. The founders will be getting old and no one seems to be interested in stepping up, and the group has failed to incentiveize the rising of new leadership. This will probably lead to a big meeting of the members of the co-op and a decision to either re-up the collective culture or else sell the place (which is probably a successful business), divide up the shares, and go home. >>> >>> In the 1990s, in the US, as ?job training? became the official response to de-industrialiation and the movement of good union jobs overseas, a counter-movement within the job training community (and there was huge money to be made in job training!) existed that took the position that job training to include ?all aspects of the industry.? (This was somewhere in the Perkins Act which funded vocational training.) In the case of training for culinary/hospitality work ?all aspects of the industry? would mean that you would learn not just how to clean rooms or how to operate dishwashers, but the whole history and economy of the industry, including the role of unions. This effort did exist but since it did not support the main neo-liberal agenda of lowering the cost of labor, it faded away. >>> >>> Helena >>> >>> >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>> helena.worthen1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 28, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>> >>>> My interest, Alfredo, rather than taking something to an extreme to prove a point, was to try to see the situation (peripheral participation, apprenticeship, maser/servant relations, etc.) as normal, ethically sanctioned, everyday relations. In my view, it is in such everyday relations that exploitation and oppression happens. The very person or organisation which you turn to to meet your needs may be the vehicle for your exploitation. >>>> >>>> Think of employment, the Catholic Church, the family, political parties, ... >>>> Andy >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 28/06/2019 9:03 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>> Hi Helena, all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> yes, I can see how CHAT can be relevant to fighting oppression and de-humanisation. I was wondering more about the peripheral participation metaphor in Lave and Wenger. I guess my question has to do with the challenge of thinking of participation in a context in which all opportunities to pursue the satisfaction of your basic human needs are shutdown and taken away from you through violence. Andy seems to imply in his response that this is still some form of participation. Not sure about that. I wonder if the notion of participation holds when agency no longer is a possibility. But of course, I was reducing the question to the very narrow case of children being held in inhumane conditions. I thought that this reduction to the extreme may be useful for thinking the limits of our theoretical premises, an exercise that may be particularly relevant in the context of existential crisis in which we find ourselves; as a means to imagine how far we can go with our current ideas and what sort of action/thinking needs to be done in a context in which we may be pushed to the limit, right before the point of no longer being. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry Greg for having taken your initial request for a walk... Thanks for having opening the other thread to more properly address your initial question. >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Helena Worthen >>>>> Sent: 27 June 2019 15:13 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil >>>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo ? Try turning the question around: how does CHAT surface (make visible to the researcher) the activities that are taking place in a community of practice where people are fighting oppression and de-humanisation? What are these people doing to carry on the fight? >>>>> >>>>> CHAT?s power to reveal conflict and contradiction comes into play here. >>>>> >>>>> This is an issue that kept rising and then sinking during the consensus points discussion for Re-Gen. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>> helena.worthen1 >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Just to add, that the problem I'd like to learn more about is, how does a framework that takes apprenticeship and community as starting point help when the object of research is one that concerns oppression and dehumanisation? >>>>>> >>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > >>>>>> Sent: 27 June 2019 02:37 >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>>>>> >>>>>> I cannot help with this, Greg, since I don't know of work specifically connecting the two. But if your student gets to write about that, I'd be very interested in reading her/his work. >>>>>> >>>>>> A few days ago, I was listening Amy Goodman's interview with a lawyer who visited children detention centres in the US border. I literally cried as I was commuting to work listening to the horrendous inhumanity being described. >>>>>> >>>>>> (Interview here:) https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2019/6/24 >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, reading your question, I wondered, what is "legitimate participation" for a child in a detention center? What is the center and what the periphery in such a context? And for a Syrian refugee in a shelter in Turkey? Is there anything like a community of practice that belongs to being a refugee or immigrant? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Not that I am sceptical about or questioning the relevance of the approach to the issue. Just that I don't know how, would like to know. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best,? >>>>>> >>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Greg Thompson > >>>>>> Sent: 26 June 2019 18:23 >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation? >>>>>> >>>>>> Just wondering if anyone out there could point me to research on refugees/immigrants/migrants and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (or otherwise connect the former with Lave and Wenger's communities of practice)? >>>>>> >>>>>> (this is for a student of mine) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. >>>>>> Assistant Professor >>>>>> Department of Anthropology >>>>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower >>>>>> Brigham Young University >>>>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu >>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >>> >> > > Helena Worthen > 21 San Mateo Road > Berkeley, CA 94707 > hworthen@illinois.edu > 510-828-2745 > Skype Helena.worthen1 > > > > Helena Worthen 21 San Mateo Road Berkeley, CA 94707 hworthen@illinois.edu 510-828-2745 Skype Helena.worthen1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190629/d5bbd131/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Jun 29 18:08:56 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 11:08:56 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Where is Marx in the work and thought of Vygotsky? by Lucien Seve Message-ID: <10587a56-9847-19ea-923c-4694e412cfa5@marxists.org> Attachment may be of interest to people on this list. Andy -- ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190630/79d3d0ef/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Seve_Vygotsky_Marx.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 318613 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190630/79d3d0ef/attachment-0001.pdf From andyb@marxists.org Sun Jun 30 03:24:55 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 20:24:55 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Where is Marx in the work and thought of Vygotsky? by Lucien Seve In-Reply-To: <10587a56-9847-19ea-923c-4694e412cfa5@marxists.org> References: <10587a56-9847-19ea-923c-4694e412cfa5@marxists.org> Message-ID: A silly little error in translation. Seve writes: "Lenin says in his Philosophical Notebooks, Marx, unlike Hegel, left us ?a ?Logic? (with a capital L)?, ... Lenin actually wrote: "'If Marx did not leave behind him a ?Logic? (with a capital letter), he did leave the logic of Capital" Interesting read. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/06/2019 11:08 am, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Attachment may be of interest to people on this list. > > Andy > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190630/a732bac6/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Jun 30 04:11:07 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 21:11:07 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Where is Marx in the work and thought of Vygotsky? by Lucien Seve In-Reply-To: <10587a56-9847-19ea-923c-4694e412cfa5@marxists.org> References: <10587a56-9847-19ea-923c-4694e412cfa5@marxists.org> Message-ID: Just a couple of remarks on this very interesting paper: (1) When I read "Thought & Language" (the 1962 translation) - my first Vygotsky, I instantly recognised as a work of Marxism, and one informed by Hegel to boot. Which verifies Seve's obvious point that cutting out the explicit references to Marx does not remove the Marxist character of the work. (2) Seve (in my view) completely misunderstands Hegel's idea of "concept", attributing to Hegel the analytical view which Vygotsky also used up until 1931, at which point he came in contact with Hegelians. Marx made numerous "corrections" to Hegel, but the form of the concept was not one of those. (3) The meaning of Taetigkeit, Handlung, Aktivitaet, Praxis, etc., the various words in German, English and Russian, for "activity" is not cut and dry - different writers use different words differently. But despite the importance of the "productivist" interpretation of "Praxis" in anthropology and historiography, it has always seemed to me that the more general meaning of "purposive (social, artefact mediated) activity" is more appropriate for Psychology, and the meaning Vygotsky had in mind. It seems that Leontyev perversely agrees with this because of his spiteful attack on Vygotsky's supposed "idealism" (See JREEP v. 43, 2005) for not understanding "Praxis" in this productivist way. Still, very welcome article. Pity some of us Anglophones, like me, are so ignorant of the French language. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/06/2019 11:08 am, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Attachment may be of interest to people on this list. > > Andy > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190630/79354cac/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Jun 30 10:12:00 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 02:12:00 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Where is Marx in the work and thought of Vygotsky? by Lucien Seve In-Reply-To: References: <10587a56-9847-19ea-923c-4694e412cfa5@marxists.org> Message-ID: Andy-- The translation was a commercial one; Lucien Seve wanted to have it translated so that Anton Yasnitsky and Carl Ratner would respond to it, but neither one mentioned it. When I asked Anton after his talk he said that he found the first page so error-ridden he gave up. I have (with Lucien Seve's permission) retranslated it; it should come out in MCA later this year. I think that part of Seve's point in this paper is that Vygotsky the psychologist is Vygotsky misconceived: de-socialized, de-culturized, and de-Marxified. But Vygotsky the pedologist makes perfect sense, so long as we understand that pedology is not "child psychology"--it's not a branch of some larger purer science called psychology; on the contrary, for Vygotsky, psychology was a specialized tool in the pedologist's kit, and pedology itself is part of much larger science of human development, inevitably linked to sociogenetic ideas of the nature of human progress. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 8:13 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > Just a couple of remarks on this very interesting paper: > > (1) When I read "Thought & Language" (the 1962 translation) - my first > Vygotsky, I instantly recognised as a work of Marxism, and one informed by > Hegel to boot. Which verifies Seve's obvious point that cutting out the > explicit references to Marx does not remove the Marxist character of the > work. > > (2) Seve (in my view) completely misunderstands Hegel's idea of "concept", > attributing to Hegel the analytical view which Vygotsky also used up until > 1931, at which point he came in contact with Hegelians. Marx made numerous > "corrections" to Hegel, but the form of the concept was not one of those. > > (3) The meaning of Taetigkeit, Handlung, Aktivitaet, Praxis, etc., the > various words in German, English and Russian, for "activity" is not cut and > dry - different writers use different words differently. But despite the > importance of the "productivist" interpretation of "Praxis" in anthropology > and historiography, it has always seemed to me that the more general > meaning of "purposive (social, artefact mediated) activity" is more > appropriate for Psychology, and the meaning Vygotsky had in mind. It seems > that Leontyev perversely agrees with this because of his spiteful attack on > Vygotsky's supposed "idealism" (See JREEP v. 43, 2005) for not > understanding "Praxis" in this productivist way. > > Still, very welcome article. Pity some of us Anglophones, like me, are so > ignorant of the French language. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 30/06/2019 11:08 am, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Attachment may be of interest to people on this list. > > Andy > -- > ------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190701/327d0436/attachment.html From wagner.schmit@gmail.com Sun Jun 30 10:55:33 2019 From: wagner.schmit@gmail.com (Wagner Luiz Schmit) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 14:55:33 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Where is Marx in the work and thought of Vygotsky? by Lucien Seve In-Reply-To: References: <10587a56-9847-19ea-923c-4694e412cfa5@marxists.org> Message-ID: Maybe my English is not so good, but I am looking forward to a better translation. This paper met with a lot of stuff that I already think, for me Marx is everywhere in Vygotsky's works, and for me ZPD only made sense after reading chapter 6 of thinking and speech again through the lens of psychological systems and personality. I wanted to know more about the distance between Leontiev and Vygotsky. Seve's paper starts to point out something, but I am not so well versed in Activity Theory to go further by myself. Wagner State University of S?o Paulo Viv?ncia Institute On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 2:14 PM David Kellogg wrote: > Andy-- > > The translation was a commercial one; Lucien Seve wanted to have it > translated so that Anton Yasnitsky and Carl Ratner would respond to it, but > neither one mentioned it. When I asked Anton after his talk he said that he > found the first page so error-ridden he gave up. I have (with Lucien Seve's > permission) retranslated it; it should come out in MCA later this year. > > I think that part of Seve's point in this paper is that Vygotsky the > psychologist is Vygotsky misconceived: de-socialized, de-culturized, and > de-Marxified. But Vygotsky the pedologist makes perfect sense, so long as > we understand that pedology is not "child psychology"--it's not a branch of > some larger purer science called psychology; on the contrary, for Vygotsky, > psychology was a specialized tool in the pedologist's kit, and pedology > itself is part of much larger science of human development, inevitably > linked to sociogenetic ideas of the nature of human progress. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in > understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 8:13 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Just a couple of remarks on this very interesting paper: >> >> (1) When I read "Thought & Language" (the 1962 translation) - my first >> Vygotsky, I instantly recognised as a work of Marxism, and one informed by >> Hegel to boot. Which verifies Seve's obvious point that cutting out the >> explicit references to Marx does not remove the Marxist character of the >> work. >> >> (2) Seve (in my view) completely misunderstands Hegel's idea of >> "concept", attributing to Hegel the analytical view which Vygotsky also >> used up until 1931, at which point he came in contact with Hegelians. Marx >> made numerous "corrections" to Hegel, but the form of the concept was not >> one of those. >> >> (3) The meaning of Taetigkeit, Handlung, Aktivitaet, Praxis, etc., the >> various words in German, English and Russian, for "activity" is not cut and >> dry - different writers use different words differently. But despite the >> importance of the "productivist" interpretation of "Praxis" in anthropology >> and historiography, it has always seemed to me that the more general >> meaning of "purposive (social, artefact mediated) activity" is more >> appropriate for Psychology, and the meaning Vygotsky had in mind. It seems >> that Leontyev perversely agrees with this because of his spiteful attack on >> Vygotsky's supposed "idealism" (See JREEP v. 43, 2005) for not >> understanding "Praxis" in this productivist way. >> >> Still, very welcome article. Pity some of us Anglophones, like me, are so >> ignorant of the French language. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 30/06/2019 11:08 am, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> Attachment may be of interest to people on this list. >> >> Andy >> -- >> ------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190630/9293e288/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Jun 30 17:36:18 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 10:36:18 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Where is Marx in the work and thought of Vygotsky? by Lucien Seve In-Reply-To: References: <10587a56-9847-19ea-923c-4694e412cfa5@marxists.org> Message-ID: <734b381d-aa7c-ccbf-4e41-237af2d0723c@marxists.org> Oh what a pity! I could have no idea of course, that a decent English translation was in press! I look forward to reading your translation, David. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/07/2019 3:12 am, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy-- > > The translation was a commercial one; Lucien Seve wanted > to have it translated so that Anton Yasnitsky and Carl > Ratner would respond to it, but neither one mentioned it. > When I asked Anton after his talk he said that he found > the first page so error-ridden he gave up. I have (with > Lucien Seve's permission) retranslated it; it should come > out in MCA later this year. > > I think that part of Seve's point in this paper is that > Vygotsky the psychologist is Vygotsky misconceived: > de-socialized, de-culturized, and de-Marxified. But > Vygotsky the pedologist makes perfect sense, so long as we > understand that pedology is not "child psychology"--it's > not a branch of some larger purer science called > psychology; on the contrary, for Vygotsky, psychology was > a specialized tool in the pedologist's kit, and pedology > itself is part of much larger science of human > development, inevitably linked to sociogenetic ideas of > the nature of human progress. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without > SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s > construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 8:13 PM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Just a couple of remarks on this very interesting paper: > > (1) When I read "Thought & Language" (the 1962 > translation) - my first Vygotsky, I instantly > recognised as a work of Marxism, and one informed by > Hegel to boot. Which verifies Seve's obvious point > that cutting out the explicit references to Marx does > not remove the Marxist character of the work. > > (2) Seve (in my view) completely misunderstands > Hegel's idea of "concept", attributing to Hegel the > analytical view which Vygotsky also used up until > 1931, at which point he came in contact with > Hegelians. Marx made numerous "corrections" to Hegel, > but the form of the concept was not one of those. > > (3) The meaning of Taetigkeit, Handlung, Aktivitaet, > Praxis, etc., the various words in German, English and > Russian, for "activity" is not cut and dry - different > writers use different words differently. But despite > the importance of the "productivist" interpretation of > "Praxis" in anthropology and historiography, it has > always seemed to me that the more general meaning of > "purposive (social, artefact mediated) activity" is > more appropriate for Psychology, and the meaning > Vygotsky had in mind. It seems that Leontyev > perversely agrees with this because of his spiteful > attack on Vygotsky's supposed "idealism" (See JREEP v. > 43, 2005) for not understanding "Praxis" in this > productivist way. > > Still, very welcome article. Pity some of us > Anglophones, like me, are so ignorant of the French > language. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 30/06/2019 11:08 am, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> Attachment may be of interest to people on this list. >> >> Andy >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190701/69f0bd4f/attachment.html