From anthonymbarra@gmail.com Tue Dec 1 07:27:16 2020 From: anthonymbarra@gmail.com (Anthony Barra) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 10:27:16 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How much fun are we having . . . In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you to Helena. Very interesting. "Vygotsky - through a Labor Education lens" -- https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/iYndG7cKlj0__;!!Mih3wA!TEUjOSfiWRp0TM4f0of9IHUPilVY3cdyCB7aTG5A6Jd4TSu70iaaju2lZ974R-I7RgvKPw$ On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:05 PM Helena Worthen wrote: > Anthony, I am going to try taking you up on your challenge. > > *How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., >> parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much >> accuracy?* > > > I did this, of course, in my book, *What Did You Learn at Work Today? The > Forbidden Lessons of Labor Education,* published by Hardball Press in > 2014. Note the prestigious academic press ? and it only costs $15!!!! But > I will boil it down to the 5-minute schpiel that I would give in my classes > to union members whose second question, after ?How did you learn to do > labor education?? would be, ?How can I get your job?? > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > check your registration at vote.gov > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Anthony Barra > wrote: > > Recently, a small spat has spun into an interesting larger discussion, and > mostly productive at that. > > The whole spat, however, began with a misunderstanding. When sharing the > "Why generations?" video, Andy was alluding, lightly and positively, to a > previous video where he himself was "put on the spot" (ironically enough in > a post titled "Let's have some fun! > "). > In my family, from childhood onward, 'on the spot' always had a positive, > even playful connotation. (Maybe it's an italian-american thing?) > > Sadly, the initial offer of fun, three weeks ago, was hardly taken up, > save for a brief, interesting response from Huw Lloyd. But the party > shouldn't end, and the open-ended question remains: > >> *How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., >> parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much >> accuracy?* > > > Andy gave it a nice go, without advanced warning (i.e., 'on the spot'). I > think it's a pretty hard question, and maybe a poorly asked one -- but what > if many of us weighed in and gave it a shot? It'd probably be less hard > then, and certainly interesting (and likely beneficial to anyone looking to > share Vygotsky's work in various settings beyond academe) ---> "the pool of > collective knowledge is big," perhaps even *oceanic*. > > No one wants my advice, but this would be it: assume you have something > worth saying and also that it might not come out as well as you'd like AND > that people will want to hear it anyway, and even more importantly, that > the momentum of having many voices contribute will be worth as much > (probably more) than any individual contribution (i.e., literally no > pressure). > > Give it a shot here, maybe even in video-form if you'd like: "An Audience > Participation Question . . . Let's Have Some Fun!" > > <> (I kid, I kid!) > > There are other good videos over at CulturalPraxis -- and hopefully, the > uptick in xmca engagement will spill over to there as well (the more the > merrier). > > As Natalia Gajdamaschko has suggested, "development comes out of > resolving some sort of contradiction..some type of crisis -- a good crisis > > ." > > Enjoy, > > Anthony > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/d3177ee9/attachment.html From darya@education.ucsb.edu Tue Dec 1 08:27:00 2020 From: darya@education.ucsb.edu (Diana Arya) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 08:27:00 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian In-Reply-To: References: <184527580.727.0@wordpress.com> <388d7c80-99c5-6655-57f0-e87711922e42@marxists.org> <54F5FCAE-0439-4029-B716-8D87A325430E@gmail.com> <7E63B0FF-F3C6-45A6-BE0C-C50EC238CBFB@gmail.com> <1BA777A7-ABC5-4855-A9E8-49B991C34F2D@wisc.edu> <2A94F7FE-D12A-4161-9149-4305F5F5C989@uio.no> <521e6d47-9dd1-ae21-e28a-35e7faa0f821@marxists.org> <1606523343561.66632@gc.cuny.edu> Message-ID: Hello All, I enjoyed David's short explanation about the ways of explaining Vygotskian theories to mass audiences and wonder how others explain theories through various media/memes. Anthony, you seem to have a knack for binding bite-sized explanations about various concepts and constructs . . . I found Andy's perspective on the verb/noun c haracterization of concepts to be very interesting and linking it here in case others would like to see it. Best, D On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:54 AM Anthony Barra wrote: > Zaza, > > I had no idea that one could translate books without really speaking the > original language, as David claims about himself. > Nor did I realize the extent to which translating is about reading between > the lines, along with the lines themselves. Such an interesting topic . . . > > Perhaps of interest: > 1. A brief anecdote from David about a current Korean translation/summary > project: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGU5zV6zbLI__;!!Mih3wA!XMjKUw32U_QGUoImSttfLIVXPXm-k4Ynkrei9bQgR7V6OR-0D5uSrWWTwssiPHpKgHFeRw$ > > (re: Vygotsky on emotions) > 2. An old xmca post on translating Vygotsky into Korean: > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2011_05.dir/msg00509.html > > I thought these were neat to hear about and maybe enjoyable or others as > well. > > Anthony > > > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 3:30 PM Zaza Kabayadondo < > zaza.kabayadondo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm moving this to a new thread... >> >> Thank you for your question, David. I didn't realize people were using >> Google Translate. It's great for some languages - not so much for anything >> from Southern Africa at least as far as I've observed. >> >> Yes, I do speak Shona. I like to distinguish between functional Shona and >> idiomatic Shona. Functional Shona is literal and idiomatic Shona is >> literary (though spoken). I'm not a Shona linguist so I'm making up terms >> for the distinction I perceive but there might already be a convention for >> how Shona linguists describe the difference. Functional Shona is what you >> will hear people using on the streets. It is a more literal or explicit way >> of speaking and very similar to European meaning and sensemaking. In >> functional Shona you might say "I am tired." "She arrived yesterday." It >> some contexts it is considered rather crass to speak so directly of your >> feelings, wants, needs. I contrast this to idiomatic Shona which is a >> version of the language our elders spoke, it reflects pre-colonial Shona >> culture and thinking because it "beats around the bush". You would rarely >> directly ask a question, everything was a metaphor, a vague suggestion, >> never explicitly spelt out. It is more diplomatic, more evasive, and can be >> problematic when it comes to talking about social or political issues. Tuku >> sings in this idiomatic style. Tuku's song *Bvuma* is the best example >> of his style of which allows for double entendre (He is saying "Tolerance >> has faded" but he could also mean "Just accept that you're old." >> >> Todii is about HIV/AIDS. Originally, "utachiwana" meant any virus or >> germ, the underlying cause of an illness, but over time the only virus >> people talk about is HIV. (In "Hutachiwana" the "h" is a modifier >> emphasizes you mean "the virus"). The style is call-and-response which is >> typical in Shona folk music, both traditional and contemporary. The call >> and its response should be read as one sentence. >> >> As for the lyrics in question: >> Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >> *Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the one you live with...**If >> you have a virus * >> Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma** ...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >> *Translation:** How it must hurt to be raped by the man** who married >> you ...**If you have a virus * >> **The literal meaning is "by the one who paid roora (lobola/bride price)" >> Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >> *Translation: When he knows you have the virus...If you have a virus* >> Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >> *Translation: **And you know you have the virus...If you have a virus* >> In the last two lines the response almost implies "hypothetically, let's >> say you have a virus." And for me this is really where the song touches on >> the sensibility of HIV/AIDS as it was experienced in Zimbabwe in the moment >> of the song. Not knowing who has it, suspecting who has it etc. Tuku was >> masterful with his play on words and structure. >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 2:56 AM David Kellogg >> wrote: >> >>> Zaza-- >>> >>> Dude, I don't really speak Russian either, as Nikolai and Anna will tell >>> you (we only speak English). In my translation work I spend a lot more time >>> on Google Translate than I would like, and that's why I burden the list >>> with the queries you mention from time to time.. But I bet you speak Shona, >>> or at least understand a little. >>> >>> So maybe you can help. I'm using this tune from the late great Tuku >>> (Oliver Mtukudzi) in a class I am giving on sex education in Korea. I've >>> been told that it doesn't really mention AIDS/HIV explicitly, and I get >>> that--in fact, that's one of the reasons why I think it's useful for making >>> certain parallels between pandemics and also discussing HPV and other >>> issues I want to talk about. But I don't quite understand THIS verse--maybe >>> you can help me? >>> >>> Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye >>> (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>> Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma >>> (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>> Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana >>> (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>> Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana >>> (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>> >>> So "Kana uinahwo utachiwana" means something like "If you get infected". >>> But what is the reference to being raped by your roommate? >>> >>> On the subject of this thread. Like voter fraud, racism is a very >>> serious charge, and the right has successfully made hay out of its >>> seriousness. But as with voter fraud they have made even more hay out of >>> rendering the charge unproveable, by removing its class content and >>> rendering it a purely subjective inclination. This is why, I think (I >>> hope), Arturo and others tend to raise this sort of thing in private >>> off-list material that is so much at variance with their public writings >>> that it fairly attracts the charge of hypocrisy or at least political >>> timidity. After all, if you really suspect your interlocutor of racism, >>> it's incumbent on you to keep your mouth and not just your eyes open. But >>> you've got to put money where your mouth is: you have to provide some >>> evidence (e.g. the paper that Harshad circulated on the list not too long >>> ago). There are important scientific issues we need to discuss which are >>> actually not unrelated to the one that Arturo was reacting to: whether you >>> can accurately judge the language proficiency of a person by their race or >>> national origin (as I have done in the second paragraph above). Not >>> unrelated. But not identical to either, else I would not have written that >>> paragraph. >>> >>> Here's an example. A dear colleague of mine, who like the vast majority >>> of people in this country is not white and wouldn't know deficit >>> linguistics from a surplus, has just written a paper on why Korean children >>> tend to drop articles (i.e. "a" and "the"). He begins with the Chomskyan >>> premise that all nouns must, according to universal human grammars which >>> are hardwired at birth, be realized by "determiner phrases". What that >>> means is that a noun phrase like "the cat" is not really about a cat--it's >>> about "the", and the "the" is modified by "cat" (What kind of "the-ness" do >>> you mean? The cat kind!) >>> >>> But it's THIS, and not Vygotskyan, Hallidayan, or Bernsteinian >>> developmentalism, that is deficit linguistics. I won't say it is racist, >>> because unfortunately that term has lost its scientific content and become >>> nothing but a thought crime. But I will say that people who speak languages >>> without articles or languages that emphasize nouns over determiners (e.g. >>> Korean, Chinese, Russian) are not born with a birth defect (or "null spell >>> out", as the Chomskyans say). >>> >>> Does Shona have articles or not? Do you know? >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0JssD8Hzc__;!!Mih3wA!XMjKUw32U_QGUoImSttfLIVXPXm-k4Ynkrei9bQgR7V6OR-0D5uSrWWTwssiPHrpOV09pg$ >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> New Book with Nikolai Veresov >>> L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology >>> Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and >>> Nikolai Veresov >>> See free downloadable pdf at: >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!XMjKUw32U_QGUoImSttfLIVXPXm-k4Ynkrei9bQgR7V6OR-0D5uSrWWTwssiPHoSm0rD8g$ >>> >>> >>> Forthcoming in 2020: >>> L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. >>> Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:02 PM Huw Lloyd >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> P.S. To my best understanding (very minimal, no doubt), the subject >>>>> matter of Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory is the *development >>>>> of human higher psychological functions*. (How that is "left," >>>>> "right," or otherwise is beyond me.) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Political propensities can be discerned across some (adult) >>>> developmental stages. >>>> >>>> Huw >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> To schedule up a 30 minute call using Calendly: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://calendly.com/with-zaza__;!!Mih3wA!XMjKUw32U_QGUoImSttfLIVXPXm-k4Ynkrei9bQgR7V6OR-0D5uSrWWTwssiPHrN_xq1tA$ >> >> > -- *Nothing can be changed until it is faced. *(James Baldwin) Diana J. Arya, PhD she/her/hers/they/them/theirs Associate Professor and Graduate Diversity Officer, Education Faculty Director, McEnroe Reading and Language Arts Clinic Gevirtz Graduate School of Education University of California, Santa Barbara https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.cbleducation.org__;!!Mih3wA!XMjKUw32U_QGUoImSttfLIVXPXm-k4Ynkrei9bQgR7V6OR-0D5uSrWWTwssiPHoQJKoa0g$ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/5f8786b1/attachment.html From AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu Tue Dec 1 08:32:23 2020 From: AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu (Stetsenko, Anna) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 16:32:23 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Pain and suffering vs business as usual In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1606840343039.6115@gc.cuny.edu> Before we go back to business as usual, there is more to say on the recent crisis, which to me is not over. This is because I think we need to be ?sensitive to that which is not over? We are up against history; walls. We need to support, stand with, and stand by, those students [and all who are marginalized] who are fighting to survive hostile institutions. It is our job.? (this is from Sarah Ahmed, posted by Jacob Mac Williams on xmca in 2015, I will reference it several times, it?s a brilliant piece, google Against Students ? The New Inquiry). A short prelude ? I attended an amazing meeting yesterday on Audre Lorde organized by the GC CUNY, Translating Audre Lorde Now /Traduciendo Audre Lorde Ahora. Scholars, educators, and students spoke about Lorde and centrally brought up the theme of pain and suffering in academia and beyond ? for those who are marginalized due to their skin color, ethnicity, non-traditional gender identity?Perhaps there could be people who do not know or prefer not to know but this is directly relevant to xmca, where pain and suffering have been incurred and many experienced violence of racism, sexism, and discrimination. There have been interventions, and heart-felt notes from Mike, Antti, Alfredo (for example), yet they fall on deaf ears and many choose to remain oblivious to what is going on and to their own actions (!). We hear about this here on the list and even more in private emails ? many are actually afraid to come up and share their experiences! This is not a matter of just brining up grievances or of political correctness. This is a matter of well being, of being able to breath! ?Caring for myself is not self-indulgence. It is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare" Audre Lord. I think we have been speaking of the crisis in general, abstract terms. But history is always concrete ? and why not rise from the abstract to the concrete (for those who like to couch things in terms of ?academic debates?)? Many conveniently return to ?freedom of speech? and ?inclusion? mantra. But in 2020 it should be clear there is no going back to these in the midst of pain and suffering. Sarah Ahmed explained this: "Interestingly one white male academic when asked about 'decolonizing the university' ..was reported to have said something like ?this is education not democracy: we get to decide what we teach.? He helpfully reveals to us how the democracy often defended is an illusion: what is being defended as democracy is often despotism." Here is to the concrete. Andy posted his reflections and there is not a hint of what has been going on for many years. Andy, your style has been stifling to people ? your dominant posture, the flair of ?knowing the answers? and lecturing others, your insistence on ?objectivity? in science (read: canons of white male superiority only accessible to ?Great Men?). The latter came through when Jacob MacWilliams responded to you, not just once! With great eloquence and also pain. And left after that, to a great loss to xmca, as did many others, in desperation. Hope someone will do a discourse analysis of epistemic violence on xmca? A claim to objective knowledge is an absolute demand for obedience (Mendez, Coddou, & Maturana). Exactly! And Kristie Dotson will be useful here indeed, thank you, Diane, for bringing this up. There is more to add on epistemic violence?I will wait for other voices and then probably add, with more specific illustrations. But important for now, if we hear voices telling us that there is racism and violence in messages they see on xmca, we have to act. Anthony, people are not feeling safe in your presence ? this was expressed to you and I heard this from many people in private too ? I am making this public now. As someone wrote ? this is about ?awful e-mail exchanges,? so that she ?didn't feel like engaging in such a violent environment.? What is it that you do not understand about this? Anna Stetsenko, PhD Professor Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education The Graduate Center of The City University of New York 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/__;!!Mih3wA!WAbdo5T8clZdbaSRiStryH25GERvxlFFvv7xm2PZaIowRAKm26u2lmlg1OXvKH1Lf6KQHA$ visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.academia.edu__;!!Mih3wA!WAbdo5T8clZdbaSRiStryH25GERvxlFFvv7xm2PZaIowRAKm26u2lmlg1OXvKH3w9PF7bQ$ for my recent publications ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Anthony Barra Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:27 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How much fun are we having . . . Thank you to Helena. Very interesting. "Vygotsky - through a Labor Education lens" -- https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/iYndG7cKlj0__;!!Mih3wA!WAbdo5T8clZdbaSRiStryH25GERvxlFFvv7xm2PZaIowRAKm26u2lmlg1OXvKH219hc5HA$ On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:05 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: Anthony, I am going to try taking you up on your challenge. How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? I did this, of course, in my book, What Did You Learn at Work Today? The Forbidden Lessons of Labor Education, published by Hardball Press in 2014. Note the prestigious academic press ? and it only costs $15!!!! But I will boil it down to the 5-minute schpiel that I would give in my classes to union members whose second question, after ?How did you learn to do labor education?? would be, ?How can I get your job?? Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com helenaworthen.wordpress.com check your registration at vote.gov On Nov 28, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Anthony Barra > wrote: Recently, a small spat has spun into an interesting larger discussion, and mostly productive at that. The whole spat, however, began with a misunderstanding. When sharing the "Why generations?" video, Andy was alluding, lightly and positively, to a previous video where he himself was "put on the spot" (ironically enough in a post titled "Let's have some fun!"). In my family, from childhood onward, 'on the spot' always had a positive, even playful connotation. (Maybe it's an italian-american thing?) Sadly, the initial offer of fun, three weeks ago, was hardly taken up, save for a brief, interesting response from Huw Lloyd. But the party shouldn't end, and the open-ended question remains: How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? Andy gave it a nice go, without advanced warning (i.e., 'on the spot'). I think it's a pretty hard question, and maybe a poorly asked one -- but what if many of us weighed in and gave it a shot? It'd probably be less hard then, and certainly interesting (and likely beneficial to anyone looking to share Vygotsky's work in various settings beyond academe) ---> "the pool of collective knowledge is big," perhaps even oceanic. No one wants my advice, but this would be it: assume you have something worth saying and also that it might not come out as well as you'd like AND that people will want to hear it anyway, and even more importantly, that the momentum of having many voices contribute will be worth as much (probably more) than any individual contribution (i.e., literally no pressure). Give it a shot here, maybe even in video-form if you'd like: "An Audience Participation Question . . . Let's Have Some Fun!" <> (I kid, I kid!) There are other good videos over at CulturalPraxis -- and hopefully, the uptick in xmca engagement will spill over to there as well (the more the merrier). As Natalia Gajdamaschko has suggested, "development comes out of resolving some sort of contradiction..some type of crisis -- a good crisis." Enjoy, Anthony -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/dc123ee0/attachment.html From carolmacdon@gmail.com Tue Dec 1 09:10:55 2020 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 19:10:55 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian In-Reply-To: References: <184527580.727.0@wordpress.com> <388d7c80-99c5-6655-57f0-e87711922e42@marxists.org> <54F5FCAE-0439-4029-B716-8D87A325430E@gmail.com> <7E63B0FF-F3C6-45A6-BE0C-C50EC238CBFB@gmail.com> <1BA777A7-ABC5-4855-A9E8-49B991C34F2D@wisc.edu> <2A94F7FE-D12A-4161-9149-4305F5F5C989@uio.no> <521e6d47-9dd1-ae21-e28a-35e7faa0f821@marxists.org> <1606523343561.66632@gc.cuny.edu> Message-ID: >From Carol, a brief remark I was enchanted by Zaza's description of what we would in South Africa call "deep" Shona. Our African (Bantu) languages are highly idiomatic, except for very literal everyday contexts especially between two people using them as a lingua franca. I have just never seen it laid out like that. Thank you. In some way it is a more enchanting form of indirect speech which we use in English, except ours is less poetic. (I don't use idioms very much when using English as a lingua franca.) And we find African languages, apart from the basic foundations extremely difficult to learn. I have been able to learn the pragmatics only. If Zaza is right, and I think she is, then it should give people like David pause for thought. Just think for example of what is involved in translating poetry for instance, as an extreme example. That's all. ---------------------------- Carol A Macdonald Ph.D (Edin) 082 562 1050 Editlab.Net The Matthew Project: Reading to Learn On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 20:53, Anthony Barra wrote: > Zaza, > > I had no idea that one could translate books without really speaking the > original language, as David claims about himself. > Nor did I realize the extent to which translating is about reading between > the lines, along with the lines themselves. Such an interesting topic . . . > > Perhaps of interest: > 1. A brief anecdote from David about a current Korean translation/summary > project: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGU5zV6zbLI__;!!Mih3wA!Wxo2HIJ4xQoM16_xfPQoB6Vq3LueCzwd-CXPG4yvPGVtvfrIMwCnaSGWxoyP4GxnejBCag$ > > (re: Vygotsky on emotions) > 2. An old xmca post on translating Vygotsky into Korean: > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2011_05.dir/msg00509.html > > I thought these were neat to hear about and maybe enjoyable or others as > well. > > Anthony > > > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 3:30 PM Zaza Kabayadondo < > zaza.kabayadondo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm moving this to a new thread... >> >> Thank you for your question, David. I didn't realize people were using >> Google Translate. It's great for some languages - not so much for anything >> from Southern Africa at least as far as I've observed. >> >> Yes, I do speak Shona. I like to distinguish between functional Shona and >> idiomatic Shona. Functional Shona is literal and idiomatic Shona is >> literary (though spoken). I'm not a Shona linguist so I'm making up terms >> for the distinction I perceive but there might already be a convention for >> how Shona linguists describe the difference. Functional Shona is what you >> will hear people using on the streets. It is a more literal or explicit way >> of speaking and very similar to European meaning and sensemaking. In >> functional Shona you might say "I am tired." "She arrived yesterday." It >> some contexts it is considered rather crass to speak so directly of your >> feelings, wants, needs. I contrast this to idiomatic Shona which is a >> version of the language our elders spoke, it reflects pre-colonial Shona >> culture and thinking because it "beats around the bush". You would rarely >> directly ask a question, everything was a metaphor, a vague suggestion, >> never explicitly spelt out. It is more diplomatic, more evasive, and can be >> problematic when it comes to talking about social or political issues. Tuku >> sings in this idiomatic style. Tuku's song *Bvuma* is the best example >> of his style of which allows for double entendre (He is saying "Tolerance >> has faded" but he could also mean "Just accept that you're old." >> >> Todii is about HIV/AIDS. Originally, "utachiwana" meant any virus or >> germ, the underlying cause of an illness, but over time the only virus >> people talk about is HIV. (In "Hutachiwana" the "h" is a modifier >> emphasizes you mean "the virus"). The style is call-and-response which is >> typical in Shona folk music, both traditional and contemporary. The call >> and its response should be read as one sentence. >> >> As for the lyrics in question: >> Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >> *Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the one you live with...**If >> you have a virus * >> Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma** ...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >> *Translation:** How it must hurt to be raped by the man** who married >> you ...**If you have a virus * >> **The literal meaning is "by the one who paid roora (lobola/bride price)" >> Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >> *Translation: When he knows you have the virus...If you have a virus* >> Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >> *Translation: **And you know you have the virus...If you have a virus* >> In the last two lines the response almost implies "hypothetically, let's >> say you have a virus." And for me this is really where the song touches on >> the sensibility of HIV/AIDS as it was experienced in Zimbabwe in the moment >> of the song. Not knowing who has it, suspecting who has it etc. Tuku was >> masterful with his play on words and structure. >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 2:56 AM David Kellogg >> wrote: >> >>> Zaza-- >>> >>> Dude, I don't really speak Russian either, as Nikolai and Anna will tell >>> you (we only speak English). In my translation work I spend a lot more time >>> on Google Translate than I would like, and that's why I burden the list >>> with the queries you mention from time to time.. But I bet you speak Shona, >>> or at least understand a little. >>> >>> So maybe you can help. I'm using this tune from the late great Tuku >>> (Oliver Mtukudzi) in a class I am giving on sex education in Korea. I've >>> been told that it doesn't really mention AIDS/HIV explicitly, and I get >>> that--in fact, that's one of the reasons why I think it's useful for making >>> certain parallels between pandemics and also discussing HPV and other >>> issues I want to talk about. But I don't quite understand THIS verse--maybe >>> you can help me? >>> >>> Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye >>> (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>> Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma >>> (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>> Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana >>> (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>> Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana >>> (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>> >>> So "Kana uinahwo utachiwana" means something like "If you get infected". >>> But what is the reference to being raped by your roommate? >>> >>> On the subject of this thread. Like voter fraud, racism is a very >>> serious charge, and the right has successfully made hay out of its >>> seriousness. But as with voter fraud they have made even more hay out of >>> rendering the charge unproveable, by removing its class content and >>> rendering it a purely subjective inclination. This is why, I think (I >>> hope), Arturo and others tend to raise this sort of thing in private >>> off-list material that is so much at variance with their public writings >>> that it fairly attracts the charge of hypocrisy or at least political >>> timidity. After all, if you really suspect your interlocutor of racism, >>> it's incumbent on you to keep your mouth and not just your eyes open. But >>> you've got to put money where your mouth is: you have to provide some >>> evidence (e.g. the paper that Harshad circulated on the list not too long >>> ago). There are important scientific issues we need to discuss which are >>> actually not unrelated to the one that Arturo was reacting to: whether you >>> can accurately judge the language proficiency of a person by their race or >>> national origin (as I have done in the second paragraph above). Not >>> unrelated. But not identical to either, else I would not have written that >>> paragraph. >>> >>> Here's an example. A dear colleague of mine, who like the vast majority >>> of people in this country is not white and wouldn't know deficit >>> linguistics from a surplus, has just written a paper on why Korean children >>> tend to drop articles (i.e. "a" and "the"). He begins with the Chomskyan >>> premise that all nouns must, according to universal human grammars which >>> are hardwired at birth, be realized by "determiner phrases". What that >>> means is that a noun phrase like "the cat" is not really about a cat--it's >>> about "the", and the "the" is modified by "cat" (What kind of "the-ness" do >>> you mean? The cat kind!) >>> >>> But it's THIS, and not Vygotskyan, Hallidayan, or Bernsteinian >>> developmentalism, that is deficit linguistics. I won't say it is racist, >>> because unfortunately that term has lost its scientific content and become >>> nothing but a thought crime. But I will say that people who speak languages >>> without articles or languages that emphasize nouns over determiners (e.g. >>> Korean, Chinese, Russian) are not born with a birth defect (or "null spell >>> out", as the Chomskyans say). >>> >>> Does Shona have articles or not? Do you know? >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0JssD8Hzc__;!!Mih3wA!Wxo2HIJ4xQoM16_xfPQoB6Vq3LueCzwd-CXPG4yvPGVtvfrIMwCnaSGWxoyP4GwtFrfRVg$ >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> New Book with Nikolai Veresov >>> L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology >>> Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and >>> Nikolai Veresov >>> See free downloadable pdf at: >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!Wxo2HIJ4xQoM16_xfPQoB6Vq3LueCzwd-CXPG4yvPGVtvfrIMwCnaSGWxoyP4GwVp-7aHA$ >>> >>> >>> Forthcoming in 2020: >>> L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. >>> Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:02 PM Huw Lloyd >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> P.S. To my best understanding (very minimal, no doubt), the subject >>>>> matter of Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory is the *development >>>>> of human higher psychological functions*. (How that is "left," >>>>> "right," or otherwise is beyond me.) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Political propensities can be discerned across some (adult) >>>> developmental stages. >>>> >>>> Huw >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> To schedule up a 30 minute call using Calendly: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://calendly.com/with-zaza__;!!Mih3wA!Wxo2HIJ4xQoM16_xfPQoB6Vq3LueCzwd-CXPG4yvPGVtvfrIMwCnaSGWxoyP4GwvwDyd2w$ >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/c9c3d4e1/attachment.html From Dana.Walker@unco.edu Tue Dec 1 09:33:56 2020 From: Dana.Walker@unco.edu (Walker, Dana) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:33:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [External] Pain and suffering vs business as usual In-Reply-To: <1606840343039.6115@gc.cuny.edu> References: <1606840343039.6115@gc.cuny.edu> Message-ID: <15D0B904-6A47-4F30-AA57-1BB1FBE3F6C7@unco.edu> Thank you Anna for your insistence on continuing this conversation, and not going back to business as usual. It helps to have some historical precedents and current issues made concrete. Among other things, it makes me feel less alone in my hesitation to participate in xmca. Knowing that folks are continuing the conversation with Audre Lorde is encouraging as well. Your reference to Sarah Ahmed?s 2015 piece is an important reminder, and made me think of Eugene Matusov and Artyom Fyodorov?s efforts to help create a University of Students, described below. Dana Dana Walker, Ph.D. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Education College of Education and Behavioral Sciences University of Northern Colorado (970 351-2720 Dear Open Syllabus Education folks? We want to invite you to participate in a 10-min survey about your potential interest in establishing the University of Students (UniS) and forward this invitation to those (people or organizations) who might be interesting. Our concept of the University of Students is based on the idea that a student the author of their own education. A student has an unalienated and sovereign right to freedom of education: to decide whether to study, what to study, how to study, with whom to study, when to study, where to study, why to study, what is good education, and so on. This decision-making can be done by the student-author alone, with peer students, and/or with a pedagogue. The University of Students exists for the students, by the students, through the students. According to our vision, the University of Students involves a rich learning environment. When you join the University of Students, you will have diverse opportunities for socializing with people of similar and different interests and expertise, for observation of and participation in many diverse activities and dialogues, for starting new projects, and for diverse sources of help, if you need any, -- all to support you self-education. The University of Students is not new, it existed in diverse forms for about 300 years in Southern Europe (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.historytoday.com/alan-b-cobban/student-power-middle-ages__;!!Mih3wA!UF68tGPoirwC1a7GxeQfii_6cV7eWW9dgbOm9Hn5CkAAEVTjmFJGaelVCMs6Q2wJd6ROjQ$ ). The University of Students will provide ample opportunities for the creative professional implementation of educators and experts. There will be no educational standards, compulsory curricula, mandatory exams issued "from the top" (administrations) or "from the side" (colleagues), and there will be no need to write a huge number of reports on their work. According to our vision of UniS, an educator becomes a real educator when they are in demand by a student. At the University of Students, the student themselves determines and goes through their educational trajectory. At the same time, the student can be completely independent, or they can turn to an educator for help, who becomes for the student a guide -- a guide in the student's own educational journey. The educational process at the University of Students is a common cause of all its participants, based on the principles of cooperation, mutual respect, and goodwill. If you are interested in the resurrection of and participation in this enterprise, please take the survey: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://delaware.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0feGjXCQPh8fNTT__;!!Mih3wA!UF68tGPoirwC1a7GxeQfii_6cV7eWW9dgbOm9Hn5CkAAEVTjmFJGaelVCMs6Q2zybKbukQ$ . Also, please, forward this email to whoever might be interested regardless of their age (especially prospective UoS students). The purpose of this survey to check if there is enough public interest in the University of Students. Let us know, please, if you have any questions. Our best, Artyom Fyodorov, a founder of the democratic school SOVUM, Tver', Russia, fedorov.artem.n@gmail.com Eugene Matusov, Professor of Education, University of Delaware, USA, ematusov@udel.edu 18 November 2020 From: on behalf of "Stetsenko, Anna" Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 9:35 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [External][Xmca-l] Pain and suffering vs business as usual Before we go back to business as usual, there is more to say on the recent crisis, which to me is not over. This is because I think we need to be ?sensitive to that which is not over? We are up against history; walls. We need to support, stand with, and stand by, those students [and all who are marginalized] who are fighting to survive hostile institutions. It is our job.? (this is from Sarah Ahmed, posted by Jacob Mac Williams on xmca in 2015, I will reference it several times, it?s a brilliant piece, google Against Students ? The New Inquiry). A short prelude ? I attended an amazing meeting yesterday on Audre Lorde organized by the GC CUNY, Translating Audre Lorde Now /Traduciendo Audre Lorde Ahora. Scholars, educators, and students spoke about Lorde and centrally brought up the theme of pain and suffering in academia and beyond ? for those who are marginalized due to their skin color, ethnicity, non-traditional gender identity?Perhaps there could be people who do not know or prefer not to know but this is directly relevant to xmca, where pain and suffering have been incurred and many experienced violence of racism, sexism, and discrimination. There have been interventions, and heart-felt notes from Mike, Antti, Alfredo (for example), yet they fall on deaf ears and many choose to remain oblivious to what is going on and to their own actions (!). We hear about this here on the list and even more in private emails ? many are actually afraid to come up and share their experiences! This is not a matter of just brining up grievances or of political correctness. This is a matter of well being, of being able to breath! ?Caring for myself is not self-indulgence. It is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare" Audre Lord. I think we have been speaking of the crisis in general, abstract terms. But history is always concrete ? and why not rise from the abstract to the concrete (for those who like to couch things in terms of ?academic debates?)? Many conveniently return to ?freedom of speech? and ?inclusion? mantra. But in 2020 it should be clear there is no going back to these in the midst of pain and suffering. Sarah Ahmed explained this: "Interestingly one white male academic when asked about 'decolonizing the university' ..was reported to have said something like ?this is education not democracy: we get to decide what we teach.? He helpfully reveals to us how the democracy often defended is an illusion: what is being defended as democracy is often despotism." Here is to the concrete. Andy posted his reflections and there is not a hint of what has been going on for many years. Andy, your style has been stifling to people ? your dominant posture, the flair of ?knowing the answers? and lecturing others, your insistence on ?objectivity? in science (read: canons of white male superiority only accessible to ?Great Men?). The latter came through when Jacob MacWilliams responded to you, not just once! With great eloquence and also pain. And left after that, to a great loss to xmca, as did many others, in desperation. Hope someone will do a discourse analysis of epistemic violence on xmca? A claim to objective knowledge is an absolute demand for obedience (Mendez, Coddou, & Maturana). Exactly! And Kristie Dotson will be useful here indeed, thank you, Diane, for bringing this up. There is more to add on epistemic violence?I will wait for other voices and then probably add, with more specific illustrations. But important for now, if we hear voices telling us that there is racism and violence in messages they see on xmca, we have to act. Anthony, people are not feeling safe in your presence ? this was expressed to you and I heard this from many people in private too ? I am making this public now. As someone wrote ? this is about ?awful e-mail exchanges,? so that she ?didn't feel like engaging in such a violent environment.? What is it that you do not understand about this? Anna Stetsenko, PhD Professor Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education The Graduate Center of The City University of New York 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/__;!!Mih3wA!UF68tGPoirwC1a7GxeQfii_6cV7eWW9dgbOm9Hn5CkAAEVTjmFJGaelVCMs6Q2yiNwVY8A$ visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.academia.edu__;!!Mih3wA!UF68tGPoirwC1a7GxeQfii_6cV7eWW9dgbOm9Hn5CkAAEVTjmFJGaelVCMs6Q2yMi39l6Q$ for my recent publications ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Anthony Barra Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:27 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How much fun are we having . . . Thank you to Helena. Very interesting. "Vygotsky - through a Labor Education lens" -- https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/iYndG7cKlj0__;!!Mih3wA!UF68tGPoirwC1a7GxeQfii_6cV7eWW9dgbOm9Hn5CkAAEVTjmFJGaelVCMs6Q2y0m1ww_Q$ On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:05 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: Anthony, I am going to try taking you up on your challenge. How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? I did this, of course, in my book, What Did You Learn at Work Today? The Forbidden Lessons of Labor Education, published by Hardball Press in 2014. Note the prestigious academic press ? and it only costs $15!!!! But I will boil it down to the 5-minute schpiel that I would give in my classes to union members whose second question, after ?How did you learn to do labor education?? would be, ?How can I get your job?? Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com helenaworthen.wordpress.com check your registration at vote.gov On Nov 28, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Anthony Barra > wrote: Recently, a small spat has spun into an interesting larger discussion, and mostly productive at that. The whole spat, however, began with a misunderstanding. When sharing the "Why generations?" video, Andy was alluding, lightly and positively, to a previous video where he himself was "put on the spot" (ironically enough in a post titled "Let's have some fun!"). In my family, from childhood onward, 'on the spot' always had a positive, even playful connotation. (Maybe it's an italian-american thing?) Sadly, the initial offer of fun, three weeks ago, was hardly taken up, save for a brief, interesting response from Huw Lloyd. But the party shouldn't end, and the open-ended question remains: How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? Andy gave it a nice go, without advanced warning (i.e., 'on the spot'). I think it's a pretty hard question, and maybe a poorly asked one -- but what if many of us weighed in and gave it a shot? It'd probably be less hard then, and certainly interesting (and likely beneficial to anyone looking to share Vygotsky's work in various settings beyond academe) ---> "the pool of collective knowledge is big," perhaps even oceanic. No one wants my advice, but this would be it: assume you have something worth saying and also that it might not come out as well as you'd like AND that people will want to hear it anyway, and even more importantly, that the momentum of having many voices contribute will be worth as much (probably more) than any individual contribution (i.e., literally no pressure). Give it a shot here, maybe even in video-form if you'd like: "An Audience Participation Question . . . Let's Have Some Fun!" <> (I kid, I kid!) There are other good videos over at CulturalPraxis -- and hopefully, the uptick in xmca engagement will spill over to there as well (the more the merrier). As Natalia Gajdamaschko has suggested, "development comes out of resolving some sort of contradiction..some type of crisis -- a good crisis." Enjoy, Anthony **This message originated from outside UNC. Please use caution when opening attachments or following links. Do not enter your UNC credentials when prompted by external links.** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/4950ab9f/attachment.html From Dana.Walker@unco.edu Tue Dec 1 09:34:21 2020 From: Dana.Walker@unco.edu (Walker, Dana) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:34:21 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [External] Pain and suffering vs business as usual In-Reply-To: <15D0B904-6A47-4F30-AA57-1BB1FBE3F6C7@unco.edu> References: <1606840343039.6115@gc.cuny.edu> <15D0B904-6A47-4F30-AA57-1BB1FBE3F6C7@unco.edu> Message-ID: Sorry??Ana? From: "Walker, Dana" Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 10:33 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: Re: [External][Xmca-l] Pain and suffering vs business as usual Thank you Anna for your insistence on continuing this conversation, and not going back to business as usual. It helps to have some historical precedents and current issues made concrete. Among other things, it makes me feel less alone in my hesitation to participate in xmca. Knowing that folks are continuing the conversation with Audre Lorde is encouraging as well. Your reference to Sarah Ahmed?s 2015 piece is an important reminder, and made me think of Eugene Matusov and Artyom Fyodorov?s efforts to help create a University of Students, described below. Dana Dana Walker, Ph.D. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Education College of Education and Behavioral Sciences University of Northern Colorado (970 351-2720 Dear Open Syllabus Education folks? We want to invite you to participate in a 10-min survey about your potential interest in establishing the University of Students (UniS) and forward this invitation to those (people or organizations) who might be interesting. Our concept of the University of Students is based on the idea that a student the author of their own education. A student has an unalienated and sovereign right to freedom of education: to decide whether to study, what to study, how to study, with whom to study, when to study, where to study, why to study, what is good education, and so on. This decision-making can be done by the student-author alone, with peer students, and/or with a pedagogue. The University of Students exists for the students, by the students, through the students. According to our vision, the University of Students involves a rich learning environment. When you join the University of Students, you will have diverse opportunities for socializing with people of similar and different interests and expertise, for observation of and participation in many diverse activities and dialogues, for starting new projects, and for diverse sources of help, if you need any, -- all to support you self-education. The University of Students is not new, it existed in diverse forms for about 300 years in Southern Europe (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.historytoday.com/alan-b-cobban/student-power-middle-ages__;!!Mih3wA!RYag4vbHlMu5Qi8YTrJTJ8P2hz4a8nNIoeeSsHlmzRuKOPMxP9MvicELQxOZMkUjXv0Aug$ ). The University of Students will provide ample opportunities for the creative professional implementation of educators and experts. There will be no educational standards, compulsory curricula, mandatory exams issued "from the top" (administrations) or "from the side" (colleagues), and there will be no need to write a huge number of reports on their work. According to our vision of UniS, an educator becomes a real educator when they are in demand by a student. At the University of Students, the student themselves determines and goes through their educational trajectory. At the same time, the student can be completely independent, or they can turn to an educator for help, who becomes for the student a guide -- a guide in the student's own educational journey. The educational process at the University of Students is a common cause of all its participants, based on the principles of cooperation, mutual respect, and goodwill. If you are interested in the resurrection of and participation in this enterprise, please take the survey: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://delaware.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0feGjXCQPh8fNTT__;!!Mih3wA!RYag4vbHlMu5Qi8YTrJTJ8P2hz4a8nNIoeeSsHlmzRuKOPMxP9MvicELQxOZMkVa1Z9V2A$ . Also, please, forward this email to whoever might be interested regardless of their age (especially prospective UoS students). The purpose of this survey to check if there is enough public interest in the University of Students. Let us know, please, if you have any questions. Our best, Artyom Fyodorov, a founder of the democratic school SOVUM, Tver', Russia, fedorov.artem.n@gmail.com Eugene Matusov, Professor of Education, University of Delaware, USA, ematusov@udel.edu 18 November 2020 From: on behalf of "Stetsenko, Anna" Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 9:35 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [External][Xmca-l] Pain and suffering vs business as usual Before we go back to business as usual, there is more to say on the recent crisis, which to me is not over. This is because I think we need to be ?sensitive to that which is not over? We are up against history; walls. We need to support, stand with, and stand by, those students [and all who are marginalized] who are fighting to survive hostile institutions. It is our job.? (this is from Sarah Ahmed, posted by Jacob Mac Williams on xmca in 2015, I will reference it several times, it?s a brilliant piece, google Against Students ? The New Inquiry). A short prelude ? I attended an amazing meeting yesterday on Audre Lorde organized by the GC CUNY, Translating Audre Lorde Now /Traduciendo Audre Lorde Ahora. Scholars, educators, and students spoke about Lorde and centrally brought up the theme of pain and suffering in academia and beyond ? for those who are marginalized due to their skin color, ethnicity, non-traditional gender identity?Perhaps there could be people who do not know or prefer not to know but this is directly relevant to xmca, where pain and suffering have been incurred and many experienced violence of racism, sexism, and discrimination. There have been interventions, and heart-felt notes from Mike, Antti, Alfredo (for example), yet they fall on deaf ears and many choose to remain oblivious to what is going on and to their own actions (!). We hear about this here on the list and even more in private emails ? many are actually afraid to come up and share their experiences! This is not a matter of just brining up grievances or of political correctness. This is a matter of well being, of being able to breath! ?Caring for myself is not self-indulgence. It is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare" Audre Lord. I think we have been speaking of the crisis in general, abstract terms. But history is always concrete ? and why not rise from the abstract to the concrete (for those who like to couch things in terms of ?academic debates?)? Many conveniently return to ?freedom of speech? and ?inclusion? mantra. But in 2020 it should be clear there is no going back to these in the midst of pain and suffering. Sarah Ahmed explained this: "Interestingly one white male academic when asked about 'decolonizing the university' ..was reported to have said something like ?this is education not democracy: we get to decide what we teach.? He helpfully reveals to us how the democracy often defended is an illusion: what is being defended as democracy is often despotism." Here is to the concrete. Andy posted his reflections and there is not a hint of what has been going on for many years. Andy, your style has been stifling to people ? your dominant posture, the flair of ?knowing the answers? and lecturing others, your insistence on ?objectivity? in science (read: canons of white male superiority only accessible to ?Great Men?). The latter came through when Jacob MacWilliams responded to you, not just once! With great eloquence and also pain. And left after that, to a great loss to xmca, as did many others, in desperation. Hope someone will do a discourse analysis of epistemic violence on xmca? A claim to objective knowledge is an absolute demand for obedience (Mendez, Coddou, & Maturana). Exactly! And Kristie Dotson will be useful here indeed, thank you, Diane, for bringing this up. There is more to add on epistemic violence?I will wait for other voices and then probably add, with more specific illustrations. But important for now, if we hear voices telling us that there is racism and violence in messages they see on xmca, we have to act. Anthony, people are not feeling safe in your presence ? this was expressed to you and I heard this from many people in private too ? I am making this public now. As someone wrote ? this is about ?awful e-mail exchanges,? so that she ?didn't feel like engaging in such a violent environment.? What is it that you do not understand about this? Anna Stetsenko, PhD Professor Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education The Graduate Center of The City University of New York 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/__;!!Mih3wA!RYag4vbHlMu5Qi8YTrJTJ8P2hz4a8nNIoeeSsHlmzRuKOPMxP9MvicELQxOZMkXVPsEmhA$ visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.academia.edu__;!!Mih3wA!RYag4vbHlMu5Qi8YTrJTJ8P2hz4a8nNIoeeSsHlmzRuKOPMxP9MvicELQxOZMkWBowxeEg$ for my recent publications ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Anthony Barra Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:27 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How much fun are we having . . . Thank you to Helena. Very interesting. "Vygotsky - through a Labor Education lens" -- https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/iYndG7cKlj0__;!!Mih3wA!RYag4vbHlMu5Qi8YTrJTJ8P2hz4a8nNIoeeSsHlmzRuKOPMxP9MvicELQxOZMkUeg1N9GA$ On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:05 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: Anthony, I am going to try taking you up on your challenge. How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? I did this, of course, in my book, What Did You Learn at Work Today? The Forbidden Lessons of Labor Education, published by Hardball Press in 2014. Note the prestigious academic press ? and it only costs $15!!!! But I will boil it down to the 5-minute schpiel that I would give in my classes to union members whose second question, after ?How did you learn to do labor education?? would be, ?How can I get your job?? Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com helenaworthen.wordpress.com check your registration at vote.gov On Nov 28, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Anthony Barra > wrote: Recently, a small spat has spun into an interesting larger discussion, and mostly productive at that. The whole spat, however, began with a misunderstanding. When sharing the "Why generations?" video, Andy was alluding, lightly and positively, to a previous video where he himself was "put on the spot" (ironically enough in a post titled "Let's have some fun!"). In my family, from childhood onward, 'on the spot' always had a positive, even playful connotation. (Maybe it's an italian-american thing?) Sadly, the initial offer of fun, three weeks ago, was hardly taken up, save for a brief, interesting response from Huw Lloyd. But the party shouldn't end, and the open-ended question remains: How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? Andy gave it a nice go, without advanced warning (i.e., 'on the spot'). I think it's a pretty hard question, and maybe a poorly asked one -- but what if many of us weighed in and gave it a shot? It'd probably be less hard then, and certainly interesting (and likely beneficial to anyone looking to share Vygotsky's work in various settings beyond academe) ---> "the pool of collective knowledge is big," perhaps even oceanic. No one wants my advice, but this would be it: assume you have something worth saying and also that it might not come out as well as you'd like AND that people will want to hear it anyway, and even more importantly, that the momentum of having many voices contribute will be worth as much (probably more) than any individual contribution (i.e., literally no pressure). Give it a shot here, maybe even in video-form if you'd like: "An Audience Participation Question . . . Let's Have Some Fun!" <> (I kid, I kid!) There are other good videos over at CulturalPraxis -- and hopefully, the uptick in xmca engagement will spill over to there as well (the more the merrier). As Natalia Gajdamaschko has suggested, "development comes out of resolving some sort of contradiction..some type of crisis -- a good crisis." Enjoy, Anthony **This message originated from outside UNC. Please use caution when opening attachments or following links. Do not enter your UNC credentials when prompted by external links.** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/4c314ac2/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Tue Dec 1 10:21:44 2020 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 18:21:44 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Pain and suffering vs business as usual In-Reply-To: <1606840343039.6115@gc.cuny.edu> References: , , <1606840343039.6115@gc.cuny.edu> Message-ID: Hi Anna, I am sorry that you do not feel free to speak directly to me, but there are allusions to my post ("Vygotsky simply") by mention in your email about freedom of speech and defense of democracy as defense of despotism that seemed to reference my post, so I feel you are speaking to me. If I have made an assumption, I apologize, but it is to say this informs my reply to you. Please know that I do not disagree with you about many observations in your post. One thing that you are wrong about is that I am not defending despotism. I believe that the democratic process works. It is messy and can be painful, but it is far less painful that despotism. I do find Anthony's patronizing emails annoying, even insulting, and I've had my share of conflict with Andy when I first began posting on the list. I feel that it is an initiation to this list to butt heads with Andy. Still I feel that Andy has contributed much to our community by way of his website procurements on Marxists.org. I myself have seen him grow as the tone of his posts have become more circumspect. But if he has done a person wrong, he is capable of taking the heat for it. I think that is something Helena has referenced in her own way. But Andy isn't the only person on this list. I have also had many very meaningful conversations with others on this list, regular posters and not-so regular posters. I have had challenges and been offended, etc etc, etc. The challenge with listservs is that they remove context and are asynchronous. It is impossible to capture tone. It seems many, to be safe, are inclined to err on the side of caution to consider a tone is mal-intended than not if it is not clear. That's not something that can be helped about the technology. I have been dismissed regularly on this list, but I can't take it personally. At the same time. like Andy, my desire for knowledge is not made concrete with the walls of an academic institution or a professorship. So my small privilege is that I can speak more freely than someone seeking a PhD, a postdoc, a professorship, or funding, and so on, without fear of a passive aggressive attack on my academic career; I do not have an academic career to protect. While in San Diego, I was invited by Mike to participate in LCHC seminars which I did for about a year. I wasn't treated that well there by some of the attendees. I had my share of humiliating moments. But then I started to understand that there is an aspect of academia which is difficult, that upon reflection I don't think can ever be expunged. When experienced thinkers are challenging ideas, which is a requirement when swimming the currents of academia, one must have a thick skin to brave the cold waters. But like jumping into a river there is a shock and then the body acclimates. I do not say that academics is fair, because it isn't. There is collateral damage. People's feelings can be hurt, people's careers can be damaged. I get it. But I still attended LCHC. I kept going, because I wanted to learn what there was to learn, and I wanted to witness it first hand, until I couldn't anymore because of geographic realities. That experience has kept me connected to the list and provides me an understanding of the dynamics that affords my accommodations that I have tried to share with the list in my post. I will also share that I held a misguided fear of the aura of LCHC that actually impeded me. It was all in my head. Without getting into details, since this is a public forum, I will just say that I might have been able to go farther if not for that fear in my head. For those whose lives are shaped by FUD, I hope there is a way for you to do reality check in whatever way that might work for you, and I hope for you to have the courage to step forward and participate despite knawing FUD. The naming of my experiences is not to dismiss the very real conflicts that venerable others experience on this list. I can only speak of my own experience, and I promise you I am not a privileged white male, nor could I ever see myself apologizing for insensitive acts on the list that derive from "white-male privilege." Anyone who acts from entitlement has issues. Regardless, I am also not going to let their mere existence define me and who I want to be. I will not marginalize myself. I accept myself. What I am trying to offer to the mix here is a third way, to loosen up the space, to not make it so much speechifying of "us vs them". To be in the moment and allow for some oxygen. To be accommodating. The rules of engagement in academia are never going to be "fair", and lots of people who don't or can't or won't play along will be left outside of it, I discovered that fact myself very, very personally. The reality is this happens everywhere in other areas of political engagement. Does that mean I should not care about democracy? or other ideals that allow for individual and group freedoms to think for oneself? Does it mean that because I choose not to be bitter that I have somehow capitulated and sold out? Or does it mean that because I acknowledge the reality that I am likely foolish to think there will be a magical day when an overturning of the culture in academia will somehow provide a protective cocoon to novices and experts who want and need them, where all challenges between cohorts will be softball pitches and teddy bear tea parties, that I am somehow *promoting* social injustice??? I sometimes wonder whether an aspect of our discussion has to do with expectations not meeting with reality, and the larger that gap between the two the more painful it can be. I mean, privileged white males can be pretty ruthless, even to each other. I'm not sure I would ever want to be one. Still, I want to acknowledge the pain, because I know that it is there. I respect it's presnce. The only thing I can do is sit with it and bear witness. Something does arise on its own. That's the nature of healing. It's about getting out of the way to let the healing take place. It's not about doing. That's not a chastisement against you or anyone who is suffering, but to emphasize my appeal for empathy, to legitimize that there is a deep hurt among all people, even if the dynamics of pain are not shared. Pain and suffering are highly democratic. Contesting who's pain and suffering is legitimate is highly offensive and arrogant, and I'm fairly certain that I'm not doing that here. I was told once by a teacher that arrogance is indication of a deep hurt. He said that arrogance functions like a blister by making the person insensitive and numb to others. It is a means of protection, of isolating deep unspeakable pain. I find this a meaningful metaphor to understand the dysfunction of arrogance and to not be taken in by it when I see it. That doesn't mean it is easy to deal with, but this insight helps me cope when it comes up in my life. I hope this insight might help others on this list, and I offer it sincerely. Kind regards, Annalisa P.S. I saw Dana's post come down the river as I was writing mine, and I love the idea of a University of Students. It reminded me of the Global Center for Advanced Studies (GCAS) and I wondered if anyone had heard of that educational experiment, now 7 years old. See: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gcas.ie/happy-birthday-gcas__;!!Mih3wA!VvG8bqbNsBDA77KelAZufxGXpCvphNE_ZKLX-qz0Mv5nCgWM066rNCqafAJeScX46inZ5A$ ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Stetsenko, Anna Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 9:32 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Pain and suffering vs business as usual [EXTERNAL] Before we go back to business as usual, there is more to say on the recent crisis, which to me is not over. This is because I think we need to be ?sensitive to that which is not over? We are up against history; walls. We need to support, stand with, and stand by, those students [and all who are marginalized] who are fighting to survive hostile institutions. It is our job.? (this is from Sarah Ahmed, posted by Jacob Mac Williams on xmca in 2015, I will reference it several times, it?s a brilliant piece, google Against Students ? The New Inquiry). A short prelude ? I attended an amazing meeting yesterday on Audre Lorde organized by the GC CUNY, Translating Audre Lorde Now /Traduciendo Audre Lorde Ahora. Scholars, educators, and students spoke about Lorde and centrally brought up the theme of pain and suffering in academia and beyond ? for those who are marginalized due to their skin color, ethnicity, non-traditional gender identity?Perhaps there could be people who do not know or prefer not to know but this is directly relevant to xmca, where pain and suffering have been incurred and many experienced violence of racism, sexism, and discrimination. There have been interventions, and heart-felt notes from Mike, Antti, Alfredo (for example), yet they fall on deaf ears and many choose to remain oblivious to what is going on and to their own actions (!). We hear about this here on the list and even more in private emails ? many are actually afraid to come up and share their experiences! This is not a matter of just brining up grievances or of political correctness. This is a matter of well being, of being able to breath! ?Caring for myself is not self-indulgence. It is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare" Audre Lord. I think we have been speaking of the crisis in general, abstract terms. But history is always concrete ? and why not rise from the abstract to the concrete (for those who like to couch things in terms of ?academic debates?)? Many conveniently return to ?freedom of speech? and ?inclusion? mantra. But in 2020 it should be clear there is no going back to these in the midst of pain and suffering. Sarah Ahmed explained this: "Interestingly one white male academic when asked about 'decolonizing the university' ..was reported to have said something like ?this is education not democracy: we get to decide what we teach.? He helpfully reveals to us how the democracy often defended is an illusion: what is being defended as democracy is often despotism." Here is to the concrete. Andy posted his reflections and there is not a hint of what has been going on for many years. Andy, your style has been stifling to people ? your dominant posture, the flair of ?knowing the answers? and lecturing others, your insistence on ?objectivity? in science (read: canons of white male superiority only accessible to ?Great Men?). The latter came through when Jacob MacWilliams responded to you, not just once! With great eloquence and also pain. And left after that, to a great loss to xmca, as did many others, in desperation. Hope someone will do a discourse analysis of epistemic violence on xmca? A claim to objective knowledge is an absolute demand for obedience (Mendez, Coddou, & Maturana). Exactly! And Kristie Dotson will be useful here indeed, thank you, Diane, for bringing this up. There is more to add on epistemic violence?I will wait for other voices and then probably add, with more specific illustrations. But important for now, if we hear voices telling us that there is racism and violence in messages they see on xmca, we have to act. Anthony, people are not feeling safe in your presence ? this was expressed to you and I heard this from many people in private too ? I am making this public now. As someone wrote ? this is about ?awful e-mail exchanges,? so that she ?didn't feel like engaging in such a violent environment.? What is it that you do not understand about this? Anna Stetsenko, PhD Professor Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education The Graduate Center of The City University of New York 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/__;!!Mih3wA!VvG8bqbNsBDA77KelAZufxGXpCvphNE_ZKLX-qz0Mv5nCgWM066rNCqafAJeScWzHaTbwg$ visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.academia.edu__;!!Mih3wA!VvG8bqbNsBDA77KelAZufxGXpCvphNE_ZKLX-qz0Mv5nCgWM066rNCqafAJeScX4WzCdJw$ for my recent publications ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Anthony Barra Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:27 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How much fun are we having . . . Thank you to Helena. Very interesting. "Vygotsky - through a Labor Education lens" -- https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/iYndG7cKlj0__;!!Mih3wA!VvG8bqbNsBDA77KelAZufxGXpCvphNE_ZKLX-qz0Mv5nCgWM066rNCqafAJeScVkXghq7Q$ On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:05 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: Anthony, I am going to try taking you up on your challenge. How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? I did this, of course, in my book, What Did You Learn at Work Today? The Forbidden Lessons of Labor Education, published by Hardball Press in 2014. Note the prestigious academic press ? and it only costs $15!!!! But I will boil it down to the 5-minute schpiel that I would give in my classes to union members whose second question, after ?How did you learn to do labor education?? would be, ?How can I get your job?? Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com helenaworthen.wordpress.com check your registration at vote.gov On Nov 28, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Anthony Barra > wrote: Recently, a small spat has spun into an interesting larger discussion, and mostly productive at that. The whole spat, however, began with a misunderstanding. When sharing the "Why generations?" video, Andy was alluding, lightly and positively, to a previous video where he himself was "put on the spot" (ironically enough in a post titled "Let's have some fun!"). In my family, from childhood onward, 'on the spot' always had a positive, even playful connotation. (Maybe it's an italian-american thing?) Sadly, the initial offer of fun, three weeks ago, was hardly taken up, save for a brief, interesting response from Huw Lloyd. But the party shouldn't end, and the open-ended question remains: How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? Andy gave it a nice go, without advanced warning (i.e., 'on the spot'). I think it's a pretty hard question, and maybe a poorly asked one -- but what if many of us weighed in and gave it a shot? It'd probably be less hard then, and certainly interesting (and likely beneficial to anyone looking to share Vygotsky's work in various settings beyond academe) ---> "the pool of collective knowledge is big," perhaps even oceanic. No one wants my advice, but this would be it: assume you have something worth saying and also that it might not come out as well as you'd like AND that people will want to hear it anyway, and even more importantly, that the momentum of having many voices contribute will be worth as much (probably more) than any individual contribution (i.e., literally no pressure). Give it a shot here, maybe even in video-form if you'd like: "An Audience Participation Question . . . Let's Have Some Fun!" <> (I kid, I kid!) There are other good videos over at CulturalPraxis -- and hopefully, the uptick in xmca engagement will spill over to there as well (the more the merrier). As Natalia Gajdamaschko has suggested, "development comes out of resolving some sort of contradiction..some type of crisis -- a good crisis." Enjoy, Anthony -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/f74c5d3e/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Tue Dec 1 10:38:38 2020 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 10:38:38 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How much fun are we having . . . In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Brilliant, Anthony! I clicked on it to see what it looked like and found that you?ve lined my bit up with a bunch of others speaking to the question of ?concept.? What is interesting to me is how consistent, across all these clips, is the explanation of ?concept.? Surely that?s a first for this list ? one voice after another, different accents, different angles, but definitely all talking about the same thing, elaborating on it in agreement with each other. It does not look as if each clip was made after the speaker had listened to the others. That?s really good. That means that we are spared the ?Yes, but?.not exactly?? sort of thing that characterizes an asynchronous dialog like the XMCA and tends to lead off into the weeds. The unanticipated benefit of an alternate medium! Thanks ? Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com helenaworthen.wordpress.com check your registration at vote.gov > On Dec 1, 2020, at 7:27 AM, Anthony Barra wrote: > > Thank you to Helena. Very interesting. > > "Vygotsky - through a Labor Education lens" -- https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/iYndG7cKlj0__;!!Mih3wA!RxP-7GEVwvcsniPJ6Lqjd00pTU7vVHE3GoVT-b663zit3E8f7JGZmYxdCVAb5KrhZV04zQ$ > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:05 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: > Anthony, I am going to try taking you up on your challenge. > >> How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? > > I did this, of course, in my book, What Did You Learn at Work Today? The Forbidden Lessons of Labor Education, published by Hardball Press in 2014. Note the prestigious academic press ? and it only costs $15!!!! But I will boil it down to the 5-minute schpiel that I would give in my classes to union members whose second question, after ?How did you learn to do labor education?? would be, ?How can I get your job?? > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > check your registration at vote.gov > > > > >> On Nov 28, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Anthony Barra > wrote: >> >> Recently, a small spat has spun into an interesting larger discussion, and mostly productive at that. >> >> The whole spat, however, began with a misunderstanding. When sharing the "Why generations?" video, Andy was alluding, lightly and positively, to a previous video where he himself was "put on the spot" (ironically enough in a post titled "Let's have some fun! "). In my family, from childhood onward, 'on the spot' always had a positive, even playful connotation. (Maybe it's an italian-american thing?) >> >> Sadly, the initial offer of fun, three weeks ago, was hardly taken up, save for a brief, interesting response from Huw Lloyd. But the party shouldn't end, and the open-ended question remains: >> How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? >> >> Andy gave it a nice go, without advanced warning (i.e., 'on the spot'). I think it's a pretty hard question, and maybe a poorly asked one -- but what if many of us weighed in and gave it a shot? It'd probably be less hard then, and certainly interesting (and likely beneficial to anyone looking to share Vygotsky's work in various settings beyond academe) ---> "the pool of collective knowledge is big," perhaps even oceanic. >> >> No one wants my advice, but this would be it: assume you have something worth saying and also that it might not come out as well as you'd like AND that people will want to hear it anyway, and even more importantly, that the momentum of having many voices contribute will be worth as much (probably more) than any individual contribution (i.e., literally no pressure). >> >> Give it a shot here, maybe even in video-form if you'd like: "An Audience Participation Question . . . Let's Have Some Fun!" <> (I kid, I kid!) >> >> There are other good videos over at CulturalPraxis -- and hopefully, the uptick in xmca engagement will spill over to there as well (the more the merrier). >> >> As Natalia Gajdamaschko has suggested, "development comes out of resolving some sort of contradiction..some type of crisis -- a good crisis ." >> >> Enjoy, >> >> Anthony >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/195cc6d9/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Tue Dec 1 11:03:39 2020 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 11:03:39 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian In-Reply-To: References: <184527580.727.0@wordpress.com> <388d7c80-99c5-6655-57f0-e87711922e42@marxists.org> <54F5FCAE-0439-4029-B716-8D87A325430E@gmail.com> <7E63B0FF-F3C6-45A6-BE0C-C50EC238CBFB@gmail.com> <1BA777A7-ABC5-4855-A9E8-49B991C34F2D@wisc.edu> <2A94F7FE-D12A-4161-9149-4305F5F5C989@uio.no> <521e6d47-9dd1-ae21-e28a-35e7faa0f821@marxists.org> <1606523343561.66632@gc.cuny.edu> Message-ID: <9EBF1E01-904F-48E6-93D2-35476E10C394@gmail.com> Regarding Creativity and Imagination in Childhood ? Please see my references to the importance of this book in the design of the post-American War creation of the education system in Vietnam, in an interview posted on CulturalPraxis: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net/wordpress1/?s=Vietnam__;!!Mih3wA!VmT7aLIPdLJBg54wBz48mxt2g3uKs2OYBhbeRtC8tfjo5H3GKW0iHbLidSlZcLFpPF3JYQ$ The image shows the cover of the Vietnamese edition; the text gives some background. The situation in Vietnam after the American War was similar enough to that of the Soviet Union in the 1920s. I see that the series of videos that Anthony linked to mine on ?simply? is also posted there. I would LOVE to be able to go to the conference in Lausanne and see what kinds of history is provided for this beautiful, loving book. Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com helenaworthen.wordpress.com check your registration at vote.gov > On Nov 30, 2020, at 5:40 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > And Francine was kind enough to write a beautiful little cover blurb for the Korean edition of creativity and imagination in childhood back in 2014 (at the time our Russian was still so rudimentary that we checked every paragraph of our translation against hers). We also included the two other essays which she mentions (which I think are necessary, because "Creativity and Imagination in Childhood" is really a booklet Vygotsky himself wrote to present ideas--including those of other academics--to non-academics in a popular form). > > A propos. The eighth seminaire internationale sur Vygotski will be held in Lausanne, Switzerland, from the 7-9, and the theme is...Vygotsky's "Creativity and Imagination in Childhood", now appearing in French! The Call for Papers is hereby attached (in French). Note that there are some anglophones on the scientific committee (including me) and that you can submit and present in English. By June we may actually be able to travel again. > > dk > > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Book with Nikolai Veresov > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov > See free downloadable pdf at: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!VmT7aLIPdLJBg54wBz48mxt2g3uKs2OYBhbeRtC8tfjo5H3GKW0iHbLidSlZcLFkEOIdGA$ > > Forthcoming in 2020: > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 9:20 AM Larry Smolucha > wrote: > >From Francine: > > Just for the record, I have never used Google translate or any internet service when doing my translations - only the Oxford Russian-English dictionary. Like David, my reading skills in Russian are my strong point, rather than speaking or auditory comprehension. > > I have never had a mentor fluent in Russian oversee my translations of Vygotsky's writings. Early on, I discovered that the bi-lingual English experts in Russian were not focusing on the > texts, but rather coming to the texts with interpretive frameworks. > > Discovered this in 1984, when I undertook my first translation of a Vygotsky text Thinking and Speech. My intention was to compare (correct) my translation with the only published English translation available Thought and Language (1962) by Hanfmann and Vakar, MIT Press. Well, as soon as I held the Russian version of Thinking and Speech in my hand, I realized the title had been mistranslated and the Russian version of the book was twice as thick as the 1962 English translation. When I started translating the chapters, I discovered that roughly half of the paragraphs were omitted in a random fashion within the text. > > Many XMCA members first read Thinking and Speech in the full translations that came out later in 1986 (Wertsch) and 1987 (Minick). But I am of a different generation and had to discover the hard way the inadequacies of the 1962 translation. Add to this that in 1984, I undertook the translation of Thinking and Speech to prepare for my third attempt at passing the Graduate Level Reading Exam in Russian at the University of Chicago (the Hanfmann/Vakar translation would not have gotten a passing grade). Well my thoughts were "screw this" - I am correcting the official MIT publication while trying to pass my grad reading exam. Might as well translate something that I am really interested in even if it has never been translated. > > In 1983, my husband and I had presented our theory and research on the development of creativity as a maturation of symbolic play at a conference of the British Psychological Society in Wales. Wonder if Vygotsky wrote anything about creativity? > What do you know, in a 1956 Russian publication there was a paper by Vygotsky on the development of creative imagination. Translated it, passed the reading exam with honors, and sent my translation to Jim Wertsch at Northwestern University. Got a phone call from Jim Wertsch - told me that Plenum needed translators for the Collected Works and that I could go to study in Russia to study Vygotsky's writings. I replied that what I was really interested in is 'creativity' and I want to see if Vygotsky wrote anything else on that topic. Wertsch said "No, this is the only paper, Vygotsky had no interest in creativity." I declined the offer to translate for Plenum and to study in Russia. And all by myself, discovered that Vygotsky had written two other papers on the development of creative imagination, translated those papers and got them in press. > > I tell you this story because reading the text for yourself is a bold thing to do. > > > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of David Kellogg > > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:13 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian > > Many thanks to Zaza, whose translation of Tuku's song I'll be taking into my class on Ethics, Emotions, and Education tonight. I think you can see from her translation where you can go wrong with Google Translate, which is, after all, just a way of linking up bits of texts that have been previously translated by humans. Using the Google Translate function for Shona, I thought the song referred to "raped by your roomate". Zaza says it means a husband, which is expressed as the payer of bride price. At first I thought this was an accident of history, similar to the fact that our word "husband" means someone who looks after pigs, but of course if you listen to Tuku's song Haasati Aziva you can see that if it is an accident of history it's a very recent one that still casts a shadow. As Mary said--this is the stuff of a pandemic: systemic, institutionalized, and as a result blithe, indifferent and unaccountable power. As with AIDS, so too with Covid 19. > > Anthony--I said I don't speak Russian. I started studying in 2005 (after a short exchange with Mike) and took four years of formal classes in the language, six to eight hours a week. I have been spending at least eight hours a week reading Russian ever since. So when I look at a paragraph of Vygotsky in Russian I don't usually see any words that I don't recognize. When I do, I do what any Russian would do and look them up. Google Translate works as a bilingual dictionary only the entries are larger than the word and smaller than the clause. But human translators function more like thesauruses, where the entries are not wordings but meanings. For that reason I tend to use "Reverso", which gives whole paragraphs from the data base so you can see the context. . > > When I meet Nikolai or Anna, I find it impossible to use more than a few well-known phrases in Russian (mostly agreeable things like "Of course" and "You're right!", which is quite unlike my normal way of thinking...). So I think I do not speak Russian, although I have some reading knowledge of it. Operationally what that means is that when I publish a translation, I need a native speaker looking over my shoulder. Since I'm mostly translating into Korean, I actually need two, and I am fortunate that I was born with two shoulders, and even more fortunate that I have Dr. Kim Yongho, who is better than I am in both languages. (But Yongho learned his Russian from Rosetta Stone!) > > I have no objection to disentangling threads, but I don't really agree with Antti (who, unless I am quite mistaken, also speaks a language that utterly lacks articles) that this all belongs on a separate thread. To me, anyway, the relevant points are three. > > a) Racism isn't an interpersonal matter, and still less is it an intra-personal one: it's social, cultural, historical, material. That's why we say it is systemic. And if it's systemic, it is part of the way we look at other languages. Since Lewontin demonstrated the non-viability of race as a unit of analysis for human communities, language has become a stand in for race, and views about language are a stand-in for views about race. That was, after all, where Arturo was looking. > > b) One way that views about language have become a stand-in for views about race is that languages which lack articles are seen as deviant from some universal grammar and hence defective in some way. My colleague's "article-drop" parameter is actually part of a pattern of thinking that has been part of mainstream linguistics since the late fifties and early sixties, and is exemplified in the "Principles and Parameters" model of Universal Grammar. Chomsky argued that languages like Italian which do not require grammatical subjects as English does must have a setting that permits the omission of this universally obligatory element. This is nonsense. Italian does not drop pronouns; there's really no "pro" there to drop. We do not, after all, go around saying that English is a Korean-honorific-drop-language. Those who assume that languages are genetically hard-wired (the LAD or the magical gene that according to Chomsky created the capacity for human thought or the supposed correlation between mutations in mitochondrial DNA and languages that was alleged by Cavalli-Sforza) are making assumptions that are really not that different from assumptions previously made about the cranial capacity of lesser breeds without the law. > > c) Vygotsky was as much a man of his time as we are of our own. Some writers (c.f. Aaro Toomela on the Cultural Praxis site recently) have argued that Vygotsky believed in "primitive languages", e.g. the Bantu languages, to which Shona belongs. As Zaza makes abundantly clear, Shona is not primitive by any conceivable standard, and I have seen no convincing evidence that Vygotsky ever made this assumption (he did quote missionaries who clearly did make the assumption, but he is quite scathing about them on precisely this point). Certainly the idea that some languages have only the "indicative" or the "nominating" function but not the "signifying" function is not a Vygotskyan one: a language that cannot signify is not a human language, and any language that can signify can signify a concept. Languages can vary according to the meanings that they actually do express, just as registers within a language do. But human meaning potential is, if not infinite (we will not be around forever), at least undetermined and probably indeterminate. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Book with Nikolai Veresov > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov > See free downloadable pdf at: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!VmT7aLIPdLJBg54wBz48mxt2g3uKs2OYBhbeRtC8tfjo5H3GKW0iHbLidSlZcLFkEOIdGA$ > > Forthcoming in 2020: > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 5:08 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > I translated Piaget's book on dialectics with the aid of google. There was much work both pre- and post-googletranslate though. Part of this I put down to understanding the domain, just as one can question translations if one knows what they are about. > > Huw > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 18:53, Anthony Barra > wrote: > Zaza, > > I had no idea that one could translate books without really speaking the original language, as David claims about himself. > Nor did I realize the extent to which translating is about reading between the lines, along with the lines themselves. Such an interesting topic . . . > > Perhaps of interest: > 1. A brief anecdote from David about a current Korean translation/summary project:https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGU5zV6zbLI__;!!Mih3wA!VmT7aLIPdLJBg54wBz48mxt2g3uKs2OYBhbeRtC8tfjo5H3GKW0iHbLidSlZcLEM6s6JCQ$ (re: Vygotsky on emotions) > 2. An old xmca post on translating Vygotsky into Korean:http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2011_05.dir/msg00509.html > > I thought these were neat to hear about and maybe enjoyable or others as well. > > Anthony > > > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 3:30 PM Zaza Kabayadondo > wrote: > I'm moving this to a new thread... > > Thank you for your question, David. I didn't realize people were using Google Translate. It's great for some languages - not so much for anything from Southern Africa at least as far as I've observed. > > Yes, I do speak Shona. I like to distinguish between functional Shona and idiomatic Shona. Functional Shona is literal and idiomatic Shona is literary (though spoken). I'm not a Shona linguist so I'm making up terms for the distinction I perceive but there might already be a convention for how Shona linguists describe the difference. Functional Shona is what you will hear people using on the streets. It is a more literal or explicit way of speaking and very similar to European meaning and sensemaking. In functional Shona you might say "I am tired." "She arrived yesterday." It some contexts it is considered rather crass to speak so directly of your feelings, wants, needs. I contrast this to idiomatic Shona which is a version of the language our elders spoke, it reflects pre-colonial Shona culture and thinking because it "beats around the bush". You would rarely directly ask a question, everything was a metaphor, a vague suggestion, never explicitly spelt out. It is more diplomatic, more evasive, and can be problematic when it comes to talking about social or political issues. Tuku sings in this idiomatic style. Tuku's song Bvuma is the best example of his style of which allows for double entendre (He is saying "Tolerance has faded" but he could also mean "Just accept that you're old." > > Todii is about HIV/AIDS. Originally, "utachiwana" meant any virus or germ, the underlying cause of an illness, but over time the only virus people talk about is HIV. (In "Hutachiwana" the "h" is a modifier emphasizes you mean "the virus"). The style is call-and-response which is typical in Shona folk music, both traditional and contemporary. The call and its response should be read as one sentence. > > As for the lyrics in question: > Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the one you live with...If you have a virus > Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma** ...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the man** who married you ...If you have a virus > **The literal meaning is "by the one who paid roora (lobola/bride price)" > Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Translation: When he knows you have the virus...If you have a virus > Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Translation: And you know you have the virus...If you have a virus > In the last two lines the response almost implies "hypothetically, let's say you have a virus." And for me this is really where the song touches on the sensibility of HIV/AIDS as it was experienced in Zimbabwe in the moment of the song. Not knowing who has it, suspecting who has it etc. Tuku was masterful with his play on words and structure. > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 2:56 AM David Kellogg > wrote: > Zaza-- > > Dude, I don't really speak Russian either, as Nikolai and Anna will tell you (we only speak English). In my translation work I spend a lot more time on Google Translate than I would like, and that's why I burden the list with the queries you mention from time to time.. But I bet you speak Shona, or at least understand a little. > > So maybe you can help. I'm using this tune from the late great Tuku (Oliver Mtukudzi) in a class I am giving on sex education in Korea. I've been told that it doesn't really mention AIDS/HIV explicitly, and I get that--in fact, that's one of the reasons why I think it's useful for making certain parallels between pandemics and also discussing HPV and other issues I want to talk about. But I don't quite understand THIS verse--maybe you can help me? > > Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye > (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma > (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana > (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana > (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > > So "Kana uinahwo utachiwana" means something like "If you get infected". But what is the reference to being raped by your roommate? > > On the subject of this thread. Like voter fraud, racism is a very serious charge, and the right has successfully made hay out of its seriousness. But as with voter fraud they have made even more hay out of rendering the charge unproveable, by removing its class content and rendering it a purely subjective inclination. This is why, I think (I hope), Arturo and others tend to raise this sort of thing in private off-list material that is so much at variance with their public writings that it fairly attracts the charge of hypocrisy or at least political timidity. After all, if you really suspect your interlocutor of racism, it's incumbent on you to keep your mouth and not just your eyes open. But you've got to put money where your mouth is: you have to provide some evidence (e.g. the paper that Harshad circulated on the list not too long ago). There are important scientific issues we need to discuss which are actually not unrelated to the one that Arturo was reacting to: whether you can accurately judge the language proficiency of a person by their race or national origin (as I have done in the second paragraph above). Not unrelated. But not identical to either, else I would not have written that paragraph. > > Here's an example. A dear colleague of mine, who like the vast majority of people in this country is not white and wouldn't know deficit linguistics from a surplus, has just written a paper on why Korean children tend to drop articles (i.e. "a" and "the"). He begins with the Chomskyan premise that all nouns must, according to universal human grammars which are hardwired at birth, be realized by "determiner phrases". What that means is that a noun phrase like "the cat" is not really about a cat--it's about "the", and the "the" is modified by "cat" (What kind of "the-ness" do you mean? The cat kind!) > > But it's THIS, and not Vygotskyan, Hallidayan, or Bernsteinian developmentalism, that is deficit linguistics. I won't say it is racist, because unfortunately that term has lost its scientific content and become nothing but a thought crime. But I will say that people who speak languages without articles or languages that emphasize nouns over determiners (e.g. Korean, Chinese, Russian) are not born with a birth defect (or "null spell out", as the Chomskyans say). > > Does Shona have articles or not? Do you know? > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0JssD8Hzc__;!!Mih3wA!VmT7aLIPdLJBg54wBz48mxt2g3uKs2OYBhbeRtC8tfjo5H3GKW0iHbLidSlZcLGavsiO9g$ > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Book with Nikolai Veresov > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov > See free downloadable pdf at: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!VmT7aLIPdLJBg54wBz48mxt2g3uKs2OYBhbeRtC8tfjo5H3GKW0iHbLidSlZcLFkEOIdGA$ > > Forthcoming in 2020: > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:02 PM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > P.S. To my best understanding (very minimal, no doubt), the subject matter of Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory is the development of human higher psychological functions. (How that is "left," "right," or otherwise is beyond me.) > > Political propensities can be discerned across some (adult) developmental stages. > > Huw > > > > > -- > To schedule up a 30 minute call using Calendly: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://calendly.com/with-zaza__;!!Mih3wA!VmT7aLIPdLJBg54wBz48mxt2g3uKs2OYBhbeRtC8tfjo5H3GKW0iHbLidSlZcLGOKPNlrg$ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/5ca9d2bc/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SIV8-appel ? communications.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 107566 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/5ca9d2bc/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/5ca9d2bc/attachment-0001.html From anthonymbarra@gmail.com Tue Dec 1 11:50:38 2020 From: anthonymbarra@gmail.com (Anthony Barra) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 14:50:38 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How much fun are we having . . . In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you, Helena. That's a very interesting observation. I wish you - and everyone - a great day, myself included ? Anthony On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 1:42 PM Helena Worthen wrote: > Brilliant, Anthony! I clicked on it to see what it looked like and found > that you?ve lined my bit up with a bunch of others speaking to the > question of ?concept.? > > What is interesting to me is how consistent, across all these clips, is > the explanation of ?concept.? Surely that?s a first for this list ? one > voice after another, different accents, different angles, but definitely > all talking about the same thing, elaborating on it in agreement with each > other. > > It does not look as if each clip was made after the speaker had listened > to the others. That?s really good. That means that we are spared the ?Yes, > but?.not exactly?? sort of thing that characterizes an asynchronous dialog > like the XMCA and tends to lead off into the weeds. > > The unanticipated benefit of an alternate medium! > > Thanks ? Helena > > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > > > check your registration at vote.gov > > > > > > On Dec 1, 2020, at 7:27 AM, Anthony Barra wrote: > > Thank you to Helena. Very interesting. > > "Vygotsky - through a Labor Education lens" -- > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/iYndG7cKlj0__;!!Mih3wA!SjaX-RPr9bngPe1RYmhbGlwVNC2Wi_kXV2IzwCzulyRWECkfnCkl5oTcHBhGo8EUePNNAw$ > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:05 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: > >> Anthony, I am going to try taking you up on your challenge. >> >> *How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., >>> parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much >>> accuracy?* >> >> >> I did this, of course, in my book, *What Did You Learn at Work Today? >> The Forbidden Lessons of Labor Education,* published by Hardball Press >> in 2014. Note the prestigious academic press ? and it only costs $15!!!! >> But I will boil it down to the 5-minute schpiel that I would give in my >> classes to union members whose second question, after ?How did you learn to >> do labor education?? would be, ?How can I get your job?? >> >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> >> >> check your registration at vote.gov >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 28, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Anthony Barra >> wrote: >> >> Recently, a small spat has spun into an interesting larger discussion, >> and mostly productive at that. >> >> The whole spat, however, began with a misunderstanding. When sharing the >> "Why generations?" video, Andy was alluding, lightly and positively, to a >> previous video where he himself was "put on the spot" (ironically enough in >> a post titled "Let's have some fun! >> "). >> In my family, from childhood onward, 'on the spot' always had a positive, >> even playful connotation. (Maybe it's an italian-american thing?) >> >> Sadly, the initial offer of fun, three weeks ago, was hardly taken up, >> save for a brief, interesting response from Huw Lloyd. But the party >> shouldn't end, and the open-ended question remains: >> >>> *How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., >>> parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much >>> accuracy?* >> >> >> Andy gave it a nice go, without advanced warning (i.e., 'on the spot'). >> I think it's a pretty hard question, and maybe a poorly asked one -- but >> what if many of us weighed in and gave it a shot? It'd probably be less >> hard then, and certainly interesting (and likely beneficial to anyone >> looking to share Vygotsky's work in various settings beyond academe) ---> >> "the pool of collective knowledge is big," perhaps even *oceanic*. >> >> No one wants my advice, but this would be it: assume you have something >> worth saying and also that it might not come out as well as you'd like AND >> that people will want to hear it anyway, and even more importantly, that >> the momentum of having many voices contribute will be worth as much >> (probably more) than any individual contribution (i.e., literally no >> pressure). >> >> Give it a shot here, maybe even in video-form if you'd like: "An >> Audience Participation Question . . . Let's Have Some Fun!" >> >> <> (I kid, I kid!) >> >> There are other good videos over at CulturalPraxis -- and hopefully, the >> uptick in xmca engagement will spill over to there as well (the more the >> merrier). >> >> As Natalia Gajdamaschko has suggested, "development comes out of >> resolving some sort of contradiction..some type of crisis -- a good crisis >> >> ." >> >> Enjoy, >> >> Anthony >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/c51b52c5/attachment.html From lsmolucha@hotmail.com Tue Dec 1 12:11:59 2020 From: lsmolucha@hotmail.com (Larry Smolucha) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 20:11:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [External] Pain and suffering vs business as usual In-Reply-To: <15D0B904-6A47-4F30-AA57-1BB1FBE3F6C7@unco.edu> References: <1606840343039.6115@gc.cuny.edu>, <15D0B904-6A47-4F30-AA57-1BB1FBE3F6C7@unco.edu> Message-ID: >From Francine: Here's a link to the video Why Man Creates - it deals with pain and suffering. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONVZ8AH4yKc__;!!Mih3wA!V_L7gL8e9tlNy6MGOgFIjXbBnsKsM6TWWr9z82dchRUVRw0kGMWMDY47d7F0frtd90PlHA$ ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Walker, Dana Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 11:33 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [External] Pain and suffering vs business as usual Thank you Anna for your insistence on continuing this conversation, and not going back to business as usual. It helps to have some historical precedents and current issues made concrete. Among other things, it makes me feel less alone in my hesitation to participate in xmca. Knowing that folks are continuing the conversation with Audre Lorde is encouraging as well. Your reference to Sarah Ahmed?s 2015 piece is an important reminder, and made me think of Eugene Matusov and Artyom Fyodorov?s efforts to help create a University of Students, described below. Dana Dana Walker, Ph.D. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Education College of Education and Behavioral Sciences University of Northern Colorado (970 351-2720 Dear Open Syllabus Education folks? We want to invite you to participate in a 10-min survey about your potential interest in establishing the University of Students (UniS) and forward this invitation to those (people or organizations) who might be interesting. Our concept of the University of Students is based on the idea that a student the author of their own education. A student has an unalienated and sovereign right to freedom of education: to decide whether to study, what to study, how to study, with whom to study, when to study, where to study, why to study, what is good education, and so on. This decision-making can be done by the student-author alone, with peer students, and/or with a pedagogue. The University of Students exists for the students, by the students, through the students. According to our vision, the University of Students involves a rich learning environment. When you join the University of Students, you will have diverse opportunities for socializing with people of similar and different interests and expertise, for observation of and participation in many diverse activities and dialogues, for starting new projects, and for diverse sources of help, if you need any, -- all to support you self-education. The University of Students is not new, it existed in diverse forms for about 300 years in Southern Europe (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.historytoday.com/alan-b-cobban/student-power-middle-ages__;!!Mih3wA!V_L7gL8e9tlNy6MGOgFIjXbBnsKsM6TWWr9z82dchRUVRw0kGMWMDY47d7F0frtIZ8E6kQ$ ). The University of Students will provide ample opportunities for the creative professional implementation of educators and experts. There will be no educational standards, compulsory curricula, mandatory exams issued "from the top" (administrations) or "from the side" (colleagues), and there will be no need to write a huge number of reports on their work. According to our vision of UniS, an educator becomes a real educator when they are in demand by a student. At the University of Students, the student themselves determines and goes through their educational trajectory. At the same time, the student can be completely independent, or they can turn to an educator for help, who becomes for the student a guide -- a guide in the student's own educational journey. The educational process at the University of Students is a common cause of all its participants, based on the principles of cooperation, mutual respect, and goodwill. If you are interested in the resurrection of and participation in this enterprise, please take the survey: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://delaware.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0feGjXCQPh8fNTT__;!!Mih3wA!V_L7gL8e9tlNy6MGOgFIjXbBnsKsM6TWWr9z82dchRUVRw0kGMWMDY47d7F0fruA4Editw$ . Also, please, forward this email to whoever might be interested regardless of their age (especially prospective UoS students). The purpose of this survey to check if there is enough public interest in the University of Students. Let us know, please, if you have any questions. Our best, Artyom Fyodorov, a founder of the democratic school SOVUM, Tver', Russia, fedorov.artem.n@gmail.com Eugene Matusov, Professor of Education, University of Delaware, USA, ematusov@udel.edu 18 November 2020 From: on behalf of "Stetsenko, Anna" Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 9:35 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [External][Xmca-l] Pain and suffering vs business as usual Before we go back to business as usual, there is more to say on the recent crisis, which to me is not over. This is because I think we need to be ?sensitive to that which is not over? We are up against history; walls. We need to support, stand with, and stand by, those students [and all who are marginalized] who are fighting to survive hostile institutions. It is our job.? (this is from Sarah Ahmed, posted by Jacob Mac Williams on xmca in 2015, I will reference it several times, it?s a brilliant piece, google Against Students ? The New Inquiry). A short prelude ? I attended an amazing meeting yesterday on Audre Lorde organized by the GC CUNY, Translating Audre Lorde Now /Traduciendo Audre Lorde Ahora. Scholars, educators, and students spoke about Lorde and centrally brought up the theme of pain and suffering in academia and beyond ? for those who are marginalized due to their skin color, ethnicity, non-traditional gender identity?Perhaps there could be people who do not know or prefer not to know but this is directly relevant to xmca, where pain and suffering have been incurred and many experienced violence of racism, sexism, and discrimination. There have been interventions, and heart-felt notes from Mike, Antti, Alfredo (for example), yet they fall on deaf ears and many choose to remain oblivious to what is going on and to their own actions (!). We hear about this here on the list and even more in private emails ? many are actually afraid to come up and share their experiences! This is not a matter of just brining up grievances or of political correctness. This is a matter of well being, of being able to breath! ?Caring for myself is not self-indulgence. It is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare" Audre Lord. I think we have been speaking of the crisis in general, abstract terms. But history is always concrete ? and why not rise from the abstract to the concrete (for those who like to couch things in terms of ?academic debates?)? Many conveniently return to ?freedom of speech? and ?inclusion? mantra. But in 2020 it should be clear there is no going back to these in the midst of pain and suffering. Sarah Ahmed explained this: "Interestingly one white male academic when asked about 'decolonizing the university' ..was reported to have said something like ?this is education not democracy: we get to decide what we teach.? He helpfully reveals to us how the democracy often defended is an illusion: what is being defended as democracy is often despotism." Here is to the concrete. Andy posted his reflections and there is not a hint of what has been going on for many years. Andy, your style has been stifling to people ? your dominant posture, the flair of ?knowing the answers? and lecturing others, your insistence on ?objectivity? in science (read: canons of white male superiority only accessible to ?Great Men?). The latter came through when Jacob MacWilliams responded to you, not just once! With great eloquence and also pain. And left after that, to a great loss to xmca, as did many others, in desperation. Hope someone will do a discourse analysis of epistemic violence on xmca? A claim to objective knowledge is an absolute demand for obedience (Mendez, Coddou, & Maturana). Exactly! And Kristie Dotson will be useful here indeed, thank you, Diane, for bringing this up. There is more to add on epistemic violence?I will wait for other voices and then probably add, with more specific illustrations. But important for now, if we hear voices telling us that there is racism and violence in messages they see on xmca, we have to act. Anthony, people are not feeling safe in your presence ? this was expressed to you and I heard this from many people in private too ? I am making this public now. As someone wrote ? this is about ?awful e-mail exchanges,? so that she ?didn't feel like engaging in such a violent environment.? What is it that you do not understand about this? Anna Stetsenko, PhD Professor Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education The Graduate Center of The City University of New York 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/__;!!Mih3wA!V_L7gL8e9tlNy6MGOgFIjXbBnsKsM6TWWr9z82dchRUVRw0kGMWMDY47d7F0frsJ6ndCQg$ visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.academia.edu__;!!Mih3wA!V_L7gL8e9tlNy6MGOgFIjXbBnsKsM6TWWr9z82dchRUVRw0kGMWMDY47d7F0frvh4yvdWg$ for my recent publications ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Anthony Barra Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:27 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How much fun are we having . . . Thank you to Helena. Very interesting. "Vygotsky - through a Labor Education lens" -- https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/iYndG7cKlj0__;!!Mih3wA!V_L7gL8e9tlNy6MGOgFIjXbBnsKsM6TWWr9z82dchRUVRw0kGMWMDY47d7F0fru_6qPV7Q$ On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:05 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: Anthony, I am going to try taking you up on your challenge. How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? I did this, of course, in my book, What Did You Learn at Work Today? The Forbidden Lessons of Labor Education, published by Hardball Press in 2014. Note the prestigious academic press ? and it only costs $15!!!! But I will boil it down to the 5-minute schpiel that I would give in my classes to union members whose second question, after ?How did you learn to do labor education?? would be, ?How can I get your job?? Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com helenaworthen.wordpress.com check your registration at vote.gov On Nov 28, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Anthony Barra > wrote: Recently, a small spat has spun into an interesting larger discussion, and mostly productive at that. The whole spat, however, began with a misunderstanding. When sharing the "Why generations?" video, Andy was alluding, lightly and positively, to a previous video where he himself was "put on the spot" (ironically enough in a post titled "Let's have some fun!"). In my family, from childhood onward, 'on the spot' always had a positive, even playful connotation. (Maybe it's an italian-american thing?) Sadly, the initial offer of fun, three weeks ago, was hardly taken up, save for a brief, interesting response from Huw Lloyd. But the party shouldn't end, and the open-ended question remains: How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? Andy gave it a nice go, without advanced warning (i.e., 'on the spot'). I think it's a pretty hard question, and maybe a poorly asked one -- but what if many of us weighed in and gave it a shot? It'd probably be less hard then, and certainly interesting (and likely beneficial to anyone looking to share Vygotsky's work in various settings beyond academe) ---> "the pool of collective knowledge is big," perhaps even oceanic. No one wants my advice, but this would be it: assume you have something worth saying and also that it might not come out as well as you'd like AND that people will want to hear it anyway, and even more importantly, that the momentum of having many voices contribute will be worth as much (probably more) than any individual contribution (i.e., literally no pressure). Give it a shot here, maybe even in video-form if you'd like: "An Audience Participation Question . . . Let's Have Some Fun!" <> (I kid, I kid!) There are other good videos over at CulturalPraxis -- and hopefully, the uptick in xmca engagement will spill over to there as well (the more the merrier). As Natalia Gajdamaschko has suggested, "development comes out of resolving some sort of contradiction..some type of crisis -- a good crisis." Enjoy, Anthony **This message originated from outside UNC. Please use caution when opening attachments or following links. Do not enter your UNC credentials when prompted by external links.** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/17afe2c5/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Tue Dec 1 12:44:25 2020 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 12:44:25 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [External] Pain and suffering vs business as usual In-Reply-To: References: <1606840343039.6115@gc.cuny.edu> <15D0B904-6A47-4F30-AA57-1BB1FBE3F6C7@unco.edu> Message-ID: A suggestion: Acknowledge that the pain and suffering experienced by people working in higher ed is real, and that xmca, as a listerve of people who work in higher ed, reflects that pain. This pain is not unlike the pain I describe in my ?simply? video. That is, it is the pain that comes from the conditions of the job. So, what are the cruel conditions of the job that cause this pain? Discrimination on the basis of gender, age, race, LGBT orientation, disability ? any grouping that commands less social power creates an channel for discrimination to operate. Effects of discrimination are low status, low pay, precarious contracts, limited access to professional development, unfair evaluations, failure to get promoted, bad word-of-mouth, stabs of pain when noting stark contrast with privileged position of full professors with life-time jobs, low course loads, no publication requirements, undeserved honors, retiree health insurance?. Hmmm, mostly white male heater, yes. Who establishes these conditions, and why? Start with the obvious: that higher ed in the US and elsewhere is now a market oriented industry that sells ?education? and keeps labor costs as low as possible. On xmca we do our best to talk to each other as if we were all equals, but because we actually work in a severely heirarchical, competitive industry, some of us risk more than others. We have to balance the pleasure and the professional benefit of contributing to the ongoing stream of thought with the risk of being wrong and getting corrected, or speaking in the wrong tone and offending someone, all of which could play out off-list in some professional situation, some conference, some request to co-author, some peer review situation that might ?count? toward a more secure job. Actually, when you combine the moment ? the pandemic and the slow-motion collapse of the higher ed industry that it is causing ? with the suggestion forwarded below by Dana, about The University of Students, we might be seeing a pivot point where the real work of higher ed can shake off the superstructure of industry and get down to essentials. Like in every major social transformation (a perezhevanie ? thank you, Andy!), it?s going to hurt. But it does already. Helena Helena Worthen hworthen@illinois.edu helenaworthen.wordpress.com check your registration at vote.gov > On Dec 1, 2020, at 9:34 AM, Walker, Dana wrote: > > Sorry??Ana? > > > > From: "Walker, Dana" > > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 10:33 AM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Subject: Re: [External][Xmca-l] Pain and suffering vs business as usual > > Thank you Anna for your insistence on continuing this conversation, and not going back to business as usual. It helps to have some historical precedents and current issues made concrete. Among other things, it makes me feel less alone in my hesitation to participate in xmca. Knowing that folks are continuing the conversation with Audre Lorde is encouraging as well. Your reference to Sarah Ahmed?s 2015 piece is an important reminder, and made me think of Eugene Matusov and Artyom Fyodorov?s efforts to help create a University of Students, described below. > > Dana > Dana Walker, Ph.D. > Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Education > College of Education and Behavioral Sciences > University of Northern Colorado > (970 351-2720 > > > > > Dear Open Syllabus Education folks? > > We want to invite you to participate in a 10-min survey about your potential interest in establishing the University of Students (UniS) and forward this invitation to those (people or organizations) who might be interesting. > > Our concept of the University of Students is based on the idea that a student the author of their own education. A student has an unalienated and sovereign right to freedom of education: to decide whether to study, what to study, how to study, with whom to study, when to study, where to study, why to study, what is good education, and so on. This decision-making can be done by the student-author alone, with peer students, and/or with a pedagogue. The University of Students exists for the students, by the students, through the students. According to our vision, the University of Students involves a rich learning environment. When you join the University of Students, you will have diverse opportunities for socializing with people of similar and different interests and expertise, for observation of and participation in many diverse activities and dialogues, for starting new projects, and for diverse sources of help, if you need any, -- all to support you self-education. The University of Students is not new, it existed in diverse forms for about 300 years in Southern Europe (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.historytoday.com/alan-b-cobban/student-power-middle-ages__;!!Mih3wA!Qd-nZ8iH6oJivKY9UazlNUJubx0Twehu9CMq-H9LRb7iAvz2xHjK0-TY2A493GCdrsc9vA$ ). > > The University of Students will provide ample opportunities for the creative professional implementation of educators and experts. There will be no educational standards, compulsory curricula, mandatory exams issued "from the top" (administrations) or "from the side" (colleagues), and there will be no need to write a huge number of reports on their work. According to our vision of UniS, an educator becomes a real educator when they are in demand by a student. At the University of Students, the student themselves determines and goes through their educational trajectory. At the same time, the student can be completely independent, or they can turn to an educator for help, who becomes for the student a guide -- a guide in the student's own educational journey. The educational process at the University of Students is a common cause of all its participants, based on the principles of cooperation, mutual respect, and goodwill. > > If you are interested in the resurrection of and participation in this enterprise, please take the survey: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://delaware.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0feGjXCQPh8fNTT__;!!Mih3wA!Qd-nZ8iH6oJivKY9UazlNUJubx0Twehu9CMq-H9LRb7iAvz2xHjK0-TY2A493GCF860SnQ$ . Also, please, forward this email to whoever might be interested regardless of their age (especially prospective UoS students). The purpose of this survey to check if there is enough public interest in the University of Students. > > Let us know, please, if you have any questions. > > Our best, > > Artyom Fyodorov, a founder of the democratic school SOVUM, Tver', Russia, fedorov.artem.n@gmail.com > Eugene Matusov, Professor of Education, University of Delaware, USA, ematusov@udel.edu > 18 November 2020 > > > > From: > on behalf of "Stetsenko, Anna" > > Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 9:35 AM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Subject: [External][Xmca-l] Pain and suffering vs business as usual > > Before we go back to business as usual, there is more to say on the recent crisis, which to me is not over. This is because I think we need to be ?sensitive to that which is not over? We are up against history; walls. We need to support, stand with, and stand by, those students [and all who are marginalized] who are fighting to survive hostile institutions. It is our job.? > (this is from Sarah Ahmed, posted by Jacob Mac Williams on xmca in 2015, I will reference it several times, it?s a brilliant piece, google Against Students ? The New Inquiry ). > > A short prelude ? I attended an amazing meeting yesterday on Audre Lorde organized by the GC CUNY, Translating Audre Lorde Now /Traduciendo Audre Lorde Ahora. Scholars, educators, and students spoke about Lorde and centrally brought up the theme of pain and suffering in academia and beyond ? for those who are marginalized due to their skin color, ethnicity, non-traditional gender identity?Perhaps there could be people who do not know or prefer not to know but this is directly relevant to xmca, where pain and suffering have been incurred and many experienced violence of racism, sexism, and discrimination. There have been interventions, and heart-felt notes from Mike, Antti, Alfredo (for example), yet they fall on deaf ears and many choose to remain oblivious to what is going on and to their own actions (!). We hear about this here on the list and even more in private emails ? many are actually afraid to come up and share their experiences! > This is not a matter of just brining up grievances or of political correctness. This is a matter of well being, of being able to breath! ?Caring for myself is not self-indulgence. It is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare" Audre Lord. > I think we have been speaking of the crisis in general, abstract terms. But history is always concrete ? and why not rise from the abstract to the concrete (for those who like to couch things in terms of ?academic debates?)? Many conveniently return to ?freedom of speech? and ?inclusion? mantra. But in 2020 it should be clear there is no going back to these in the midst of pain and suffering. Sarah Ahmed explained this: > "Interestingly one white male academic when asked about 'decolonizing the university' ..was reported to have said something like ?this is education not democracy: we get to decide what we teach.? He helpfully reveals to us how the democracy often defended is an illusion: what is being defended as democracy is often despotism." > > Here is to the concrete. Andy posted his reflections and there is not a hint of what has been going on for many years. Andy, your style has been stifling to people ? your dominant posture, the flair of ?knowing the answers? and lecturing others, your insistence on ?objectivity? in science (read: canons of white male superiority only accessible to ?Great Men?). The latter came through when Jacob MacWilliams responded to you, not just once! With great eloquence and also pain. And left after that, to a great loss to xmca, as did many others, in desperation. Hope someone will do a discourse analysis of epistemic violence on xmca? A claim to objective knowledge is an absolute demand for obedience (Mendez, Coddou, & Maturana). Exactly! And Kristie Dotson will be useful here indeed, thank you, Diane, for bringing this up. > > There is more to add on epistemic violence?I will wait for other voices and then probably add, with more specific illustrations. > But important for now, if we hear voices telling us that there is racism and violence in messages they see on xmca, we have to act. Anthony, people are not feeling safe in your presence ? this was expressed to you and I heard this from many people in private too ? I am making this public now. As someone wrote ? this is about ?awful e-mail exchanges,? so that she ?didn't feel like engaging in such a violent environment.? What is it that you do not understand about this? > > > Anna Stetsenko, PhD > Professor > Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education > The Graduate Center of The City University of New York > 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/__;!!Mih3wA!Qd-nZ8iH6oJivKY9UazlNUJubx0Twehu9CMq-H9LRb7iAvz2xHjK0-TY2A493GBX0VlX6A$ > visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.academia.edu__;!!Mih3wA!Qd-nZ8iH6oJivKY9UazlNUJubx0Twehu9CMq-H9LRb7iAvz2xHjK0-TY2A493GA9kXLsvg$ for my recent publications > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Anthony Barra > > Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:27 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How much fun are we having . . . > > Thank you to Helena. Very interesting. > > "Vygotsky - through a Labor Education lens" -- https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/iYndG7cKlj0__;!!Mih3wA!Qd-nZ8iH6oJivKY9UazlNUJubx0Twehu9CMq-H9LRb7iAvz2xHjK0-TY2A493GBF6h0O_w$ > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:05 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: >> Anthony, I am going to try taking you up on your challenge. >> >>>> How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? >> >> I did this, of course, in my book, What Did You Learn at Work Today? The Forbidden Lessons of Labor Education, published by Hardball Press in 2014. Note the prestigious academic press ? and it only costs $15!!!! But I will boil it down to the 5-minute schpiel that I would give in my classes to union members whose second question, after ?How did you learn to do labor education?? would be, ?How can I get your job?? >> >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> >> check your registration at vote.gov >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Nov 28, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Anthony Barra > wrote: >>> >>> Recently, a small spat has spun into an interesting larger discussion, and mostly productive at that. >>> >>> The whole spat, however, began with a misunderstanding. When sharing the "Why generations?" video, Andy was alluding, lightly and positively, to a previous video where he himself was "put on the spot" (ironically enough in a post titled "Let's have some fun! "). In my family, from childhood onward, 'on the spot' always had a positive, even playful connotation. (Maybe it's an italian-american thing?) >>> >>> Sadly, the initial offer of fun, three weeks ago, was hardly taken up, save for a brief, interesting response from Huw Lloyd. But the party shouldn't end, and the open-ended question remains: >>>> How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? >>> >>> Andy gave it a nice go, without advanced warning (i.e., 'on the spot'). I think it's a pretty hard question, and maybe a poorly asked one -- but what if many of us weighed in and gave it a shot? It'd probably be less hard then, and certainly interesting (and likely beneficial to anyone looking to share Vygotsky's work in various settings beyond academe) ---> "the pool of collective knowledge is big," perhaps even oceanic. >>> >>> No one wants my advice, but this would be it: assume you have something worth saying and also that it might not come out as well as you'd like AND that people will want to hear it anyway, and even more importantly, that the momentum of having many voices contribute will be worth as much (probably more) than any individual contribution (i.e., literally no pressure). >>> >>> Give it a shot here, maybe even in video-form if you'd like: "An Audience Participation Question . . . Let's Have Some Fun!" <> (I kid, I kid!) >>> >>> There are other good videos over at CulturalPraxis -- and hopefully, the uptick in xmca engagement will spill over to there as well (the more the merrier). >>> >>> As Natalia Gajdamaschko has suggested, "development comes out of resolving some sort of contradiction..some type of crisis -- a good crisis ." >>> >>> Enjoy, >>> >>> Anthony >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > **This message originated from outside UNC. Please use caution when opening attachments or following links. Do not enter your UNC credentials when prompted by external links.** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/cb1b2126/attachment-0001.html From shirlwhirl49@icloud.com Tue Dec 1 13:04:09 2020 From: shirlwhirl49@icloud.com (Shirley Franklin) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 21:04:09 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [External] Pain and suffering vs business as usual In-Reply-To: <15D0B904-6A47-4F30-AA57-1BB1FBE3F6C7@unco.edu> References: <1606840343039.6115@gc.cuny.edu> <15D0B904-6A47-4F30-AA57-1BB1FBE3F6C7@unco.edu> Message-ID: Hi I also find the thought and actually writing on here intimidating. Most of us, here, are Vygotskians. I expect we would all share the notion that we can work out our ideas about things through talk, and through writing. I love that process. I always remember when we were first introduced to Vygotsky on an MA course at the London Institute of Education. One of our group talked a lot, mainly guff, but exploring ideas. He is now very much part of the academic establishment, with a Vygotsky-related PhD! So to those who have been on this group for years, please allow others to explore. We are not in competition with each other. We can share and explore knowledge collaboratively! I think one of the problems in academia is the pressure to be right, the pressure to be original - I mean that?s how you keep your job, by churning out articles and books (about whatever!!). Someone like Lave (who was it?) wrote a brilliant article about this pressure on academics to produce capital for their employers, and to produce to stay in employment. Colleagues, comrades, on this list are right when they say that the employment conditions in academia are appalling. And if you are political, then you are more than likely to get a string of ?nil hours? contracts, and/or teach under conditions that don't allow enough time for either preparation or research. Shirley Now, retired, but still writing, still researching. > On 1 Dec 2020, at 17:33, Walker, Dana wrote: > > Thank you Anna for your insistence on continuing this conversation, and not going back to business as usual. It helps to have some historical precedents and current issues made concrete. Among other things, it makes me feel less alone in my hesitation to participate in xmca. Knowing that folks are continuing the conversation with Audre Lorde is encouraging as well. Your reference to Sarah Ahmed?s 2015 piece is an important reminder, and made me think of Eugene Matusov and Artyom Fyodorov?s efforts to help create a University of Students, described below. > > Dana > Dana Walker, Ph.D. > Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Education > College of Education and Behavioral Sciences > University of Northern Colorado > (970 351-2720 > > > > > Dear Open Syllabus Education folks? > > We want to invite you to participate in a 10-min survey about your potential interest in establishing the University of Students (UniS) and forward this invitation to those (people or organizations) who might be interesting. > > Our concept of the University of Students is based on the idea that a student the author of their own education. A student has an unalienated and sovereign right to freedom of education: to decide whether to study, what to study, how to study, with whom to study, when to study, where to study, why to study, what is good education, and so on. This decision-making can be done by the student-author alone, with peer students, and/or with a pedagogue. The University of Students exists for the students, by the students, through the students. According to our vision, the University of Students involves a rich learning environment. When you join the University of Students, you will have diverse opportunities for socializing with people of similar and different interests and expertise, for observation of and participation in many diverse activities and dialogues, for starting new projects, and for diverse sources of help, if you need any, -- all to support you self-education. The University of Students is not new, it existed in diverse forms for about 300 years in Southern Europe (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.historytoday.com/alan-b-cobban/student-power-middle-ages__;!!Mih3wA!WCRuup_iddmEm4yobItRwunKrqMNcA5k4q6F-WJixksL64xyVZkdwiRQmutj6aVk-61rEQ$ ). > > The University of Students will provide ample opportunities for the creative professional implementation of educators and experts. There will be no educational standards, compulsory curricula, mandatory exams issued "from the top" (administrations) or "from the side" (colleagues), and there will be no need to write a huge number of reports on their work. According to our vision of UniS, an educator becomes a real educator when they are in demand by a student. At the University of Students, the student themselves determines and goes through their educational trajectory. At the same time, the student can be completely independent, or they can turn to an educator for help, who becomes for the student a guide -- a guide in the student's own educational journey. The educational process at the University of Students is a common cause of all its participants, based on the principles of cooperation, mutual respect, and goodwill. > > If you are interested in the resurrection of and participation in this enterprise, please take the survey: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://delaware.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0feGjXCQPh8fNTT__;!!Mih3wA!WCRuup_iddmEm4yobItRwunKrqMNcA5k4q6F-WJixksL64xyVZkdwiRQmutj6aVJJZBA1Q$ . Also, please, forward this email to whoever might be interested regardless of their age (especially prospective UoS students). The purpose of this survey to check if there is enough public interest in the University of Students. > > Let us know, please, if you have any questions. > > Our best, > > Artyom Fyodorov, a founder of the democratic school SOVUM, Tver', Russia, fedorov.artem.n@gmail.com > Eugene Matusov, Professor of Education, University of Delaware, USA, ematusov@udel.edu > 18 November 2020 > > > > From: on behalf of "Stetsenko, Anna" > Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 9:35 AM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [External][Xmca-l] Pain and suffering vs business as usual > > Before we go back to business as usual, there is more to say on the recent crisis, which to me is not over. This is because I think we need to be ?sensitive to that which is not over? We are up against history; walls. We need to support, stand with, and stand by, those students [and all who are marginalized] who are fighting to survive hostile institutions. It is our job.? > (this is from Sarah Ahmed, posted by Jacob Mac Williams on xmca in 2015, I will reference it several times, it?s a brilliant piece, google Against Students ? The New Inquiry ). > > A short prelude ? I attended an amazing meeting yesterday on Audre Lorde organized by the GC CUNY, Translating Audre Lorde Now /Traduciendo Audre Lorde Ahora. Scholars, educators, and students spoke about Lorde and centrally brought up the theme of pain and suffering in academia and beyond ? for those who are marginalized due to their skin color, ethnicity, non-traditional gender identity?Perhaps there could be people who do not know or prefer not to know but this is directly relevant to xmca, where pain and suffering have been incurred and many experienced violence of racism, sexism, and discrimination. There have been interventions, and heart-felt notes from Mike, Antti, Alfredo (for example), yet they fall on deaf ears and many choose to remain oblivious to what is going on and to their own actions (!). We hear about this here on the list and even more in private emails ? many are actually afraid to come up and share their experiences! > This is not a matter of just brining up grievances or of political correctness. This is a matter of well being, of being able to breath! ?Caring for myself is not self-indulgence. It is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare" Audre Lord. > I think we have been speaking of the crisis in general, abstract terms. But history is always concrete ? and why not rise from the abstract to the concrete (for those who like to couch things in terms of ?academic debates?)? Many conveniently return to ?freedom of speech? and ?inclusion? mantra. But in 2020 it should be clear there is no going back to these in the midst of pain and suffering. Sarah Ahmed explained this: > "Interestingly one white male academic when asked about 'decolonizing the university' ..was reported to have said something like ?this is education not democracy: we get to decide what we teach.? He helpfully reveals to us how the democracy often defended is an illusion: what is being defended as democracy is often despotism." > > Here is to the concrete. Andy posted his reflections and there is not a hint of what has been going on for many years. Andy, your style has been stifling to people ? your dominant posture, the flair of ?knowing the answers? and lecturing others, your insistence on ?objectivity? in science (read: canons of white male superiority only accessible to ?Great Men?). The latter came through when Jacob MacWilliams responded to you, not just once! With great eloquence and also pain. And left after that, to a great loss to xmca, as did many others, in desperation. Hope someone will do a discourse analysis of epistemic violence on xmca? A claim to objective knowledge is an absolute demand for obedience (Mendez, Coddou, & Maturana). Exactly! And Kristie Dotson will be useful here indeed, thank you, Diane, for bringing this up. > > There is more to add on epistemic violence?I will wait for other voices and then probably add, with more specific illustrations. > But important for now, if we hear voices telling us that there is racism and violence in messages they see on xmca, we have to act. Anthony, people are not feeling safe in your presence ? this was expressed to you and I heard this from many people in private too ? I am making this public now. As someone wrote ? this is about ?awful e-mail exchanges,? so that she ?didn't feel like engaging in such a violent environment.? What is it that you do not understand about this? > > > Anna Stetsenko, PhD > Professor > Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education > The Graduate Center of The City University of New York > 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/__;!!Mih3wA!WCRuup_iddmEm4yobItRwunKrqMNcA5k4q6F-WJixksL64xyVZkdwiRQmutj6aU-bpZlZg$ > visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.academia.edu__;!!Mih3wA!WCRuup_iddmEm4yobItRwunKrqMNcA5k4q6F-WJixksL64xyVZkdwiRQmutj6aXFeua0ig$ for my recent publications > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Anthony Barra > Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:27 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How much fun are we having . . . > > Thank you to Helena. Very interesting. > > "Vygotsky - through a Labor Education lens" -- https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/iYndG7cKlj0__;!!Mih3wA!WCRuup_iddmEm4yobItRwunKrqMNcA5k4q6F-WJixksL64xyVZkdwiRQmutj6aVyYURLkg$ > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:05 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: >> Anthony, I am going to try taking you up on your challenge. >> >>>> How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? >> >> I did this, of course, in my book, What Did You Learn at Work Today? The Forbidden Lessons of Labor Education, published by Hardball Press in 2014. Note the prestigious academic press ? and it only costs $15!!!! But I will boil it down to the 5-minute schpiel that I would give in my classes to union members whose second question, after ?How did you learn to do labor education?? would be, ?How can I get your job?? >> >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> >> check your registration at vote.gov >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Nov 28, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Anthony Barra > wrote: >>> >>> Recently, a small spat has spun into an interesting larger discussion, and mostly productive at that. >>> >>> The whole spat, however, began with a misunderstanding. When sharing the "Why generations?" video, Andy was alluding, lightly and positively, to a previous video where he himself was "put on the spot" (ironically enough in a post titled "Let's have some fun! "). In my family, from childhood onward, 'on the spot' always had a positive, even playful connotation. (Maybe it's an italian-american thing?) >>> >>> Sadly, the initial offer of fun, three weeks ago, was hardly taken up, save for a brief, interesting response from Huw Lloyd. But the party shouldn't end, and the open-ended question remains: >>>> How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? >>> >>> Andy gave it a nice go, without advanced warning (i.e., 'on the spot'). I think it's a pretty hard question, and maybe a poorly asked one -- but what if many of us weighed in and gave it a shot? It'd probably be less hard then, and certainly interesting (and likely beneficial to anyone looking to share Vygotsky's work in various settings beyond academe) ---> "the pool of collective knowledge is big," perhaps even oceanic. >>> >>> No one wants my advice, but this would be it: assume you have something worth saying and also that it might not come out as well as you'd like AND that people will want to hear it anyway, and even more importantly, that the momentum of having many voices contribute will be worth as much (probably more) than any individual contribution (i.e., literally no pressure). >>> >>> Give it a shot here, maybe even in video-form if you'd like: "An Audience Participation Question . . . Let's Have Some Fun!" <> (I kid, I kid!) >>> >>> There are other good videos over at CulturalPraxis -- and hopefully, the uptick in xmca engagement will spill over to there as well (the more the merrier). >>> >>> As Natalia Gajdamaschko has suggested, "development comes out of resolving some sort of contradiction..some type of crisis -- a good crisis ." >>> >>> Enjoy, >>> >>> Anthony >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > **This message originated from outside UNC. Please use caution when opening attachments or following links. Do not enter your UNC credentials when prompted by external links.** Shirley Franklin Timbercombe Barn Sway Road Brockenhurst Hampshire SO42 7RX Mob: 07958745802 Home 01590623305 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201201/ea5d9a4f/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Dec 1 14:19:46 2020 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 07:19:46 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian In-Reply-To: <243B42F1-C1AA-4F10-A59C-20ECA65BDEB9@gmail.com> References: <184527580.727.0@wordpress.com> <388d7c80-99c5-6655-57f0-e87711922e42@marxists.org> <54F5FCAE-0439-4029-B716-8D87A325430E@gmail.com> <7E63B0FF-F3C6-45A6-BE0C-C50EC238CBFB@gmail.com> <1BA777A7-ABC5-4855-A9E8-49B991C34F2D@wisc.edu> <2A94F7FE-D12A-4161-9149-4305F5F5C989@uio.no> <521e6d47-9dd1-ae21-e28a-35e7faa0f821@marxists.org> <1606523343561.66632@gc.cuny.edu> <243B42F1-C1AA-4F10-A59C-20ECA65BDEB9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Henry-- Halliday used to say that linguists don't know what the word "infinite" means--they should talk to mathematicians more. I don't believe that "meaning potential" refers to a purely abstract possibility: I believe that meaning potential has to refer to some dream that actually can and someday will come true. So I think that the meaning potential of a speech community is pretty much coterminous with the actual body of texts produced during the lifetime of that community, so long as we define text semantically rather than as just ink and paper (i.e. we include inner speech as well as speech). Yes, when children expand their meanings, they also expand their potential for meanings. We know this because they mean more and can mean more when they grow up. But to me that doesn't mean infinite meaning potential; it only means that meaning potential, like meaning itself, is never fully determined and so always indeterminate. Anything else seems to me a form of dualism, and I'm a one-worlder. On using Google Translate or Reverso or for that matter the Oxford Russian-English Dictionary. Yongho likes to work without digital tools and then fix them up using the internet; I usually do it the other way around, and I can't really tell the difference.. An analogy: I don't have a good eye for facial proportions, and in art school, I sometimes used a camera and a grid instead of trial and error to rectify this in my portraiture. My classmates called this cheating, and they were very upset to read that Durer used a grid to get his foreshortening and Vermeer used camera obscura to get those incredible proportions that are as much in the lighting as in the actual perspective. Oil painters and translators live in a world of surfaces--as soon as you realize that nobody pays attention to anything except the last layer, you just want to get the last layer right and then move on. Here too, it helps to remember that it's extinction and not existence that's infinite. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Book with Nikolai Veresov L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov See free downloadable pdf at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!X9eMLf_xcpIeR0p6UZ6IwmyXv57TIWVL9HGhLEXMqwGa3dZW0uKaN24VpZt6Ibz245I5OQ$ Forthcoming in 2020: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:07 AM HENRY SHONERD wrote: > David, > This is very good dialog and makes me glad to have learned enough of > linguistics to make sense of it. I hope those of us who have been called > linguists aren?t perceived as insufferable pedants, hell-bent on silencing > the masses. It ain?t true! I was a little worried about what you did with > Google Translate until you described to David the dues you have paid > learning written, academic Russian. It makes your work credible and > essential, and you have native speakers/writers looking over your shoulder. > I agree with you that no culture is primitive in their language, because > IMHO meaning potential in any culture is infinite. > Henry > > > On Nov 30, 2020, at 3:13 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Many thanks to Zaza, whose translation of Tuku's song I'll be taking into > my class on Ethics, Emotions, and Education tonight. I think you can see > from her translation where you can go wrong with Google Translate, which > is, after all, just a way of linking up bits of texts that have been > previously translated by humans. Using the Google Translate function for > Shona, I thought the song referred to "raped by your roomate". Zaza says it > means a husband, which is expressed as the payer of bride price. At first I > thought this was an accident of history, similar to the fact that our word > "husband" means someone who looks after pigs, but of course if you listen > to Tuku's song Haasati Aziva you can see that if it is an accident of > history it's a very recent one that still casts a shadow. As Mary > said--this is the stuff of a pandemic: systemic, institutionalized, and as > a result blithe, indifferent and unaccountable power. As with AIDS, so too > with Covid 19. > > Anthony--I said I don't speak Russian. I started studying in 2005 (after a > short exchange with Mike) and took four years of formal classes in the > language, six to eight hours a week. I have been spending at least eight > hours a week reading Russian ever since. So when I look at a paragraph of > Vygotsky in Russian I don't usually see any words that I don't recognize. > When I do, I do what any Russian would do and look them up. Google > Translate works as a bilingual dictionary only the entries are larger than > the word and smaller than the clause. But human translators function more > like thesauruses, where the entries are not wordings but meanings. For that > reason I tend to use "Reverso", which gives whole paragraphs from the data > base so you can see the context. . > > When I meet Nikolai or Anna, I find it impossible to use more than a few > well-known phrases in Russian (mostly agreeable things like "Of course" and > "You're right!", which is quite unlike my normal way of thinking...). So I > think I do not speak Russian, although I have some reading knowledge of it. > Operationally what that means is that when I publish a translation, I need > a native speaker looking over my shoulder. Since I'm mostly translating > into Korean, I actually need two, and I am fortunate that I was born with > two shoulders, and even more fortunate that I have Dr. Kim Yongho, who is > better than I am in both languages. (But Yongho learned his Russian from > Rosetta Stone!) > > I have no objection to disentangling threads, but I don't really agree > with Antti (who, unless I am quite mistaken, also speaks a language that > utterly lacks articles) that this all belongs on a separate thread. To me, > anyway, the relevant points are three. > > a) Racism isn't an interpersonal matter, and still less is it an > intra-personal one: it's social, cultural, historical, material. That's why > we say it is systemic. And if it's systemic, it is part of the way we look > at other languages. Since Lewontin demonstrated the non-viability of race > as a unit of analysis for human communities, language has become a stand in > for race, and views about language are a stand-in for views about race. > That was, after all, where Arturo was looking. > > b) One way that views about language have become a stand-in for views > about race is that languages which lack articles are seen as deviant from > some universal grammar and hence defective in some way. My colleague's > "article-drop" parameter is actually part of a pattern of thinking that has > been part of mainstream linguistics since the late fifties and early > sixties, and is exemplified in the "Principles and Parameters" model of > Universal Grammar. Chomsky argued that languages like Italian which do not > require grammatical subjects as English does must have a setting that > permits the omission of this universally obligatory element. This is > nonsense. Italian does not drop pronouns; there's really no "pro" there to > drop. We do not, after all, go around saying that English is a > Korean-honorific-drop-language. Those who assume that languages are > genetically hard-wired (the LAD or the magical gene that according to > Chomsky created the capacity for human thought or the supposed correlation > between mutations in mitochondrial DNA and languages that was alleged by > Cavalli-Sforza) are making assumptions that are really not that different > from assumptions previously made about the cranial capacity of lesser > breeds without the law. > > c) Vygotsky was as much a man of his time as we are of our own. Some > writers (c.f. Aaro Toomela on the Cultural Praxis site recently) have > argued that Vygotsky believed in "primitive languages", e.g. the Bantu > languages, to which Shona belongs. As Zaza makes abundantly clear, Shona is > not primitive by any conceivable standard, and I have seen no convincing > evidence that Vygotsky ever made this assumption (he did quote missionaries > who clearly did make the assumption, but he is quite scathing about them on > precisely this point). Certainly the idea that some languages have only the > "indicative" or the "nominating" function but not the "signifying" function > is not a Vygotskyan one: a language that cannot signify is not a human > language, and any language that can signify can signify a concept. > Languages can vary according to the meanings that they actually do express, > just as registers within a language do. But human meaning potential is, if > not infinite (we will not be around forever), at least undetermined and > probably indeterminate. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Book with Nikolai Veresov > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai > Veresov > See free downloadable pdf at: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!X9eMLf_xcpIeR0p6UZ6IwmyXv57TIWVL9HGhLEXMqwGa3dZW0uKaN24VpZt6Ibz245I5OQ$ > > > Forthcoming in 2020: > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David > Kellogg > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 5:08 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > >> I translated Piaget's book on dialectics with the aid of google. There >> was much work both pre- and post-googletranslate though. Part of this I put >> down to understanding the domain, just as one can question translations if >> one knows what they are about. >> >> Huw >> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 18:53, Anthony Barra >> wrote: >> >>> Zaza, >>> >>> I had no idea that one could translate books without really speaking the >>> original language, as David claims about himself. >>> Nor did I realize the extent to which translating is about reading >>> between the lines, along with the lines themselves. Such an interesting >>> topic . . . >>> >>> Perhaps of interest: >>> 1. A brief anecdote from David about a current Korean >>> translation/summary project: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGU5zV6zbLI__;!!Mih3wA!X9eMLf_xcpIeR0p6UZ6IwmyXv57TIWVL9HGhLEXMqwGa3dZW0uKaN24VpZt6IbzGHjPlKA$ >>> >>> (re: Vygotsky on emotions) >>> 2. An old xmca post on translating Vygotsky into Korean: >>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2011_05.dir/msg00509.html >>> >>> I thought these were neat to hear about and maybe enjoyable or others as >>> well. >>> >>> Anthony >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 3:30 PM Zaza Kabayadondo < >>> zaza.kabayadondo@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm moving this to a new thread... >>>> >>>> Thank you for your question, David. I didn't realize people were using >>>> Google Translate. It's great for some languages - not so much for anything >>>> from Southern Africa at least as far as I've observed. >>>> >>>> Yes, I do speak Shona. I like to distinguish between functional Shona >>>> and idiomatic Shona. Functional Shona is literal and idiomatic Shona is >>>> literary (though spoken). I'm not a Shona linguist so I'm making up terms >>>> for the distinction I perceive but there might already be a convention for >>>> how Shona linguists describe the difference. Functional Shona is what you >>>> will hear people using on the streets. It is a more literal or explicit way >>>> of speaking and very similar to European meaning and sensemaking. In >>>> functional Shona you might say "I am tired." "She arrived yesterday." It >>>> some contexts it is considered rather crass to speak so directly of your >>>> feelings, wants, needs. I contrast this to idiomatic Shona which is a >>>> version of the language our elders spoke, it reflects pre-colonial Shona >>>> culture and thinking because it "beats around the bush". You would rarely >>>> directly ask a question, everything was a metaphor, a vague suggestion, >>>> never explicitly spelt out. It is more diplomatic, more evasive, and can be >>>> problematic when it comes to talking about social or political issues. Tuku >>>> sings in this idiomatic style. Tuku's song *Bvuma* is the best example >>>> of his style of which allows for double entendre (He is saying "Tolerance >>>> has faded" but he could also mean "Just accept that you're old." >>>> >>>> Todii is about HIV/AIDS. Originally, "utachiwana" meant any virus or >>>> germ, the underlying cause of an illness, but over time the only virus >>>> people talk about is HIV. (In "Hutachiwana" the "h" is a modifier >>>> emphasizes you mean "the virus"). The style is call-and-response which is >>>> typical in Shona folk music, both traditional and contemporary. The call >>>> and its response should be read as one sentence. >>>> >>>> As for the lyrics in question: >>>> Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>>> *Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the one you live with...**If >>>> you have a virus * >>>> Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma** ...(Kana uinahwo >>>> utachiwana) >>>> *Translation:** How it must hurt to be raped by the man** who married >>>> you ...**If you have a virus * >>>> **The literal meaning is "by the one who paid roora (lobola/bride >>>> price)" >>>> Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>>> *Translation: When he knows you have the virus...If you have a virus* >>>> Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>>> *Translation: **And you know you have the virus...If you have a virus* >>>> In the last two lines the response almost implies "hypothetically, >>>> let's say you have a virus." And for me this is really where the song >>>> touches on the sensibility of HIV/AIDS as it was experienced in Zimbabwe in >>>> the moment of the song. Not knowing who has it, suspecting who has it etc. >>>> Tuku was masterful with his play on words and structure. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 2:56 AM David Kellogg >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Zaza-- >>>>> >>>>> Dude, I don't really speak Russian either, as Nikolai and Anna will >>>>> tell you (we only speak English). In my translation work I spend a lot more >>>>> time on Google Translate than I would like, and that's why I burden the >>>>> list with the queries you mention from time to time.. But I bet you speak >>>>> Shona, or at least understand a little. >>>>> >>>>> So maybe you can help. I'm using this tune from the late great Tuku >>>>> (Oliver Mtukudzi) in a class I am giving on sex education in Korea. I've >>>>> been told that it doesn't really mention AIDS/HIV explicitly, and I get >>>>> that--in fact, that's one of the reasons why I think it's useful for making >>>>> certain parallels between pandemics and also discussing HPV and other >>>>> issues I want to talk about. But I don't quite understand THIS verse--maybe >>>>> you can help me? >>>>> >>>>> Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye >>>>> (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>>>> Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma >>>>> (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>>>> Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana >>>>> (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>>>> Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana >>>>> (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) >>>>> >>>>> So "Kana uinahwo utachiwana" means something like "If you get >>>>> infected". But what is the reference to being raped by your roommate? >>>>> >>>>> On the subject of this thread. Like voter fraud, racism is a very >>>>> serious charge, and the right has successfully made hay out of its >>>>> seriousness. But as with voter fraud they have made even more hay out of >>>>> rendering the charge unproveable, by removing its class content and >>>>> rendering it a purely subjective inclination. This is why, I think (I >>>>> hope), Arturo and others tend to raise this sort of thing in private >>>>> off-list material that is so much at variance with their public writings >>>>> that it fairly attracts the charge of hypocrisy or at least political >>>>> timidity. After all, if you really suspect your interlocutor of racism, >>>>> it's incumbent on you to keep your mouth and not just your eyes open. But >>>>> you've got to put money where your mouth is: you have to provide some >>>>> evidence (e.g. the paper that Harshad circulated on the list not too long >>>>> ago). There are important scientific issues we need to discuss which are >>>>> actually not unrelated to the one that Arturo was reacting to: whether you >>>>> can accurately judge the language proficiency of a person by their race or >>>>> national origin (as I have done in the second paragraph above). Not >>>>> unrelated. But not identical to either, else I would not have written that >>>>> paragraph. >>>>> >>>>> Here's an example. A dear colleague of mine, who like the vast >>>>> majority of people in this country is not white and wouldn't know deficit >>>>> linguistics from a surplus, has just written a paper on why Korean children >>>>> tend to drop articles (i.e. "a" and "the"). He begins with the Chomskyan >>>>> premise that all nouns must, according to universal human grammars which >>>>> are hardwired at birth, be realized by "determiner phrases". What that >>>>> means is that a noun phrase like "the cat" is not really about a cat--it's >>>>> about "the", and the "the" is modified by "cat" (What kind of "the-ness" do >>>>> you mean? The cat kind!) >>>>> >>>>> But it's THIS, and not Vygotskyan, Hallidayan, or Bernsteinian >>>>> developmentalism, that is deficit linguistics. I won't say it is racist, >>>>> because unfortunately that term has lost its scientific content and become >>>>> nothing but a thought crime. But I will say that people who speak languages >>>>> without articles or languages that emphasize nouns over determiners (e.g. >>>>> Korean, Chinese, Russian) are not born with a birth defect (or "null spell >>>>> out", as the Chomskyans say). >>>>> >>>>> Does Shona have articles or not? Do you know? >>>>> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0JssD8Hzc__;!!Mih3wA!X9eMLf_xcpIeR0p6UZ6IwmyXv57TIWVL9HGhLEXMqwGa3dZW0uKaN24VpZt6Ibwsy8UZrw$ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> Sangmyung University >>>>> >>>>> New Book with Nikolai Veresov >>>>> L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology >>>>> Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and >>>>> Nikolai Veresov >>>>> See free downloadable pdf at: >>>>> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!X9eMLf_xcpIeR0p6UZ6IwmyXv57TIWVL9HGhLEXMqwGa3dZW0uKaN24VpZt6Ibz245I5OQ$ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Forthcoming in 2020: >>>>> L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. >>>>> Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:02 PM Huw Lloyd >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> P.S. To my best understanding (very minimal, no doubt), the subject >>>>>>> matter of Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory is the *development >>>>>>> of human higher psychological functions*. (How that is "left," >>>>>>> "right," or otherwise is beyond me.) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Political propensities can be discerned across some (adult) >>>>>> developmental stages. >>>>>> >>>>>> Huw >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> To schedule up a 30 minute call using Calendly: >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://calendly.com/with-zaza__;!!Mih3wA!X9eMLf_xcpIeR0p6UZ6IwmyXv57TIWVL9HGhLEXMqwGa3dZW0uKaN24VpZt6Ibz_wG2OJQ$ >>>> >>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201202/7d864adf/attachment.html From bronwynparkin18@gmail.com Tue Dec 1 14:46:40 2020 From: bronwynparkin18@gmail.com (Bronwyn Parkin) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:16:40 +1030 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian In-Reply-To: References: <184527580.727.0@wordpress.com> <388d7c80-99c5-6655-57f0-e87711922e42@marxists.org> <54F5FCAE-0439-4029-B716-8D87A325430E@gmail.com> <7E63B0FF-F3C6-45A6-BE0C-C50EC238CBFB@gmail.com> <1BA777A7-ABC5-4855-A9E8-49B991C34F2D@wisc.edu> <2A94F7FE-D12A-4161-9149-4305F5F5C989@uio.no> <521e6d47-9dd1-ae21-e28a-35e7faa0f821@m arxists.org> <1606523343561.66632@gc.cuny.edu> Message-ID: <005501d6c833$d75a8790$860f96b0$@gmail.com> Dear all, I?m a long-time observer in this chat group. Vygotsky?s theories are so big that my area of interest, education, seems like the toe of the elephant. Often I have no idea what the rest of you are talking about! Nevertheless, your discussion stretches the mind. I have been interested in the idea of creativity and childhood for some time, motivated by working with educationally marginalised students for many years, including remote Indigenous Australians. When talking with teachers about student writing, I?ve often heard often the statement ?Oh, they lack imagination?, or ?they struggle with creativity?. I think what this means is that the cultural purpose of narrative for many English as a Second Language students is different from that of the western world. Teachers are mostly not conscious of this, and don?t know what they have to make explicit. Instead of being a cultural difference, teachers perceive this ?lack? as a personal failing on the part of the student. My reading in this area is scant, and I am gleaning from recent conversations that there is plenty I?ve missed. Here is a snapshot from my Endnote library. I would really appreciate it if you could expand my reading list. Many thanks, Bronwyn Parkin From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of David Kellogg Sent: Tuesday, 1 December 2020 12:11 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian And Francine was kind enough to write a beautiful little cover blurb for the Korean edition of creativity and imagination in childhood back in 2014 (at the time our Russian was still so rudimentary that we checked every paragraph of our translation against hers). We also included the two other essays which she mentions (which I think are necessary, because "Creativity and Imagination in Childhood" is really a booklet Vygotsky himself wrote to present ideas--including those of other academics--to non-academics in a popular form). A propos. The eighth seminaire internationale sur Vygotski will be held in Lausanne, Switzerland, from the 7-9, and the theme is...Vygotsky's "Creativity and Imagination in Childhood", now appearing in French! The Call for Papers is hereby attached (in French). Note that there are some anglophones on the scientific committee (including me) and that you can submit and present in English. By June we may actually be able to travel again. dk David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Book with Nikolai Veresov L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov See free downloadable pdf at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!U3mY3R3djNyt6uVIC2jXRJNY6UrIO-Qyqn176kDDXoACkgodzj0kRHN7fRqPWKPetxeNYA$ Forthcoming in 2020: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 9:20 AM Larry Smolucha > wrote: >From Francine: Just for the record, I have never used Google translate or any internet service when doing my translations - only the Oxford Russian-English dictionary. Like David, my reading skills in Russian are my strong point, rather than speaking or auditory comprehension. I have never had a mentor fluent in Russian oversee my translations of Vygotsky's writings. Early on, I discovered that the bi-lingual English experts in Russian were not focusing on the texts, but rather coming to the texts with interpretive frameworks. Discovered this in 1984, when I undertook my first translation of a Vygotsky text Thinking and Speech. My intention was to compare (correct) my translation with the only published English translation available Thought and Language (1962) by Hanfmann and Vakar, MIT Press. Well, as soon as I held the Russian version of Thinking and Speech in my hand, I realized the title had been mistranslated and the Russian version of the book was twice as thick as the 1962 English translation. When I started translating the chapters, I discovered that roughly half of the paragraphs were omitted in a random fashion within the text. Many XMCA members first read Thinking and Speech in the full translations that came out later in 1986 (Wertsch) and 1987 (Minick). But I am of a different generation and had to discover the hard way the inadequacies of the 1962 translation. Add to this that in 1984, I undertook the translation of Thinking and Speech to prepare for my third attempt at passing the Graduate Level Reading Exam in Russian at the University of Chicago (the Hanfmann/Vakar translation would not have gotten a passing grade). Well my thoughts were "screw this" - I am correcting the official MIT publication while trying to pass my grad reading exam. Might as well translate something that I am really interested in even if it has never been translated. In 1983, my husband and I had presented our theory and research on the development of creativity as a maturation of symbolic play at a conference of the British Psychological Society in Wales. Wonder if Vygotsky wrote anything about creativity? What do you know, in a 1956 Russian publication there was a paper by Vygotsky on the development of creative imagination. Translated it, passed the reading exam with honors, and sent my translation to Jim Wertsch at Northwestern University. Got a phone call from Jim Wertsch - told me that Plenum needed translators for the Collected Works and that I could go to study in Russia to study Vygotsky's writings. I replied that what I was really interested in is 'creativity' and I want to see if Vygotsky wrote anything else on that topic. Wertsch said "No, this is the only paper, Vygotsky had no interest in creativity." I declined the offer to translate for Plenum and to study in Russia. And all by myself, discovered that Vygotsky had written two other papers on the development of creative imagination, translated those papers and got them in press. I tell you this story because reading the text for yourself is a bold thing to do. _____ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of David Kellogg > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:13 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian Many thanks to Zaza, whose translation of Tuku's song I'll be taking into my class on Ethics, Emotions, and Education tonight. I think you can see from her translation where you can go wrong with Google Translate, which is, after all, just a way of linking up bits of texts that have been previously translated by humans. Using the Google Translate function for Shona, I thought the song referred to "raped by your roomate". Zaza says it means a husband, which is expressed as the payer of bride price. At first I thought this was an accident of history, similar to the fact that our word "husband" means someone who looks after pigs, but of course if you listen to Tuku's song Haasati Aziva you can see that if it is an accident of history it's a very recent one that still casts a shadow. As Mary said--this is the stuff of a pandemic: systemic, institutionalized, and as a result blithe, indifferent and unaccountable power. As with AIDS, so too with Covid 19. Anthony--I said I don't speak Russian. I started studying in 2005 (after a short exchange with Mike) and took four years of formal classes in the language, six to eight hours a week. I have been spending at least eight hours a week reading Russian ever since. So when I look at a paragraph of Vygotsky in Russian I don't usually see any words that I don't recognize. When I do, I do what any Russian would do and look them up. Google Translate works as a bilingual dictionary only the entries are larger than the word and smaller than the clause. But human translators function more like thesauruses, where the entries are not wordings but meanings. For that reason I tend to use "Reverso", which gives whole paragraphs from the data base so you can see the context. . When I meet Nikolai or Anna, I find it impossible to use more than a few well-known phrases in Russian (mostly agreeable things like "Of course" and "You're right!", which is quite unlike my normal way of thinking...). So I think I do not speak Russian, although I have some reading knowledge of it. Operationally what that means is that when I publish a translation, I need a native speaker looking over my shoulder. Since I'm mostly translating into Korean, I actually need two, and I am fortunate that I was born with two shoulders, and even more fortunate that I have Dr. Kim Yongho, who is better than I am in both languages. (But Yongho learned his Russian from Rosetta Stone!) I have no objection to disentangling threads, but I don't really agree with Antti (who, unless I am quite mistaken, also speaks a language that utterly lacks articles) that this all belongs on a separate thread. To me, anyway, the relevant points are three. a) Racism isn't an interpersonal matter, and still less is it an intra-personal one: it's social, cultural, historical, material. That's why we say it is systemic. And if it's systemic, it is part of the way we look at other languages. Since Lewontin demonstrated the non-viability of race as a unit of analysis for human communities, language has become a stand in for race, and views about language are a stand-in for views about race. That was, after all, where Arturo was looking. b) One way that views about language have become a stand-in for views about race is that languages which lack articles are seen as deviant from some universal grammar and hence defective in some way. My colleague's "article-drop" parameter is actually part of a pattern of thinking that has been part of mainstream linguistics since the late fifties and early sixties, and is exemplified in the "Principles and Parameters" model of Universal Grammar. Chomsky argued that languages like Italian which do not require grammatical subjects as English does must have a setting that permits the omission of this universally obligatory element. This is nonsense. Italian does not drop pronouns; there's really no "pro" there to drop. We do not, after all, go around saying that English is a Korean-honorific-drop-language. Those who assume that languages are genetically hard-wired (the LAD or the magical gene that according to Chomsky created the capacity for human thought or the supposed correlation between mutations in mitochondrial DNA and languages that was alleged by Cavalli-Sforza) are making assumptions that are really not that different from assumptions previously made about the cranial capacity of lesser breeds without the law. c) Vygotsky was as much a man of his time as we are of our own. Some writers (c.f. Aaro Toomela on the Cultural Praxis site recently) have argued that Vygotsky believed in "primitive languages", e.g. the Bantu languages, to which Shona belongs. As Zaza makes abundantly clear, Shona is not primitive by any conceivable standard, and I have seen no convincing evidence that Vygotsky ever made this assumption (he did quote missionaries who clearly did make the assumption, but he is quite scathing about them on precisely this point). Certainly the idea that some languages have only the "indicative" or the "nominating" function but not the "signifying" function is not a Vygotskyan one: a language that cannot signify is not a human language, and any language that can signify can signify a concept. Languages can vary according to the meanings that they actually do express, just as registers within a language do. But human meaning potential is, if not infinite (we will not be around forever), at least undetermined and probably indeterminate. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Book with Nikolai Veresov L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov See free downloadable pdf at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!U3mY3R3djNyt6uVIC2jXRJNY6UrIO-Qyqn176kDDXoACkgodzj0kRHN7fRqPWKPetxeNYA$ Forthcoming in 2020: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 5:08 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: I translated Piaget's book on dialectics with the aid of google. There was much work both pre- and post-googletranslate though. Part of this I put down to understanding the domain, just as one can question translations if one knows what they are about. Huw On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 18:53, Anthony Barra > wrote: Zaza, I had no idea that one could translate books without really speaking the original language, as David claims about himself. Nor did I realize the extent to which translating is about reading between the lines, along with the lines themselves. Such an interesting topic . . . Perhaps of interest: 1. A brief anecdote from David about a current Korean translation/summary project: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGU5zV6zbLI__;!!Mih3wA!U3mY3R3djNyt6uVIC2jXRJNY6UrIO-Qyqn176kDDXoACkgodzj0kRHN7fRqPWKOAWEzQXw$ (re: Vygotsky on emotions) 2. An old xmca post on translating Vygotsky into Korean: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2011_05.dir/msg00509.html I thought these were neat to hear about and maybe enjoyable or others as well. Anthony On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 3:30 PM Zaza Kabayadondo > wrote: I'm moving this to a new thread... Thank you for your question, David. I didn't realize people were using Google Translate. It's great for some languages - not so much for anything from Southern Africa at least as far as I've observed. Yes, I do speak Shona. I like to distinguish between functional Shona and idiomatic Shona. Functional Shona is literal and idiomatic Shona is literary (though spoken). I'm not a Shona linguist so I'm making up terms for the distinction I perceive but there might already be a convention for how Shona linguists describe the difference. Functional Shona is what you will hear people using on the streets. It is a more literal or explicit way of speaking and very similar to European meaning and sensemaking. In functional Shona you might say "I am tired." "She arrived yesterday." It some contexts it is considered rather crass to speak so directly of your feelings, wants, needs. I contrast this to idiomatic Shona which is a version of the language our elders spoke, it reflects pre-colonial Shona culture and thinking because it "beats around the bush". You would rarely directly ask a question, everything was a metaphor, a vague suggestion, never explicitly spelt out. It is more diplomatic, more evasive, and can be problematic when it comes to talking about social or political issues. Tuku sings in this idiomatic style. Tuku's song Bvuma is the best example of his style of which allows for double entendre (He is saying "Tolerance has faded" but he could also mean "Just accept that you're old." Todii is about HIV/AIDS. Originally, "utachiwana" meant any virus or germ, the underlying cause of an illness, but over time the only virus people talk about is HIV. (In "Hutachiwana" the "h" is a modifier emphasizes you mean "the virus"). The style is call-and-response which is typical in Shona folk music, both traditional and contemporary. The call and its response should be read as one sentence. As for the lyrics in question: Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the one you live with...If you have a virus Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma** ...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the man** who married you ...If you have a virus **The literal meaning is "by the one who paid roora (lobola/bride price)" Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: When he knows you have the virus...If you have a virus Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: And you know you have the virus...If you have a virus In the last two lines the response almost implies "hypothetically, let's say you have a virus." And for me this is really where the song touches on the sensibility of HIV/AIDS as it was experienced in Zimbabwe in the moment of the song. Not knowing who has it, suspecting who has it etc. Tuku was masterful with his play on words and structure. On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 2:56 AM David Kellogg > wrote: Zaza-- Dude, I don't really speak Russian either, as Nikolai and Anna will tell you (we only speak English). In my translation work I spend a lot more time on Google Translate than I would like, and that's why I burden the list with the queries you mention from time to time.. But I bet you speak Shona, or at least understand a little. So maybe you can help. I'm using this tune from the late great Tuku (Oliver Mtukudzi) in a class I am giving on sex education in Korea. I've been told that it doesn't really mention AIDS/HIV explicitly, and I get that--in fact, that's one of the reasons why I think it's useful for making certain parallels between pandemics and also discussing HPV and other issues I want to talk about. But I don't quite understand THIS verse--maybe you can help me? Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) So "Kana uinahwo utachiwana" means something like "If you get infected". But what is the reference to being raped by your roommate? On the subject of this thread. Like voter fraud, racism is a very serious charge, and the right has successfully made hay out of its seriousness. But as with voter fraud they have made even more hay out of rendering the charge unproveable, by removing its class content and rendering it a purely subjective inclination. This is why, I think (I hope), Arturo and others tend to raise this sort of thing in private off-list material that is so much at variance with their public writings that it fairly attracts the charge of hypocrisy or at least political timidity. After all, if you really suspect your interlocutor of racism, it's incumbent on you to keep your mouth and not just your eyes open. But you've got to put money where your mouth is: you have to provide some evidence (e.g. the paper that Harshad circulated on the list not too long ago). There are important scientific issues we need to discuss which are actually not unrelated to the one that Arturo was reacting to: whether you can accurately judge the language proficiency of a person by their race or national origin (as I have done in the second paragraph above). Not unrelated. But not identical to either, else I would not have written that paragraph. Here's an example. A dear colleague of mine, who like the vast majority of people in this country is not white and wouldn't know deficit linguistics from a surplus, has just written a paper on why Korean children tend to drop articles (i.e. "a" and "the"). He begins with the Chomskyan premise that all nouns must, according to universal human grammars which are hardwired at birth, be realized by "determiner phrases". What that means is that a noun phrase like "the cat" is not really about a cat--it's about "the", and the "the" is modified by "cat" (What kind of "the-ness" do you mean? The cat kind!) But it's THIS, and not Vygotskyan, Hallidayan, or Bernsteinian developmentalism, that is deficit linguistics. I won't say it is racist, because unfortunately that term has lost its scientific content and become nothing but a thought crime. But I will say that people who speak languages without articles or languages that emphasize nouns over determiners (e.g. Korean, Chinese, Russian) are not born with a birth defect (or "null spell out", as the Chomskyans say). Does Shona have articles or not? Do you know? https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0JssD8Hzc__;!!Mih3wA!U3mY3R3djNyt6uVIC2jXRJNY6UrIO-Qyqn176kDDXoACkgodzj0kRHN7fRqPWKOhppH-FA$ David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Book with Nikolai Veresov L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov See free downloadable pdf at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!U3mY3R3djNyt6uVIC2jXRJNY6UrIO-Qyqn176kDDXoACkgodzj0kRHN7fRqPWKPetxeNYA$ Forthcoming in 2020: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:02 PM Huw Lloyd > wrote: P.S. To my best understanding (very minimal, no doubt), the subject matter of Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory is the development of human higher psychological functions. (How that is "left," "right," or otherwise is beyond me.) Political propensities can be discerned across some (adult) developmental stages. Huw -- To schedule up a 30 minute call using Calendly: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://calendly.com/with-zaza__;!!Mih3wA!U3mY3R3djNyt6uVIC2jXRJNY6UrIO-Qyqn176kDDXoACkgodzj0kRHN7fRqPWKPwjoYx0g$ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201202/5e3fcea3/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 16536 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201202/5e3fcea3/attachment.png From annalisa@unm.edu Tue Dec 1 23:22:16 2020 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 07:22:16 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian In-Reply-To: <005501d6c833$d75a8790$860f96b0$@gmail.com> References: <184527580.727.0@wordpress.com> <388d7c80-99c5-6655-57f0-e87711922e42@marxists.org> <54F5FCAE-0439-4029-B716-8D87A325430E@gmail.com> <7E63B0FF-F3C6-45A6-BE0C-C50EC238CBFB@gmail.com> <1BA777A7-ABC5-4855-A9E8-49B991C34F2D@wisc.edu> <2A94F7FE-D12A-4161-9149-4305F5F5C989@uio.no> <521e6d47-9dd1-ae21-e28a-35e7faa0f821@m arxists.org> <1606523343561.66632@gc.cuny.edu> , <005501d6c833$d75a8790$860f96b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Bronwyn, I had to stop in my tracks to write to suggest you might include on to your reading list works by my beloved mentor Vera John-Steiner, a late member of XMCA, and a co-editor of Mind in Society back in the days of few Vygotsky texts in the US. Pertaining to your interests you might enjoy: Vygotsky and Creativity: A Cultural-historical Approach to Play, Meaning Making, and the Arts, Second Edition (Educational Psychology) 2nd Edition (2018) There was a very interesting paper Vera wrote with Panofsky (?) about Navajo and Hopi children. Perhaps Henry Shonerd can help me out with the title and date? My favorite book of hers is Notebooks of the Mind, and also Creative Collaboration. It isn't directly in line with education, but they do concern creativity studies that if I am intuiting correctly, reach to the heart of what you seek. You might also look for work by Holbrook Mahn, a student of Vera's, whose area of study includes ESL. He is still at UNM I believe. Beneath your words I sense that you do not accept there is no creativity present among your demography of concern, and I truly believe you will have your doubts confirmed were you to read these works. If one is a human, one is creative. Perhaps one must be a Vygotskian to recognize this reality; Vera was a stellar Vygotskian scholar. Enjoy! Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bronwyn Parkin Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:46 PM To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian [EXTERNAL] Dear all, I?m a long-time observer in this chat group. Vygotsky?s theories are so big that my area of interest, education, seems like the toe of the elephant. Often I have no idea what the rest of you are talking about! Nevertheless, your discussion stretches the mind. I have been interested in the idea of creativity and childhood for some time, motivated by working with educationally marginalised students for many years, including remote Indigenous Australians. When talking with teachers about student writing, I?ve often heard often the statement ?Oh, they lack imagination?, or ?they struggle with creativity?. I think what this means is that the cultural purpose of narrative for many English as a Second Language students is different from that of the western world. Teachers are mostly not conscious of this, and don?t know what they have to make explicit. Instead of being a cultural difference, teachers perceive this ?lack? as a personal failing on the part of the student. My reading in this area is scant, and I am gleaning from recent conversations that there is plenty I?ve missed. Here is a snapshot from my Endnote library. I would really appreciate it if you could expand my reading list. Many thanks, Bronwyn Parkin [cid:image001.png@01D6C88A.F0D8F240] From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of David Kellogg Sent: Tuesday, 1 December 2020 12:11 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian And Francine was kind enough to write a beautiful little cover blurb for the Korean edition of creativity and imagination in childhood back in 2014 (at the time our Russian was still so rudimentary that we checked every paragraph of our translation against hers). We also included the two other essays which she mentions (which I think are necessary, because "Creativity and Imagination in Childhood" is really a booklet Vygotsky himself wrote to present ideas--including those of other academics--to non-academics in a popular form). A propos. The eighth seminaire internationale sur Vygotski will be held in Lausanne, Switzerland, from the 7-9, and the theme is...Vygotsky's "Creativity and Imagination in Childhood", now appearing in French! The Call for Papers is hereby attached (in French). Note that there are some anglophones on the scientific committee (including me) and that you can submit and present in English. By June we may actually be able to travel again. dk David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Book with Nikolai Veresov L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov See free downloadable pdf at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!TuyocpYWyl969P9_N-frUGT52fPncYrw31uXAK_XSJ9ugAoctNL6dIPFVIMmyi-h-kuL8g$ Forthcoming in 2020: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 9:20 AM Larry Smolucha > wrote: >From Francine: Just for the record, I have never used Google translate or any internet service when doing my translations - only the Oxford Russian-English dictionary. Like David, my reading skills in Russian are my strong point, rather than speaking or auditory comprehension. I have never had a mentor fluent in Russian oversee my translations of Vygotsky's writings. Early on, I discovered that the bi-lingual English experts in Russian were not focusing on the texts, but rather coming to the texts with interpretive frameworks. Discovered this in 1984, when I undertook my first translation of a Vygotsky text Thinking and Speech. My intention was to compare (correct) my translation with the only published English translation available Thought and Language (1962) by Hanfmann and Vakar, MIT Press. Well, as soon as I held the Russian version of Thinking and Speech in my hand, I realized the title had been mistranslated and the Russian version of the book was twice as thick as the 1962 English translation. When I started translating the chapters, I discovered that roughly half of the paragraphs were omitted in a random fashion within the text. Many XMCA members first read Thinking and Speech in the full translations that came out later in 1986 (Wertsch) and 1987 (Minick). But I am of a different generation and had to discover the hard way the inadequacies of the 1962 translation. Add to this that in 1984, I undertook the translation of Thinking and Speech to prepare for my third attempt at passing the Graduate Level Reading Exam in Russian at the University of Chicago (the Hanfmann/Vakar translation would not have gotten a passing grade). Well my thoughts were "screw this" - I am correcting the official MIT publication while trying to pass my grad reading exam. Might as well translate something that I am really interested in even if it has never been translated. In 1983, my husband and I had presented our theory and research on the development of creativity as a maturation of symbolic play at a conference of the British Psychological Society in Wales. Wonder if Vygotsky wrote anything about creativity? What do you know, in a 1956 Russian publication there was a paper by Vygotsky on the development of creative imagination. Translated it, passed the reading exam with honors, and sent my translation to Jim Wertsch at Northwestern University. Got a phone call from Jim Wertsch - told me that Plenum needed translators for the Collected Works and that I could go to study in Russia to study Vygotsky's writings. I replied that what I was really interested in is 'creativity' and I want to see if Vygotsky wrote anything else on that topic. Wertsch said "No, this is the only paper, Vygotsky had no interest in creativity." I declined the offer to translate for Plenum and to study in Russia. And all by myself, discovered that Vygotsky had written two other papers on the development of creative imagination, translated those papers and got them in press. I tell you this story because reading the text for yourself is a bold thing to do. ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of David Kellogg > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:13 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian Many thanks to Zaza, whose translation of Tuku's song I'll be taking into my class on Ethics, Emotions, and Education tonight. I think you can see from her translation where you can go wrong with Google Translate, which is, after all, just a way of linking up bits of texts that have been previously translated by humans. Using the Google Translate function for Shona, I thought the song referred to "raped by your roomate". Zaza says it means a husband, which is expressed as the payer of bride price. At first I thought this was an accident of history, similar to the fact that our word "husband" means someone who looks after pigs, but of course if you listen to Tuku's song Haasati Aziva you can see that if it is an accident of history it's a very recent one that still casts a shadow. As Mary said--this is the stuff of a pandemic: systemic, institutionalized, and as a result blithe, indifferent and unaccountable power. As with AIDS, so too with Covid 19. Anthony--I said I don't speak Russian. I started studying in 2005 (after a short exchange with Mike) and took four years of formal classes in the language, six to eight hours a week. I have been spending at least eight hours a week reading Russian ever since. So when I look at a paragraph of Vygotsky in Russian I don't usually see any words that I don't recognize. When I do, I do what any Russian would do and look them up. Google Translate works as a bilingual dictionary only the entries are larger than the word and smaller than the clause. But human translators function more like thesauruses, where the entries are not wordings but meanings. For that reason I tend to use "Reverso", which gives whole paragraphs from the data base so you can see the context. . When I meet Nikolai or Anna, I find it impossible to use more than a few well-known phrases in Russian (mostly agreeable things like "Of course" and "You're right!", which is quite unlike my normal way of thinking...). So I think I do not speak Russian, although I have some reading knowledge of it. Operationally what that means is that when I publish a translation, I need a native speaker looking over my shoulder. Since I'm mostly translating into Korean, I actually need two, and I am fortunate that I was born with two shoulders, and even more fortunate that I have Dr. Kim Yongho, who is better than I am in both languages. (But Yongho learned his Russian from Rosetta Stone!) I have no objection to disentangling threads, but I don't really agree with Antti (who, unless I am quite mistaken, also speaks a language that utterly lacks articles) that this all belongs on a separate thread. To me, anyway, the relevant points are three. a) Racism isn't an interpersonal matter, and still less is it an intra-personal one: it's social, cultural, historical, material. That's why we say it is systemic. And if it's systemic, it is part of the way we look at other languages. Since Lewontin demonstrated the non-viability of race as a unit of analysis for human communities, language has become a stand in for race, and views about language are a stand-in for views about race. That was, after all, where Arturo was looking. b) One way that views about language have become a stand-in for views about race is that languages which lack articles are seen as deviant from some universal grammar and hence defective in some way. My colleague's "article-drop" parameter is actually part of a pattern of thinking that has been part of mainstream linguistics since the late fifties and early sixties, and is exemplified in the "Principles and Parameters" model of Universal Grammar. Chomsky argued that languages like Italian which do not require grammatical subjects as English does must have a setting that permits the omission of this universally obligatory element. This is nonsense. Italian does not drop pronouns; there's really no "pro" there to drop. We do not, after all, go around saying that English is a Korean-honorific-drop-language. Those who assume that languages are genetically hard-wired (the LAD or the magical gene that according to Chomsky created the capacity for human thought or the supposed correlation between mutations in mitochondrial DNA and languages that was alleged by Cavalli-Sforza) are making assumptions that are really not that different from assumptions previously made about the cranial capacity of lesser breeds without the law. c) Vygotsky was as much a man of his time as we are of our own. Some writers (c.f. Aaro Toomela on the Cultural Praxis site recently) have argued that Vygotsky believed in "primitive languages", e.g. the Bantu languages, to which Shona belongs. As Zaza makes abundantly clear, Shona is not primitive by any conceivable standard, and I have seen no convincing evidence that Vygotsky ever made this assumption (he did quote missionaries who clearly did make the assumption, but he is quite scathing about them on precisely this point). Certainly the idea that some languages have only the "indicative" or the "nominating" function but not the "signifying" function is not a Vygotskyan one: a language that cannot signify is not a human language, and any language that can signify can signify a concept. Languages can vary according to the meanings that they actually do express, just as registers within a language do. But human meaning potential is, if not infinite (we will not be around forever), at least undetermined and probably indeterminate. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Book with Nikolai Veresov L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov See free downloadable pdf at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!TuyocpYWyl969P9_N-frUGT52fPncYrw31uXAK_XSJ9ugAoctNL6dIPFVIMmyi-h-kuL8g$ Forthcoming in 2020: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 5:08 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: I translated Piaget's book on dialectics with the aid of google. There was much work both pre- and post-googletranslate though. Part of this I put down to understanding the domain, just as one can question translations if one knows what they are about. Huw On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 18:53, Anthony Barra > wrote: Zaza, I had no idea that one could translate books without really speaking the original language, as David claims about himself. Nor did I realize the extent to which translating is about reading between the lines, along with the lines themselves. Such an interesting topic . . . Perhaps of interest: 1. A brief anecdote from David about a current Korean translation/summary project: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGU5zV6zbLI__;!!Mih3wA!TuyocpYWyl969P9_N-frUGT52fPncYrw31uXAK_XSJ9ugAoctNL6dIPFVIMmyi-Xt0xLpA$ (re: Vygotsky on emotions) 2. An old xmca post on translating Vygotsky into Korean: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2011_05.dir/msg00509.html I thought these were neat to hear about and maybe enjoyable or others as well. Anthony On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 3:30 PM Zaza Kabayadondo > wrote: I'm moving this to a new thread... Thank you for your question, David. I didn't realize people were using Google Translate. It's great for some languages - not so much for anything from Southern Africa at least as far as I've observed. Yes, I do speak Shona. I like to distinguish between functional Shona and idiomatic Shona. Functional Shona is literal and idiomatic Shona is literary (though spoken). I'm not a Shona linguist so I'm making up terms for the distinction I perceive but there might already be a convention for how Shona linguists describe the difference. Functional Shona is what you will hear people using on the streets. It is a more literal or explicit way of speaking and very similar to European meaning and sensemaking. In functional Shona you might say "I am tired." "She arrived yesterday." It some contexts it is considered rather crass to speak so directly of your feelings, wants, needs. I contrast this to idiomatic Shona which is a version of the language our elders spoke, it reflects pre-colonial Shona culture and thinking because it "beats around the bush". You would rarely directly ask a question, everything was a metaphor, a vague suggestion, never explicitly spelt out. It is more diplomatic, more evasive, and can be problematic when it comes to talking about social or political issues. Tuku sings in this idiomatic style. Tuku's song Bvuma is the best example of his style of which allows for double entendre (He is saying "Tolerance has faded" but he could also mean "Just accept that you're old." Todii is about HIV/AIDS. Originally, "utachiwana" meant any virus or germ, the underlying cause of an illness, but over time the only virus people talk about is HIV. (In "Hutachiwana" the "h" is a modifier emphasizes you mean "the virus"). The style is call-and-response which is typical in Shona folk music, both traditional and contemporary. The call and its response should be read as one sentence. As for the lyrics in question: Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the one you live with...If you have a virus Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma** ...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the man** who married you ...If you have a virus **The literal meaning is "by the one who paid roora (lobola/bride price)" Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: When he knows you have the virus...If you have a virus Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: And you know you have the virus...If you have a virus In the last two lines the response almost implies "hypothetically, let's say you have a virus." And for me this is really where the song touches on the sensibility of HIV/AIDS as it was experienced in Zimbabwe in the moment of the song. Not knowing who has it, suspecting who has it etc. Tuku was masterful with his play on words and structure. On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 2:56 AM David Kellogg > wrote: Zaza-- Dude, I don't really speak Russian either, as Nikolai and Anna will tell you (we only speak English). In my translation work I spend a lot more time on Google Translate than I would like, and that's why I burden the list with the queries you mention from time to time.. But I bet you speak Shona, or at least understand a little. So maybe you can help. I'm using this tune from the late great Tuku (Oliver Mtukudzi) in a class I am giving on sex education in Korea. I've been told that it doesn't really mention AIDS/HIV explicitly, and I get that--in fact, that's one of the reasons why I think it's useful for making certain parallels between pandemics and also discussing HPV and other issues I want to talk about. But I don't quite understand THIS verse--maybe you can help me? Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) So "Kana uinahwo utachiwana" means something like "If you get infected". But what is the reference to being raped by your roommate? On the subject of this thread. Like voter fraud, racism is a very serious charge, and the right has successfully made hay out of its seriousness. But as with voter fraud they have made even more hay out of rendering the charge unproveable, by removing its class content and rendering it a purely subjective inclination. This is why, I think (I hope), Arturo and others tend to raise this sort of thing in private off-list material that is so much at variance with their public writings that it fairly attracts the charge of hypocrisy or at least political timidity. After all, if you really suspect your interlocutor of racism, it's incumbent on you to keep your mouth and not just your eyes open. But you've got to put money where your mouth is: you have to provide some evidence (e.g. the paper that Harshad circulated on the list not too long ago). There are important scientific issues we need to discuss which are actually not unrelated to the one that Arturo was reacting to: whether you can accurately judge the language proficiency of a person by their race or national origin (as I have done in the second paragraph above). Not unrelated. But not identical to either, else I would not have written that paragraph. Here's an example. A dear colleague of mine, who like the vast majority of people in this country is not white and wouldn't know deficit linguistics from a surplus, has just written a paper on why Korean children tend to drop articles (i.e. "a" and "the"). He begins with the Chomskyan premise that all nouns must, according to universal human grammars which are hardwired at birth, be realized by "determiner phrases". What that means is that a noun phrase like "the cat" is not really about a cat--it's about "the", and the "the" is modified by "cat" (What kind of "the-ness" do you mean? The cat kind!) But it's THIS, and not Vygotskyan, Hallidayan, or Bernsteinian developmentalism, that is deficit linguistics. I won't say it is racist, because unfortunately that term has lost its scientific content and become nothing but a thought crime. But I will say that people who speak languages without articles or languages that emphasize nouns over determiners (e.g. Korean, Chinese, Russian) are not born with a birth defect (or "null spell out", as the Chomskyans say). Does Shona have articles or not? Do you know? https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0JssD8Hzc__;!!Mih3wA!TuyocpYWyl969P9_N-frUGT52fPncYrw31uXAK_XSJ9ugAoctNL6dIPFVIMmyi85olF5Mw$ David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Book with Nikolai Veresov L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov See free downloadable pdf at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!TuyocpYWyl969P9_N-frUGT52fPncYrw31uXAK_XSJ9ugAoctNL6dIPFVIMmyi-h-kuL8g$ Forthcoming in 2020: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:02 PM Huw Lloyd > wrote: P.S. To my best understanding (very minimal, no doubt), the subject matter of Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory is the development of human higher psychological functions. (How that is "left," "right," or otherwise is beyond me.) Political propensities can be discerned across some (adult) developmental stages. Huw -- To schedule up a 30 minute call using Calendly: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://calendly.com/with-zaza__;!!Mih3wA!TuyocpYWyl969P9_N-frUGT52fPncYrw31uXAK_XSJ9ugAoctNL6dIPFVIMmyi8BdsBylQ$ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201202/3c1cd638/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 16536 bytes Desc: image001.png Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201202/3c1cd638/attachment.png From annalisa@unm.edu Wed Dec 2 00:14:33 2020 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 08:14:33 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [External] Pain and suffering vs business as usual In-Reply-To: References: <1606840343039.6115@gc.cuny.edu> <15D0B904-6A47-4F30-AA57-1BB1FBE3F6C7@unco.edu>, Message-ID: FWIW, I am exceedingly grateful for the posts added to this thread, such as those from Helena, Shirley and others before. I hope there are more of you lurkers out there who will negotiate your path to the keyboard and contribute your experiences, which are valid, but also important for others to read and contemplate. Only go as far as you feel capable, but do try to undermine your particular flavor of FUD, just a little and not too much ! In consideration of what many here might value in a Vygotskian process, is it possible for individuals who seek professional peer support, that is, to work out ideas and drafts of papers, to gain that help here? Why not solicit to the list you are seeking cohorts. Break off and create your own little circle, a birds-of-a-feather (BOF) group, so that you might feel safe to try out ideas without feeling any pressure to broadcast anything to the list you might deem "under-baked." Without pressure of perfection. I witnessed this process beautifully at LCHC for a student who wrote a paper for a fellowship application. The entire seminar period was dedicated to this verbalizing process, testing ideas, recognizing strengths and bolstering weaknesses. I don't recall who all was there, I know Mike was, and perhaps Greg Thomspon was skyping in, I want to say there were 5-7 of us there. Such a process was a marvelous builder of confidence for the student, why not the foster the same exercise here through the list? Let me propose a challenge: Approach others offlist and create your group of 3-4 and decide to meet on Zoom once a week, or every other week, or perhaps once per month, as works for all in the group. Commit to meet for one year. Schedule readings and discussions with a determined outcome for a polished paper or project. And you can email to one another on an as needed basis. How about also keeping a BOF diary to present any discoveries to the list about your processes, once all is said and done? Make the XMCA list you want to experience be realized in your own cohort group. XMCA doesn't corner the market on good academic discourse. If you have trouble sourcing individuals for your group, why not post to the list with a general sense of your work and objectives you would like in your BOF collaborations, then wait and see who contacts you? What I seek to answer is how to encourage, how to break through the screen and foster those connections meaningfully. If my idea seems silly, let's hear some of yours! ?? Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Shirley Franklin Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 2:04 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [External] Pain and suffering vs business as usual [EXTERNAL] Hi I also find the thought and actually writing on here intimidating. Most of us, here, are Vygotskians. I expect we would all share the notion that we can work out our ideas about things through talk, and through writing. I love that process. I always remember when we were first introduced to Vygotsky on an MA course at the London Institute of Education. One of our group talked a lot, mainly guff, but exploring ideas. He is now very much part of the academic establishment, with a Vygotsky-related PhD! So to those who have been on this group for years, please allow others to explore. We are not in competition with each other. We can share and explore knowledge collaboratively! I think one of the problems in academia is the pressure to be right, the pressure to be original - I mean that?s how you keep your job, by churning out articles and books (about whatever!!). Someone like Lave (who was it?) wrote a brilliant article about this pressure on academics to produce capital for their employers, and to produce to stay in employment. Colleagues, comrades, on this list are right when they say that the employment conditions in academia are appalling. And if you are political, then you are more than likely to get a string of ?nil hours? contracts, and/or teach under conditions that don't allow enough time for either preparation or research. Shirley Now, retired, but still writing, still researching. On 1 Dec 2020, at 17:33, Walker, Dana > wrote: Thank you Anna for your insistence on continuing this conversation, and not going back to business as usual. It helps to have some historical precedents and current issues made concrete. Among other things, it makes me feel less alone in my hesitation to participate in xmca. Knowing that folks are continuing the conversation with Audre Lorde is encouraging as well. Your reference to Sarah Ahmed?s 2015 piece is an important reminder, and made me think of Eugene Matusov and Artyom Fyodorov?s efforts to help create a University of Students, described below. Dana Dana Walker, Ph.D. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Education College of Education and Behavioral Sciences University of Northern Colorado (970 351-2720 Dear Open Syllabus Education folks? We want to invite you to participate in a 10-min survey about your potential interest in establishing the University of Students (UniS) and forward this invitation to those (people or organizations) who might be interesting. Our concept of the University of Students is based on the idea that a student the author of their own education. A student has an unalienated and sovereign right to freedom of education: to decide whether to study, what to study, how to study, with whom to study, when to study, where to study, why to study, what is good education, and so on. This decision-making can be done by the student-author alone, with peer students, and/or with a pedagogue. The University of Students exists for the students, by the students, through the students. According to our vision, the University of Students involves a rich learning environment. When you join the University of Students, you will have diverse opportunities for socializing with people of similar and different interests and expertise, for observation of and participation in many diverse activities and dialogues, for starting new projects, and for diverse sources of help, if you need any, -- all to support you self-education. The University of Students is not new, it existed in diverse forms for about 300 years in Southern Europe (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.historytoday.com/alan-b-cobban/student-power-middle-ages__;!!Mih3wA!RWEZB6r-UEN2RLHCGHarCMUBilLd7pLumJcyGT1w0MLxQIKH-joysnLMdZJI2DaQsYrCew$ ). The University of Students will provide ample opportunities for the creative professional implementation of educators and experts. There will be no educational standards, compulsory curricula, mandatory exams issued "from the top" (administrations) or "from the side" (colleagues), and there will be no need to write a huge number of reports on their work. According to our vision of UniS, an educator becomes a real educator when they are in demand by a student. At the University of Students, the student themselves determines and goes through their educational trajectory. At the same time, the student can be completely independent, or they can turn to an educator for help, who becomes for the student a guide -- a guide in the student's own educational journey. The educational process at the University of Students is a common cause of all its participants, based on the principles of cooperation, mutual respect, and goodwill. If you are interested in the resurrection of and participation in this enterprise, please take the survey: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://delaware.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0feGjXCQPh8fNTT__;!!Mih3wA!RWEZB6r-UEN2RLHCGHarCMUBilLd7pLumJcyGT1w0MLxQIKH-joysnLMdZJI2Db7ie7Jdg$ . Also, please, forward this email to whoever might be interested regardless of their age (especially prospective UoS students). The purpose of this survey to check if there is enough public interest in the University of Students. Let us know, please, if you have any questions. Our best, Artyom Fyodorov, a founder of the democratic school SOVUM, Tver', Russia, fedorov.artem.n@gmail.com Eugene Matusov, Professor of Education, University of Delaware, USA, ematusov@udel.edu 18 November 2020 From: > on behalf of "Stetsenko, Anna" > Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 9:35 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [External][Xmca-l] Pain and suffering vs business as usual Before we go back to business as usual, there is more to say on the recent crisis, which to me is not over. This is because I think we need to be ?sensitive to that which is not over? We are up against history; walls. We need to support, stand with, and stand by, those students [and all who are marginalized] who are fighting to survive hostile institutions. It is our job.? (this is from Sarah Ahmed, posted by Jacob Mac Williams on xmca in 2015, I will reference it several times, it?s a brilliant piece, google Against Students ? The New Inquiry). A short prelude ? I attended an amazing meeting yesterday on Audre Lorde organized by the GC CUNY, Translating Audre Lorde Now /Traduciendo Audre Lorde Ahora. Scholars, educators, and students spoke about Lorde and centrally brought up the theme of pain and suffering in academia and beyond ? for those who are marginalized due to their skin color, ethnicity, non-traditional gender identity?Perhaps there could be people who do not know or prefer not to know but this is directly relevant to xmca, where pain and suffering have been incurred and many experienced violence of racism, sexism, and discrimination. There have been interventions, and heart-felt notes from Mike, Antti, Alfredo (for example), yet they fall on deaf ears and many choose to remain oblivious to what is going on and to their own actions (!). We hear about this here on the list and even more in private emails ? many are actually afraid to come up and share their experiences! This is not a matter of just brining up grievances or of political correctness. This is a matter of well being, of being able to breath! ?Caring for myself is not self-indulgence. It is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare" Audre Lord. I think we have been speaking of the crisis in general, abstract terms. But history is always concrete ? and why not rise from the abstract to the concrete (for those who like to couch things in terms of ?academic debates?)? Many conveniently return to ?freedom of speech? and ?inclusion? mantra. But in 2020 it should be clear there is no going back to these in the midst of pain and suffering. Sarah Ahmed explained this: "Interestingly one white male academic when asked about 'decolonizing the university' ..was reported to have said something like ?this is education not democracy: we get to decide what we teach.? He helpfully reveals to us how the democracy often defended is an illusion: what is being defended as democracy is often despotism." Here is to the concrete. Andy posted his reflections and there is not a hint of what has been going on for many years. Andy, your style has been stifling to people ? your dominant posture, the flair of ?knowing the answers? and lecturing others, your insistence on ?objectivity? in science (read: canons of white male superiority only accessible to ?Great Men?). The latter came through when Jacob MacWilliams responded to you, not just once! With great eloquence and also pain. And left after that, to a great loss to xmca, as did many others, in desperation. Hope someone will do a discourse analysis of epistemic violence on xmca? A claim to objective knowledge is an absolute demand for obedience (Mendez, Coddou, & Maturana). Exactly! And Kristie Dotson will be useful here indeed, thank you, Diane, for bringing this up. There is more to add on epistemic violence?I will wait for other voices and then probably add, with more specific illustrations. But important for now, if we hear voices telling us that there is racism and violence in messages they see on xmca, we have to act. Anthony, people are not feeling safe in your presence ? this was expressed to you and I heard this from many people in private too ? I am making this public now. As someone wrote ? this is about ?awful e-mail exchanges,? so that she ?didn't feel like engaging in such a violent environment.? What is it that you do not understand about this? Anna Stetsenko, PhD Professor Ph.D. Programs in Psychology/Human Development and in Urban Education The Graduate Center of The City University of New York 365 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://annastetsenko.ws.gc.cuny.edu/__;!!Mih3wA!RWEZB6r-UEN2RLHCGHarCMUBilLd7pLumJcyGT1w0MLxQIKH-joysnLMdZJI2DbtwcaKVg$ visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.academia.edu__;!!Mih3wA!RWEZB6r-UEN2RLHCGHarCMUBilLd7pLumJcyGT1w0MLxQIKH-joysnLMdZJI2DbvPVq9Ng$ for my recent publications ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Anthony Barra > Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:27 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How much fun are we having . . . Thank you to Helena. Very interesting. "Vygotsky - through a Labor Education lens" -- https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/iYndG7cKlj0__;!!Mih3wA!RWEZB6r-UEN2RLHCGHarCMUBilLd7pLumJcyGT1w0MLxQIKH-joysnLMdZJI2DZzEC4Wdg$ On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:05 PM Helena Worthen > wrote: Anthony, I am going to try taking you up on your challenge. How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? I did this, of course, in my book, What Did You Learn at Work Today? The Forbidden Lessons of Labor Education, published by Hardball Press in 2014. Note the prestigious academic press ? and it only costs $15!!!! But I will boil it down to the 5-minute schpiel that I would give in my classes to union members whose second question, after ?How did you learn to do labor education?? would be, ?How can I get your job?? Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com helenaworthen.wordpress.com check your registration at vote.gov On Nov 28, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Anthony Barra > wrote: Recently, a small spat has spun into an interesting larger discussion, and mostly productive at that. The whole spat, however, began with a misunderstanding. When sharing the "Why generations?" video, Andy was alluding, lightly and positively, to a previous video where he himself was "put on the spot" (ironically enough in a post titled "Let's have some fun!"). In my family, from childhood onward, 'on the spot' always had a positive, even playful connotation. (Maybe it's an italian-american thing?) Sadly, the initial offer of fun, three weeks ago, was hardly taken up, save for a brief, interesting response from Huw Lloyd. But the party shouldn't end, and the open-ended question remains: How would YOU explain Vygotsky's theory for a general audience -- e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, relatives -- without sacrificing too much accuracy? Andy gave it a nice go, without advanced warning (i.e., 'on the spot'). I think it's a pretty hard question, and maybe a poorly asked one -- but what if many of us weighed in and gave it a shot? It'd probably be less hard then, and certainly interesting (and likely beneficial to anyone looking to share Vygotsky's work in various settings beyond academe) ---> "the pool of collective knowledge is big," perhaps even oceanic. No one wants my advice, but this would be it: assume you have something worth saying and also that it might not come out as well as you'd like AND that people will want to hear it anyway, and even more importantly, that the momentum of having many voices contribute will be worth as much (probably more) than any individual contribution (i.e., literally no pressure). Give it a shot here, maybe even in video-form if you'd like: "An Audience Participation Question . . . Let's Have Some Fun!" <> (I kid, I kid!) There are other good videos over at CulturalPraxis -- and hopefully, the uptick in xmca engagement will spill over to there as well (the more the merrier). As Natalia Gajdamaschko has suggested, "development comes out of resolving some sort of contradiction..some type of crisis -- a good crisis." Enjoy, Anthony **This message originated from outside UNC. Please use caution when opening attachments or following links. Do not enter your UNC credentials when prompted by external links.** Shirley Franklin Timbercombe Barn Sway Road Brockenhurst Hampshire SO42 7RX Mob: 07958745802 Home 01590623305 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201202/6399e881/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Dec 2 10:16:35 2020 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 11:16:35 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian In-Reply-To: References: <184527580.727.0@wordpress.com> <388d7c80-99c5-6655-57f0-e87711922e42@marxists.org> <54F5FCAE-0439-4029-B716-8D87A325430E@gmail.com> <7E63B0FF-F3C6-45A6-BE0C-C50EC238CBFB@gmail.com> <1BA777A7-ABC5-4855-A9E8-49B991C34F2D@wisc.edu> <2A94F7FE-D12A-4161-9149-4305F5F5C989@uio.no> <521e6d47-9dd1-ae21-e28a-35e7faa0f821@marxists.org> <1606523343561.66632@gc.cuny.edu> Message-ID: <7C6F0583-3ADC-4855-A965-122B0EBBD1AB@gmail.com> Hi Francine and Anna, I like very much like the focus on creativity. In 2013, Anna and I took part in a Symposium at the AERA annual meeting in San Francisco honoring Vera John-Steiner life work. Anna titled her contribution to the symposium ?Creativity in All of Us: A Dialogue with Vera John-Steiner?. Vera, my mentor and friend, wrote a wonderful, Vygotsky-inspired book: Creative Collaboration (2000). It?s based on her interviews, reading and perizhvanie in collaborative projects in science and the arts, across generations and among women. Vera had written and published another book, Notebooks of the Mind: Explorations of Thinking (1985), also on creativity in various domains, but focused on individual creativity. Vera was clear that her teaching in our Womens? Studies program was linked to her interest in collaboration. Vera was also a Holocaust survivor: At 16 she taught her fellow inmates (I have forgotten the camp, Bergen-Belsen?) to dance. She shared with Vygotsky the experience of brutal opression of the Ashkenazi of Eastern Europe. And her experience as a woman in academia makes common cause with you and any other women who have had to deal with sexism in academia. I would like to say that Chapter 7 of Creative Collaboration entitled "Thought Communities? seems like a good source for getting a new start with XMCA. On p. 197 is a chart entitled ?Collaborative patterns: Roles, values and working methods?. This chart summarizes nicely the variety of ways that she found creative people collaborate. Henry > On Nov 30, 2020, at 5:18 PM, Larry Smolucha wrote: > > >From Francine: > > Just for the record, I have never used Google translate or any internet service when doing my translations - only the Oxford Russian-English dictionary. Like David, my reading skills in Russian are my strong point, rather than speaking or auditory comprehension. > > I have never had a mentor fluent in Russian oversee my translations of Vygotsky's writings. Early on, I discovered that the bi-lingual English experts in Russian were not focusing on the > texts, but rather coming to the texts with interpretive frameworks. > > Discovered this in 1984, when I undertook my first translation of a Vygotsky text Thinking and Speech. My intention was to compare (correct) my translation with the only published English translation available Thought and Language (1962) by Hanfmann and Vakar, MIT Press. Well, as soon as I held the Russian version of Thinking and Speech in my hand, I realized the title had been mistranslated and the Russian version of the book was twice as thick as the 1962 English translation. When I started translating the chapters, I discovered that roughly half of the paragraphs were omitted in a random fashion within the text. > > Many XMCA members first read Thinking and Speech in the full translations that came out later in 1986 (Wertsch) and 1987 (Minick). But I am of a different generation and had to discover the hard way the inadequacies of the 1962 translation. Add to this that in 1984, I undertook the translation of Thinking and Speech to prepare for my third attempt at passing the Graduate Level Reading Exam in Russian at the University of Chicago (the Hanfmann/Vakar translation would not have gotten a passing grade). Well my thoughts were "screw this" - I am correcting the official MIT publication while trying to pass my grad reading exam. Might as well translate something that I am really interested in even if it has never been translated. > > In 1983, my husband and I had presented our theory and research on the development of creativity as a maturation of symbolic play at a conference of the British Psychological Society in Wales. Wonder if Vygotsky wrote anything about creativity? > What do you know, in a 1956 Russian publication there was a paper by Vygotsky on the development of creative imagination. Translated it, passed the reading exam with honors, and sent my translation to Jim Wertsch at Northwestern University. Got a phone call from Jim Wertsch - told me that Plenum needed translators for the Collected Works and that I could go to study in Russia to study Vygotsky's writings. I replied that what I was really interested in is 'creativity' and I want to see if Vygotsky wrote anything else on that topic. Wertsch said "No, this is the only paper, Vygotsky had no interest in creativity." I declined the offer to translate for Plenum and to study in Russia. And all by myself, discovered that Vygotsky had written two other papers on the development of creative imagination, translated those papers and got them in press. > > I tell you this story because reading the text for yourself is a bold thing to do. > > > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of David Kellogg > > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:13 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian > > Many thanks to Zaza, whose translation of Tuku's song I'll be taking into my class on Ethics, Emotions, and Education tonight. I think you can see from her translation where you can go wrong with Google Translate, which is, after all, just a way of linking up bits of texts that have been previously translated by humans. Using the Google Translate function for Shona, I thought the song referred to "raped by your roomate". Zaza says it means a husband, which is expressed as the payer of bride price. At first I thought this was an accident of history, similar to the fact that our word "husband" means someone who looks after pigs, but of course if you listen to Tuku's song Haasati Aziva you can see that if it is an accident of history it's a very recent one that still casts a shadow. As Mary said--this is the stuff of a pandemic: systemic, institutionalized, and as a result blithe, indifferent and unaccountable power. As with AIDS, so too with Covid 19. > > Anthony--I said I don't speak Russian. I started studying in 2005 (after a short exchange with Mike) and took four years of formal classes in the language, six to eight hours a week. I have been spending at least eight hours a week reading Russian ever since. So when I look at a paragraph of Vygotsky in Russian I don't usually see any words that I don't recognize. When I do, I do what any Russian would do and look them up. Google Translate works as a bilingual dictionary only the entries are larger than the word and smaller than the clause. But human translators function more like thesauruses, where the entries are not wordings but meanings. For that reason I tend to use "Reverso", which gives whole paragraphs from the data base so you can see the context. . > > When I meet Nikolai or Anna, I find it impossible to use more than a few well-known phrases in Russian (mostly agreeable things like "Of course" and "You're right!", which is quite unlike my normal way of thinking...). So I think I do not speak Russian, although I have some reading knowledge of it. Operationally what that means is that when I publish a translation, I need a native speaker looking over my shoulder. Since I'm mostly translating into Korean, I actually need two, and I am fortunate that I was born with two shoulders, and even more fortunate that I have Dr. Kim Yongho, who is better than I am in both languages. (But Yongho learned his Russian from Rosetta Stone!) > > I have no objection to disentangling threads, but I don't really agree with Antti (who, unless I am quite mistaken, also speaks a language that utterly lacks articles) that this all belongs on a separate thread. To me, anyway, the relevant points are three. > > a) Racism isn't an interpersonal matter, and still less is it an intra-personal one: it's social, cultural, historical, material. That's why we say it is systemic. And if it's systemic, it is part of the way we look at other languages. Since Lewontin demonstrated the non-viability of race as a unit of analysis for human communities, language has become a stand in for race, and views about language are a stand-in for views about race. That was, after all, where Arturo was looking. > > b) One way that views about language have become a stand-in for views about race is that languages which lack articles are seen as deviant from some universal grammar and hence defective in some way. My colleague's "article-drop" parameter is actually part of a pattern of thinking that has been part of mainstream linguistics since the late fifties and early sixties, and is exemplified in the "Principles and Parameters" model of Universal Grammar. Chomsky argued that languages like Italian which do not require grammatical subjects as English does must have a setting that permits the omission of this universally obligatory element. This is nonsense. Italian does not drop pronouns; there's really no "pro" there to drop. We do not, after all, go around saying that English is a Korean-honorific-drop-language. Those who assume that languages are genetically hard-wired (the LAD or the magical gene that according to Chomsky created the capacity for human thought or the supposed correlation between mutations in mitochondrial DNA and languages that was alleged by Cavalli-Sforza) are making assumptions that are really not that different from assumptions previously made about the cranial capacity of lesser breeds without the law. > > c) Vygotsky was as much a man of his time as we are of our own. Some writers (c.f. Aaro Toomela on the Cultural Praxis site recently) have argued that Vygotsky believed in "primitive languages", e.g. the Bantu languages, to which Shona belongs. As Zaza makes abundantly clear, Shona is not primitive by any conceivable standard, and I have seen no convincing evidence that Vygotsky ever made this assumption (he did quote missionaries who clearly did make the assumption, but he is quite scathing about them on precisely this point). Certainly the idea that some languages have only the "indicative" or the "nominating" function but not the "signifying" function is not a Vygotskyan one: a language that cannot signify is not a human language, and any language that can signify can signify a concept. Languages can vary according to the meanings that they actually do express, just as registers within a language do. But human meaning potential is, if not infinite (we will not be around forever), at least undetermined and probably indeterminate. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Book with Nikolai Veresov > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov > See free downloadable pdf at: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!XocQ2ioE4EAvrpCLIKUoO7TShkR4WwAg6H9go64eZVDpkb60lSbxdc3XyDx7ErMhNW4dRg$ > > Forthcoming in 2020: > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 5:08 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > I translated Piaget's book on dialectics with the aid of google. There was much work both pre- and post-googletranslate though. Part of this I put down to understanding the domain, just as one can question translations if one knows what they are about. > > Huw > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 18:53, Anthony Barra > wrote: > Zaza, > > I had no idea that one could translate books without really speaking the original language, as David claims about himself. > Nor did I realize the extent to which translating is about reading between the lines, along with the lines themselves. Such an interesting topic . . . > > Perhaps of interest: > 1. A brief anecdote from David about a current Korean translation/summary project:https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGU5zV6zbLI__;!!Mih3wA!XocQ2ioE4EAvrpCLIKUoO7TShkR4WwAg6H9go64eZVDpkb60lSbxdc3XyDx7ErNe6U-Wzw$ (re: Vygotsky on emotions) > 2. An old xmca post on translating Vygotsky into Korean: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2011_05.dir/msg00509.html > > I thought these were neat to hear about and maybe enjoyable or others as well. > > Anthony > > > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 3:30 PM Zaza Kabayadondo > wrote: > I'm moving this to a new thread... > > Thank you for your question, David. I didn't realize people were using Google Translate. It's great for some languages - not so much for anything from Southern Africa at least as far as I've observed. > > Yes, I do speak Shona. I like to distinguish between functional Shona and idiomatic Shona. Functional Shona is literal and idiomatic Shona is literary (though spoken). I'm not a Shona linguist so I'm making up terms for the distinction I perceive but there might already be a convention for how Shona linguists describe the difference. Functional Shona is what you will hear people using on the streets. It is a more literal or explicit way of speaking and very similar to European meaning and sensemaking. In functional Shona you might say "I am tired." "She arrived yesterday." It some contexts it is considered rather crass to speak so directly of your feelings, wants, needs. I contrast this to idiomatic Shona which is a version of the language our elders spoke, it reflects pre-colonial Shona culture and thinking because it "beats around the bush". You would rarely directly ask a question, everything was a metaphor, a vague suggestion, never explicitly spelt out. It is more diplomatic, more evasive, and can be problematic when it comes to talking about social or political issues. Tuku sings in this idiomatic style. Tuku's song Bvuma is the best example of his style of which allows for double entendre (He is saying "Tolerance has faded" but he could also mean "Just accept that you're old." > > Todii is about HIV/AIDS. Originally, "utachiwana" meant any virus or germ, the underlying cause of an illness, but over time the only virus people talk about is HIV. (In "Hutachiwana" the "h" is a modifier emphasizes you mean "the virus"). The style is call-and-response which is typical in Shona folk music, both traditional and contemporary. The call and its response should be read as one sentence. > > As for the lyrics in question: > Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the one you live with...If you have a virus > Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma** ...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the man** who married you ...If you have a virus > **The literal meaning is "by the one who paid roora (lobola/bride price)" > Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Translation: When he knows you have the virus...If you have a virus > Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Translation: And you know you have the virus...If you have a virus > In the last two lines the response almost implies "hypothetically, let's say you have a virus." And for me this is really where the song touches on the sensibility of HIV/AIDS as it was experienced in Zimbabwe in the moment of the song. Not knowing who has it, suspecting who has it etc. Tuku was masterful with his play on words and structure. > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 2:56 AM David Kellogg > wrote: > Zaza-- > > Dude, I don't really speak Russian either, as Nikolai and Anna will tell you (we only speak English). In my translation work I spend a lot more time on Google Translate than I would like, and that's why I burden the list with the queries you mention from time to time.. But I bet you speak Shona, or at least understand a little. > > So maybe you can help. I'm using this tune from the late great Tuku (Oliver Mtukudzi) in a class I am giving on sex education in Korea. I've been told that it doesn't really mention AIDS/HIV explicitly, and I get that--in fact, that's one of the reasons why I think it's useful for making certain parallels between pandemics and also discussing HPV and other issues I want to talk about. But I don't quite understand THIS verse--maybe you can help me? > > Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye > (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma > (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana > (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana > (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > > So "Kana uinahwo utachiwana" means something like "If you get infected". But what is the reference to being raped by your roommate? > > On the subject of this thread. Like voter fraud, racism is a very serious charge, and the right has successfully made hay out of its seriousness. But as with voter fraud they have made even more hay out of rendering the charge unproveable, by removing its class content and rendering it a purely subjective inclination. This is why, I think (I hope), Arturo and others tend to raise this sort of thing in private off-list material that is so much at variance with their public writings that it fairly attracts the charge of hypocrisy or at least political timidity. After all, if you really suspect your interlocutor of racism, it's incumbent on you to keep your mouth and not just your eyes open. But you've got to put money where your mouth is: you have to provide some evidence (e.g. the paper that Harshad circulated on the list not too long ago). There are important scientific issues we need to discuss which are actually not unrelated to the one that Arturo was reacting to: whether you can accurately judge the language proficiency of a person by their race or national origin (as I have done in the second paragraph above). Not unrelated. But not identical to either, else I would not have written that paragraph. > > Here's an example. A dear colleague of mine, who like the vast majority of people in this country is not white and wouldn't know deficit linguistics from a surplus, has just written a paper on why Korean children tend to drop articles (i.e. "a" and "the"). He begins with the Chomskyan premise that all nouns must, according to universal human grammars which are hardwired at birth, be realized by "determiner phrases". What that means is that a noun phrase like "the cat" is not really about a cat--it's about "the", and the "the" is modified by "cat" (What kind of "the-ness" do you mean? The cat kind!) > > But it's THIS, and not Vygotskyan, Hallidayan, or Bernsteinian developmentalism, that is deficit linguistics. I won't say it is racist, because unfortunately that term has lost its scientific content and become nothing but a thought crime. But I will say that people who speak languages without articles or languages that emphasize nouns over determiners (e.g. Korean, Chinese, Russian) are not born with a birth defect (or "null spell out", as the Chomskyans say). > > Does Shona have articles or not? Do you know? > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0JssD8Hzc__;!!Mih3wA!XocQ2ioE4EAvrpCLIKUoO7TShkR4WwAg6H9go64eZVDpkb60lSbxdc3XyDx7ErMEu-X-Og$ > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Book with Nikolai Veresov > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov > See free downloadable pdf at: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!XocQ2ioE4EAvrpCLIKUoO7TShkR4WwAg6H9go64eZVDpkb60lSbxdc3XyDx7ErMhNW4dRg$ > > Forthcoming in 2020: > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:02 PM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > P.S. To my best understanding (very minimal, no doubt), the subject matter of Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory is the development of human higher psychological functions. (How that is "left," "right," or otherwise is beyond me.) > > Political propensities can be discerned across some (adult) developmental stages. > > Huw > > > > > -- > To schedule up a 30 minute call using Calendly: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://calendly.com/with-zaza__;!!Mih3wA!XocQ2ioE4EAvrpCLIKUoO7TShkR4WwAg6H9go64eZVDpkb60lSbxdc3XyDx7ErO2GoPydQ$ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201202/40620cf9/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Dec 2 16:46:58 2020 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 17:46:58 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian In-Reply-To: References: <184527580.727.0@wordpress.com> <388d7c80-99c5-6655-57f0-e87711922e42@marxists.org> <54F5FCAE-0439-4029-B716-8D87A325430E@gmail.com> <7E63B0FF-F3C6-45A6-BE0C-C50EC238CBFB@gmail.com> <1BA777A7-ABC5-4855-A9E8-49B991C34F2D@wisc.edu> <2A94F7FE-D12A-4161-9149-4305F5F5C989@uio.no> <521e6d47-9dd1-ae21-e28a-35e7faa0f821@m arxists.org> <1606523343561.66632@gc.cuny.edu> <005501d6c833$d75a8790$860f96b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Annalisa, I think you have in mind Vera?s articlre in Functions of Language in the Classroom, edited by Del Hymes, Courtney Cazden and Vera John...Steiner was added when Vera married the author Stan Steiner in New Mexico. The research for the article was what brought Vera to New Mexico. Vera's article was about teacher discourse styles that do and don't engage Navajo students in learning. Discourse. Very much what lies the heart of the pain and alienation some feel on the chat. After getting to New Mexico, Vera and Bernard Spolsky founded the doctoral program in Educational Linguistics, Vera?s article epitomises the kinds of issues meant to be addressed by students in the program. Applied linguistics. I enrolled in the program in 1981, after 4 years teaching high school on the Navajo Reservation and one year after Vera and Spolsky established the Ed Ling program. I have to apologize for not responding sooner to your query about Vera?s work with Native Americans and in creativity. My computer was acting up all morning, so I didn?t see your post until after I had sent my own post on Vera?s Creative Collaboration. I actually began writing my post about four days back but held off until the smoke cleared a bit.:) What I wrote about was precisely what you were drawing attention to: Vera?s work on creativity from and individual and collaborative perspective. Yes, Holbrook is still at UNM. Such a smart and generous man. Vygotskian to the bone. He and several other academics and I, mostly retired, were getting together about once a month to chew the fat until Covid hit. Looking forward to when the smoke clears on that. A confession for the chat that seems timely. As I believe you know, I am a white sys male who feels like a fraud in academia and tiptoes around the big dogs. I was a teacher educator at the College of Santa Fe, which rewarded service to community as much or more than publications. I?m retired now, so my tenure and daily bread doesn?t depend on how well I navigate what can seem, and actually be, very risky territory. Actually, I sympathize with and have respect for, everyone who has weighed in just recently, yourself included. Vera?s and Vygotsky?s tent is big enough for all of us. IMHO. Henry > On Dec 2, 2020, at 12:22 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > > Hello Bronwyn, > > I had to stop in my tracks to write to suggest you might include on to your reading list works by my beloved mentor Vera John-Steiner, a late member of XMCA, and a co-editor of Mind in Society back in the days of few Vygotsky texts in the US. > > Pertaining to your interests you might enjoy: > Vygotsky and Creativity: A Cultural-historical Approach to Play, Meaning Making, and the Arts, Second Edition (Educational Psychology) 2nd Edition (2018) > > There was a very interesting paper Vera wrote with Panofsky (?) about Navajo and Hopi children. Perhaps Henry Shonerd can help me out with the title and date? > > My favorite book of hers is Notebooks of the Mind, and also Creative Collaboration. It isn't directly in line with education, but they do concern creativity studies that if I am intuiting correctly, reach to the heart of what you seek. > > You might also look for work by Holbrook Mahn, a student of Vera's, whose area of study includes ESL. He is still at UNM I believe. > > Beneath your words I sense that you do not accept there is no creativity present among your demography of concern, and I truly believe you will have your doubts confirmed were you to read these works. > > If one is a human, one is creative. > > Perhaps one must be a Vygotskian to recognize this reality; Vera was a stellar Vygotskian scholar. > > Enjoy! > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bronwyn Parkin > > Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:46 PM > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian > > [EXTERNAL] > Dear all, > I?m a long-time observer in this chat group. Vygotsky?s theories are so big that my area of interest, education, seems like the toe of the elephant. Often I have no idea what the rest of you are talking about! Nevertheless, your discussion stretches the mind. > I have been interested in the idea of creativity and childhood for some time, motivated by working with educationally marginalised students for many years, including remote Indigenous Australians. When talking with teachers about student writing, I?ve often heard often the statement ?Oh, they lack imagination?, or ?they struggle with creativity?. I think what this means is that the cultural purpose of narrative for many English as a Second Language students is different from that of the western world. Teachers are mostly not conscious of this, and don?t know what they have to make explicit. Instead of being a cultural difference, teachers perceive this ?lack? as a personal failing on the part of the student. > My reading in this area is scant, and I am gleaning from recent conversations that there is plenty I?ve missed. Here is a snapshot from my Endnote library. I would really appreciate it if you could expand my reading list. > Many thanks, Bronwyn Parkin > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of David Kellogg > Sent: Tuesday, 1 December 2020 12:11 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian > > And Francine was kind enough to write a beautiful little cover blurb for the Korean edition of creativity and imagination in childhood back in 2014 (at the time our Russian was still so rudimentary that we checked every paragraph of our translation against hers). We also included the two other essays which she mentions (which I think are necessary, because "Creativity and Imagination in Childhood" is really a booklet Vygotsky himself wrote to present ideas--including those of other academics--to non-academics in a popular form). > > A propos. The eighth seminaire internationale sur Vygotski will be held in Lausanne, Switzerland, from the 7-9, and the theme is...Vygotsky's "Creativity and Imagination in Childhood", now appearing in French! The Call for Papers is hereby attached (in French). Note that there are some anglophones on the scientific committee (including me) and that you can submit and present in English. By June we may actually be able to travel again. > > dk > > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Book with Nikolai Veresov > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov > See free downloadable pdf at: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!TMkvuXJrs9U8uSSSUM4LFFgUYIB9zSwh7YEk_FLqTZSTo4ZyMqg7emzgcJnhk-vwksrnWQ$ > > Forthcoming in 2020: > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 9:20 AM Larry Smolucha > wrote: > >>From Francine: > > Just for the record, I have never used Google translate or any internet service when doing my translations - only the Oxford Russian-English dictionary. Like David, my reading skills in Russian are my strong point, rather than speaking or auditory comprehension. > > I have never had a mentor fluent in Russian oversee my translations of Vygotsky's writings. Early on, I discovered that the bi-lingual English experts in Russian were not focusing on the > texts, but rather coming to the texts with interpretive frameworks. > > Discovered this in 1984, when I undertook my first translation of a Vygotsky text Thinking and Speech. My intention was to compare (correct) my translation with the only published English translation available Thought and Language (1962) by Hanfmann and Vakar, MIT Press. Well, as soon as I held the Russian version of Thinking and Speech in my hand, I realized the title had been mistranslated and the Russian version of the book was twice as thick as the 1962 English translation. When I started translating the chapters, I discovered that roughly half of the paragraphs were omitted in a random fashion within the text. > > Many XMCA members first read Thinking and Speech in the full translations that came out later in 1986 (Wertsch) and 1987 (Minick). But I am of a different generation and had to discover the hard way the inadequacies of the 1962 translation. Add to this that in 1984, I undertook the translation of Thinking and Speech to prepare for my third attempt at passing the Graduate Level Reading Exam in Russian at the University of Chicago (the Hanfmann/Vakar translation would not have gotten a passing grade). Well my thoughts were "screw this" - I am correcting the official MIT publication while trying to pass my grad reading exam. Might as well translate something that I am really interested in even if it has never been translated. > > In 1983, my husband and I had presented our theory and research on the development of creativity as a maturation of symbolic play at a conference of the British Psychological Society in Wales. Wonder if Vygotsky wrote anything about creativity? > What do you know, in a 1956 Russian publication there was a paper by Vygotsky on the development of creative imagination. Translated it, passed the reading exam with honors, and sent my translation to Jim Wertsch at Northwestern University. Got a phone call from Jim Wertsch - told me that Plenum needed translators for the Collected Works and that I could go to study in Russia to study Vygotsky's writings. I replied that what I was really interested in is 'creativity' and I want to see if Vygotsky wrote anything else on that topic. Wertsch said "No, this is the only paper, Vygotsky had no interest in creativity." I declined the offer to translate for Plenum and to study in Russia. And all by myself, discovered that Vygotsky had written two other papers on the development of creative imagination, translated those papers and got them in press. > > I tell you this story because reading the text for yourself is a bold thing to do. > > > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of David Kellogg > > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:13 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian > > Many thanks to Zaza, whose translation of Tuku's song I'll be taking into my class on Ethics, Emotions, and Education tonight. I think you can see from her translation where you can go wrong with Google Translate, which is, after all, just a way of linking up bits of texts that have been previously translated by humans. Using the Google Translate function for Shona, I thought the song referred to "raped by your roomate". Zaza says it means a husband, which is expressed as the payer of bride price. At first I thought this was an accident of history, similar to the fact that our word "husband" means someone who looks after pigs, but of course if you listen to Tuku's song Haasati Aziva you can see that if it is an accident of history it's a very recent one that still casts a shadow. As Mary said--this is the stuff of a pandemic: systemic, institutionalized, and as a result blithe, indifferent and unaccountable power. As with AIDS, so too with Covid 19. > > Anthony--I said I don't speak Russian. I started studying in 2005 (after a short exchange with Mike) and took four years of formal classes in the language, six to eight hours a week. I have been spending at least eight hours a week reading Russian ever since. So when I look at a paragraph of Vygotsky in Russian I don't usually see any words that I don't recognize. When I do, I do what any Russian would do and look them up. Google Translate works as a bilingual dictionary only the entries are larger than the word and smaller than the clause. But human translators function more like thesauruses, where the entries are not wordings but meanings. For that reason I tend to use "Reverso", which gives whole paragraphs from the data base so you can see the context. . > > When I meet Nikolai or Anna, I find it impossible to use more than a few well-known phrases in Russian (mostly agreeable things like "Of course" and "You're right!", which is quite unlike my normal way of thinking...). So I think I do not speak Russian, although I have some reading knowledge of it. Operationally what that means is that when I publish a translation, I need a native speaker looking over my shoulder. Since I'm mostly translating into Korean, I actually need two, and I am fortunate that I was born with two shoulders, and even more fortunate that I have Dr. Kim Yongho, who is better than I am in both languages. (But Yongho learned his Russian from Rosetta Stone!) > > I have no objection to disentangling threads, but I don't really agree with Antti (who, unless I am quite mistaken, also speaks a language that utterly lacks articles) that this all belongs on a separate thread. To me, anyway, the relevant points are three. > > a) Racism isn't an interpersonal matter, and still less is it an intra-personal one: it's social, cultural, historical, material. That's why we say it is systemic. And if it's systemic, it is part of the way we look at other languages. Since Lewontin demonstrated the non-viability of race as a unit of analysis for human communities, language has become a stand in for race, and views about language are a stand-in for views about race. That was, after all, where Arturo was looking. > > b) One way that views about language have become a stand-in for views about race is that languages which lack articles are seen as deviant from some universal grammar and hence defective in some way. My colleague's "article-drop" parameter is actually part of a pattern of thinking that has been part of mainstream linguistics since the late fifties and early sixties, and is exemplified in the "Principles and Parameters" model of Universal Grammar. Chomsky argued that languages like Italian which do not require grammatical subjects as English does must have a setting that permits the omission of this universally obligatory element. This is nonsense. Italian does not drop pronouns; there's really no "pro" there to drop. We do not, after all, go around saying that English is a Korean-honorific-drop-language. Those who assume that languages are genetically hard-wired (the LAD or the magical gene that according to Chomsky created the capacity for human thought or the supposed correlation between mutations in mitochondrial DNA and languages that was alleged by Cavalli-Sforza) are making assumptions that are really not that different from assumptions previously made about the cranial capacity of lesser breeds without the law. > > c) Vygotsky was as much a man of his time as we are of our own. Some writers (c.f. Aaro Toomela on the Cultural Praxis site recently) have argued that Vygotsky believed in "primitive languages", e.g. the Bantu languages, to which Shona belongs. As Zaza makes abundantly clear, Shona is not primitive by any conceivable standard, and I have seen no convincing evidence that Vygotsky ever made this assumption (he did quote missionaries who clearly did make the assumption, but he is quite scathing about them on precisely this point). Certainly the idea that some languages have only the "indicative" or the "nominating" function but not the "signifying" function is not a Vygotskyan one: a language that cannot signify is not a human language, and any language that can signify can signify a concept. Languages can vary according to the meanings that they actually do express, just as registers within a language do. But human meaning potential is, if not infinite (we will not be around forever), at least undetermined and probably indeterminate. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Book with Nikolai Veresov > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov > See free downloadable pdf at: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!TMkvuXJrs9U8uSSSUM4LFFgUYIB9zSwh7YEk_FLqTZSTo4ZyMqg7emzgcJnhk-vwksrnWQ$ > > Forthcoming in 2020: > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 5:08 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > I translated Piaget's book on dialectics with the aid of google. There was much work both pre- and post-googletranslate though. Part of this I put down to understanding the domain, just as one can question translations if one knows what they are about. > > Huw > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 18:53, Anthony Barra > wrote: > Zaza, > > I had no idea that one could translate books without really speaking the original language, as David claims about himself. > Nor did I realize the extent to which translating is about reading between the lines, along with the lines themselves. Such an interesting topic . . . > > Perhaps of interest: > 1. A brief anecdote from David about a current Korean translation/summary project: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGU5zV6zbLI__;!!Mih3wA!TMkvuXJrs9U8uSSSUM4LFFgUYIB9zSwh7YEk_FLqTZSTo4ZyMqg7emzgcJnhk-tQhSatBA$ (re: Vygotsky on emotions) > 2. An old xmca post on translating Vygotsky into Korean: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2011_05.dir/msg00509.html > > I thought these were neat to hear about and maybe enjoyable or others as well. > > Anthony > > > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 3:30 PM Zaza Kabayadondo > wrote: > I'm moving this to a new thread... > > Thank you for your question, David. I didn't realize people were using Google Translate. It's great for some languages - not so much for anything from Southern Africa at least as far as I've observed. > > Yes, I do speak Shona. I like to distinguish between functional Shona and idiomatic Shona. Functional Shona is literal and idiomatic Shona is literary (though spoken). I'm not a Shona linguist so I'm making up terms for the distinction I perceive but there might already be a convention for how Shona linguists describe the difference. Functional Shona is what you will hear people using on the streets. It is a more literal or explicit way of speaking and very similar to European meaning and sensemaking. In functional Shona you might say "I am tired." "She arrived yesterday." It some contexts it is considered rather crass to speak so directly of your feelings, wants, needs. I contrast this to idiomatic Shona which is a version of the language our elders spoke, it reflects pre-colonial Shona culture and thinking because it "beats around the bush". You would rarely directly ask a question, everything was a metaphor, a vague suggestion, never explicitly spelt out. It is more diplomatic, more evasive, and can be problematic when it comes to talking about social or political issues. Tuku sings in this idiomatic style. Tuku's song Bvuma is the best example of his style of which allows for double entendre (He is saying "Tolerance has faded" but he could also mean "Just accept that you're old." > > Todii is about HIV/AIDS. Originally, "utachiwana" meant any virus or germ, the underlying cause of an illness, but over time the only virus people talk about is HIV. (In "Hutachiwana" the "h" is a modifier emphasizes you mean "the virus"). The style is call-and-response which is typical in Shona folk music, both traditional and contemporary. The call and its response should be read as one sentence. > > As for the lyrics in question: > Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the one you live with...If you have a virus > Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma** ...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the man** who married you ...If you have a virus > **The literal meaning is "by the one who paid roora (lobola/bride price)" > Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Translation: When he knows you have the virus...If you have a virus > Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Translation: And you know you have the virus...If you have a virus > In the last two lines the response almost implies "hypothetically, let's say you have a virus." And for me this is really where the song touches on the sensibility of HIV/AIDS as it was experienced in Zimbabwe in the moment of the song. Not knowing who has it, suspecting who has it etc. Tuku was masterful with his play on words and structure. > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 2:56 AM David Kellogg > wrote: > Zaza-- > > Dude, I don't really speak Russian either, as Nikolai and Anna will tell you (we only speak English). In my translation work I spend a lot more time on Google Translate than I would like, and that's why I burden the list with the queries you mention from time to time.. But I bet you speak Shona, or at least understand a little. > > So maybe you can help. I'm using this tune from the late great Tuku (Oliver Mtukudzi) in a class I am giving on sex education in Korea. I've been told that it doesn't really mention AIDS/HIV explicitly, and I get that--in fact, that's one of the reasons why I think it's useful for making certain parallels between pandemics and also discussing HPV and other issues I want to talk about. But I don't quite understand THIS verse--maybe you can help me? > > Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye > (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma > (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana > (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana > (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) > > So "Kana uinahwo utachiwana" means something like "If you get infected". But what is the reference to being raped by your roommate? > > On the subject of this thread. Like voter fraud, racism is a very serious charge, and the right has successfully made hay out of its seriousness. But as with voter fraud they have made even more hay out of rendering the charge unproveable, by removing its class content and rendering it a purely subjective inclination. This is why, I think (I hope), Arturo and others tend to raise this sort of thing in private off-list material that is so much at variance with their public writings that it fairly attracts the charge of hypocrisy or at least political timidity. After all, if you really suspect your interlocutor of racism, it's incumbent on you to keep your mouth and not just your eyes open. But you've got to put money where your mouth is: you have to provide some evidence (e.g. the paper that Harshad circulated on the list not too long ago). There are important scientific issues we need to discuss which are actually not unrelated to the one that Arturo was reacting to: whether you can accurately judge the language proficiency of a person by their race or national origin (as I have done in the second paragraph above). Not unrelated. But not identical to either, else I would not have written that paragraph. > > Here's an example. A dear colleague of mine, who like the vast majority of people in this country is not white and wouldn't know deficit linguistics from a surplus, has just written a paper on why Korean children tend to drop articles (i.e. "a" and "the"). He begins with the Chomskyan premise that all nouns must, according to universal human grammars which are hardwired at birth, be realized by "determiner phrases". What that means is that a noun phrase like "the cat" is not really about a cat--it's about "the", and the "the" is modified by "cat" (What kind of "the-ness" do you mean? The cat kind!) > > But it's THIS, and not Vygotskyan, Hallidayan, or Bernsteinian developmentalism, that is deficit linguistics. I won't say it is racist, because unfortunately that term has lost its scientific content and become nothing but a thought crime. But I will say that people who speak languages without articles or languages that emphasize nouns over determiners (e.g. Korean, Chinese, Russian) are not born with a birth defect (or "null spell out", as the Chomskyans say). > > Does Shona have articles or not? Do you know? > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0JssD8Hzc__;!!Mih3wA!TMkvuXJrs9U8uSSSUM4LFFgUYIB9zSwh7YEk_FLqTZSTo4ZyMqg7emzgcJnhk-tnl5ZPdw$ > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Book with Nikolai Veresov > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov > See free downloadable pdf at: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!TMkvuXJrs9U8uSSSUM4LFFgUYIB9zSwh7YEk_FLqTZSTo4ZyMqg7emzgcJnhk-vwksrnWQ$ > > Forthcoming in 2020: > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:02 PM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > P.S. To my best understanding (very minimal, no doubt), the subject matter of Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory is thedevelopment of human higher psychological functions. (How that is "left," "right," or otherwise is beyond me.) > > Political propensities can be discerned across some (adult) developmental stages. > > Huw > > > > > -- > To schedule up a 30 minute call using Calendly: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://calendly.com/with-zaza__;!!Mih3wA!TMkvuXJrs9U8uSSSUM4LFFgUYIB9zSwh7YEk_FLqTZSTo4ZyMqg7emzgcJnhk-ug5qrMyA$ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201202/082c98a2/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Dec 2 17:14:45 2020 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 18:14:45 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Can you post the chart? References: <9B95FBD9-AAF4-4925-8B7A-FE557D7AB22F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <467EA31E-AA6A-49A8-A91C-A2646F307412@gmail.com> Whoops! Meant to send this out to whole list. Henry > Begin forwarded message: > > From: HENRY SHONERD > Subject: Re: Can you post the chart? > Date: December 2, 2020 at 12:49:50 PM MST > To: mike cole > > Here it is! > > > >> On Dec 2, 2020, at 11:43 AM, mike cole > wrote: >> >> Henry-- Can you post the chart? Not everyone knows or can get access to it. >> If not, maybe ask someone who has it to post? Analissa? >> >> Seems like xmca needs that tool more or less NOW! >> :-) >> mike >> >> -- >> I The Angel's View of History >> >>> The organism, by its life activities, creates what is outside. So organisms create the conditions of their own future >>> which is different from their past" Richard Lewontin >> >> Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!RYgMNNb4TH0mVav_aBMlNW5zuvYC0JLRu8R5WM6eQL5cRgC_Hn603YY5TQPzCE35c6WBtw$ >> Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com >> Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu . >> Narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu . >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201202/a487f7ef/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: John-Steiner Patterns of Collaboration.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23696 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201202/a487f7ef/attachment.jpeg From helen.grimmett@monash.edu Wed Dec 2 18:13:20 2020 From: helen.grimmett@monash.edu (Helen Grimmett) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 13:13:20 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Can you post the chart? In-Reply-To: <467EA31E-AA6A-49A8-A91C-A2646F307412@gmail.com> References: <9B95FBD9-AAF4-4925-8B7A-FE557D7AB22F@gmail.com> <467EA31E-AA6A-49A8-A91C-A2646F307412@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Henry, Would you mind reposting that picture again please? I'm not sure if it is because it is a forwarded message instead of a direct post, but I am not able to zoom in on the pic and read it clearly. Thanks, Helen -- *DR HELEN GRIMMETT* Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education *Monash University* Education Room A3.38, Peninsula campus 47-49 Moorooduc Hwy Frankston, VIC 3199 Australia T:+61 3 9904 7171 E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu monash.edu CRICOS Provider: Monash University 00008C/01857J We acknowledge and pay respects to the Elders and Traditional Owners of the land on which our four Australian campuses stand. On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 12:17, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > Whoops! Meant to send this out to whole list. > Henry > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *HENRY SHONERD > *Subject: **Re: Can you post the chart?* > *Date: *December 2, 2020 at 12:49:50 PM MST > *To: *mike cole > > Here it is! > > > > On Dec 2, 2020, at 11:43 AM, mike cole wrote: > > Henry-- Can you post the chart? Not everyone knows or can get access to > it. > If not, maybe ask someone who has it to post? Analissa? > > Seems like xmca needs that tool more or less NOW! > :-) > mike > > -- > > I[image: Angelus Novus] > The > Angel's View of History > > The organism, by its life activities, creates what is outside. So > organisms create the conditions of their own future > which is different from their past" Richard Lewontin > > > Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!Ru0vtjp8RusApEZtgxmrIwbPhpNdiX-EjFgrV6RLHf3g26yzb85E4vlLDwv-Jwiny2UnIQ$ > > Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com > > Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu. > Narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu. > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201203/443d4ea0/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: John-Steiner Patterns of Collaboration.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23696 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201203/443d4ea0/attachment.jpeg From andyb@marxists.org Wed Dec 2 18:42:18 2020 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 13:42:18 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Can you post the chart? In-Reply-To: References: <9B95FBD9-AAF4-4925-8B7A-FE557D7AB22F@gmail.com> <467EA31E-AA6A-49A8-A91C-A2646F307412@gmail.com> Message-ID: ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Hegel for Social Movements Home Page On 3/12/2020 1:13 pm, Helen Grimmett wrote: > Hi Henry, > Would you mind reposting that picture again please? I'm > not sure if it is because it is a forwarded message > instead of a direct post, but I am not able to zoom in on > the pic and read it clearly. > > Thanks, > Helen > > -- > > *DR HELEN GRIMMETT* > Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education > > *Monash University* > Education > Room A3.38, Peninsula campus > 47-49 Moorooduc Hwy > Frankston, VIC 3199 > Australia > > T:+61 3 9904 7171 > E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu > monash.edu > > > CRICOS Provider: Monash University 00008C/01857J > > We acknowledge and pay respects to the Elders and > Traditional Owners of the land on which our four > Australian campuses stand. > > > > On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 12:17, HENRY SHONERD > > wrote: > > Whoops! Meant to send this out to whole list. > Henry > > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *HENRY SHONERD > > >> *Subject: **Re: Can you post the chart?* >> *Date: *December 2, 2020 at 12:49:50 PM MST >> *To: *mike cole > >> >> Here it is! >> >> >> >>> On Dec 2, 2020, at 11:43 AM, mike cole >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Henry-- Can you post the chart? Not everyone knows >>> or can get access to it. >>> If not, maybe ask someone who has it to post? Analissa? >>> >>> Seems like xmca?needs that tool more or less NOW! >>> :-) >>> mike >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> IAngelus Novus >>> The >>> Angel's View of History >>> >>>> The organism, by its life activities, creates >>>> what is outside. So organisms create the >>>> conditions of their own future >>>> which is different?from their past" Richard Lewontin >>> >>> Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!TgeeObcTnADfFOFDQynbxJaPvLr28nWiPfAPsaYJL-Bk6Ry1v2gNdkYxkva5v_gcH_VLDg$ >>> >>> Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com >>> >>> Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu >>> . >>> Narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu >>> . >>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201203/c0634e4a/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dcbomenepgghmopi.png Type: image/png Size: 252905 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201203/c0634e4a/attachment-0001.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: John-Steiner Patterns of Collaboration.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23696 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201203/c0634e4a/attachment-0001.jpeg From helen.grimmett@monash.edu Wed Dec 2 19:55:48 2020 From: helen.grimmett@monash.edu (Helen Grimmett) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 14:55:48 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Can you post the chart? In-Reply-To: References: <9B95FBD9-AAF4-4925-8B7A-FE557D7AB22F@gmail.com> <467EA31E-AA6A-49A8-A91C-A2646F307412@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Andy! -- *DR HELEN GRIMMETT* Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education *Monash University* Education Room A3.38, Peninsula campus 47-49 Moorooduc Hwy Frankston, VIC 3199 Australia T:+61 3 9904 7171 E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu monash.edu CRICOS Provider: Monash University 00008C/01857J We acknowledge and pay respects to the Elders and Traditional Owners of the land on which our four Australian campuses stand. On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 13:44, Andy Blunden wrote: > ------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > Hegel for Social Movements > > Home Page > > On 3/12/2020 1:13 pm, Helen Grimmett wrote: > > Hi Henry, > Would you mind reposting that picture again please? I'm not sure if it is > because it is a forwarded message instead of a direct post, but I am not > able to zoom in on the pic and read it clearly. > > Thanks, > Helen > > -- > > *DR HELEN GRIMMETT* > Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education > > *Monash University* > Education > Room A3.38, Peninsula campus > 47-49 Moorooduc Hwy > Frankston, VIC 3199 > Australia > > T:+61 3 9904 7171 > E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu > monash.edu > > > CRICOS Provider: Monash University 00008C/01857J > > We acknowledge and pay respects to the Elders and Traditional Owners of > the land on which our four Australian campuses stand. > > > On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 12:17, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> Whoops! Meant to send this out to whole list. >> Henry >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *HENRY SHONERD >> *Subject: **Re: Can you post the chart?* >> *Date: *December 2, 2020 at 12:49:50 PM MST >> *To: *mike cole >> >> Here it is! >> >> >> >> On Dec 2, 2020, at 11:43 AM, mike cole wrote: >> >> Henry-- Can you post the chart? Not everyone knows or can get access to >> it. >> If not, maybe ask someone who has it to post? Analissa? >> >> Seems like xmca needs that tool more or less NOW! >> :-) >> mike >> >> -- >> >> I[image: Angelus Novus] >> The >> Angel's View of History >> >> The organism, by its life activities, creates what is outside. So >> organisms create the conditions of their own future >> which is different from their past" Richard Lewontin >> >> >> Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!QufsClvjxJNfT0hA5Um4BOV8BxuKTsG17PasezUgXW9o5Zg77bHv9jb6qWRS-etZdKePng$ >> >> Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com >> >> Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu. >> Narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu. >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201203/a2dc6f06/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dcbomenepgghmopi.png Type: image/png Size: 252905 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201203/a2dc6f06/attachment.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: John-Steiner Patterns of Collaboration.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23696 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201203/a2dc6f06/attachment.jpeg From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Dec 3 08:44:00 2020 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 08:44:00 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Can you post the chart? In-Reply-To: <467EA31E-AA6A-49A8-A91C-A2646F307412@gmail.com> References: <9B95FBD9-AAF4-4925-8B7A-FE557D7AB22F@gmail.com> <467EA31E-AA6A-49A8-A91C-A2646F307412@gmail.com> Message-ID: :-) Andy beat you to it. mike On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:17 PM HENRY SHONERD wrote: > Whoops! Meant to send this out to whole list. > Henry > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *HENRY SHONERD > *Subject: **Re: Can you post the chart?* > *Date: *December 2, 2020 at 12:49:50 PM MST > *To: *mike cole > > Here it is! > > > > On Dec 2, 2020, at 11:43 AM, mike cole wrote: > > Henry-- Can you post the chart? Not everyone knows or can get access to > it. > If not, maybe ask someone who has it to post? Analissa? > > Seems like xmca needs that tool more or less NOW! > :-) > mike > > -- > > I[image: Angelus Novus] > The > Angel's View of History > > The organism, by its life activities, creates what is outside. So > organisms create the conditions of their own future > which is different from their past" Richard Lewontin > > > Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!XX3qS38kG0SqLFTCy1YF-7scDBjNJ-9bdJFuYDBz5ibR1JNDo1nBjwqfq9Knl_vwLnx6iA$ > > Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com > > Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu. > Narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu. > > > > > > -- I[image: Angelus Novus] The Angel's View of History The organism, by its life activities, creates what is outside. So organisms create the conditions of their own future which is different from their past" Richard Lewontin Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!XX3qS38kG0SqLFTCy1YF-7scDBjNJ-9bdJFuYDBz5ibR1JNDo1nBjwqfq9Knl_vwLnx6iA$ Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu. Narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201203/6a780926/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: John-Steiner Patterns of Collaboration.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23696 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201203/6a780926/attachment.jpeg From hshonerd@gmail.com Thu Dec 3 09:47:19 2020 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:47:19 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Can you post the chart? In-Reply-To: References: <9B95FBD9-AAF4-4925-8B7A-FE557D7AB22F@gmail.com> <467EA31E-AA6A-49A8-A91C-A2646F307412@gmail.com> Message-ID: <73B3DF07-385C-4493-A8AF-FB2288CE7BA7@gmail.com> Thanks, Andy. I tried! For me, an aha! moment was the idea of project as a/the unit of analysis of human activity, necessarily collaborative and mediated. The chart from Vera?s Creative Collaboration are the myriad ways this collaboration can be organized. What makes the project creative is its ethical and liberating nature. IMHO. Henry > On Dec 2, 2020, at 7:42 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > Andy Blunden > Hegel for Social Movements > Home Page > On 3/12/2020 1:13 pm, Helen Grimmett wrote: >> Hi Henry, >> Would you mind reposting that picture again please? I'm not sure if it is because it is a forwarded message instead of a direct post, but I am not able to zoom in on the pic and read it clearly. >> >> Thanks, >> Helen >> -- >> DR HELEN GRIMMETT >> Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education >> Monash University >> Education >> Room A3.38, Peninsula campus >> 47-49 Moorooduc Hwy >> Frankston, VIC 3199 >> Australia >> T:+61 3 9904 7171 >> E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu >> monash.edu >> CRICOS Provider: Monash University 00008C/01857J >> We acknowledge and pay respects to the Elders and Traditional Owners of the land on which our four Australian campuses stand. >> >> >> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 12:17, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: >> Whoops! Meant to send this out to whole list. >> Henry >> >> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: HENRY SHONERD > >>> Subject: Re: Can you post the chart? >>> Date: December 2, 2020 at 12:49:50 PM MST >>> To: mike cole > >>> >>> Here it is! >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 2, 2020, at 11:43 AM, mike cole > wrote: >>>> >>>> Henry-- Can you post the chart? Not everyone knows or can get access to it. >>>> If not, maybe ask someone who has it to post? Analissa? >>>> >>>> Seems like xmca needs that tool more or less NOW! >>>> :-) >>>> mike >>>> >>>> -- >>>> I The Angel's View of History >>>> >>>>> The organism, by its life activities, creates what is outside. So organisms create the conditions of their own future >>>>> which is different from their past" Richard Lewontin >>>> >>>> Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!UpRJqojQYg-sNpsiu7wog8KouL1ZEIsu8hYgUhiOeoZUYzJcXVR4jb588staHn3K_pL0Kg$ >>>> Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com >>>> Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu . >>>> Narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201203/a6b65ed9/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Thu Dec 3 10:25:43 2020 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:25:43 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Can you post the chart? In-Reply-To: References: <9B95FBD9-AAF4-4925-8B7A-FE557D7AB22F@gmail.com> <467EA31E-AA6A-49A8-A91C-A2646F307412@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ha! > On Dec 3, 2020, at 9:44 AM, mike cole wrote: > > :-) > Andy beat you to it. > mike > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:17 PM HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > Whoops! Meant to send this out to whole list. > Henry > > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: HENRY SHONERD > >> Subject: Re: Can you post the chart? >> Date: December 2, 2020 at 12:49:50 PM MST >> To: mike cole > >> >> Here it is! >> >> >> >>> On Dec 2, 2020, at 11:43 AM, mike cole > wrote: >>> >>> Henry-- Can you post the chart? Not everyone knows or can get access to it. >>> If not, maybe ask someone who has it to post? Analissa? >>> >>> Seems like xmca needs that tool more or less NOW! >>> :-) >>> mike >>> >>> -- >>> I The Angel's View of History >>> >>>> The organism, by its life activities, creates what is outside. So organisms create the conditions of their own future >>>> which is different from their past" Richard Lewontin >>> >>> Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!XxnmPrw05r8I62OwPmdCmrs3mGdvfzQq31g_FZrv89myKR2LGo_2913aQf-UxLwN_HfLew$ >>> Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com >>> Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu . >>> Narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu . >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > I The Angel's View of History > >> The organism, by its life activities, creates what is outside. So organisms create the conditions of their own future >> which is different from their past" Richard Lewontin > > Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!XxnmPrw05r8I62OwPmdCmrs3mGdvfzQq31g_FZrv89myKR2LGo_2913aQf-UxLwN_HfLew$ > Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com > Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu . > Narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu . > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201203/a9796c84/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Fri Dec 4 00:35:15 2020 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:35:15 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] A ZPD of trauma? Message-ID: Hello XMCArs and venerable others, Someone dear to me told me about this quote today, which seems relevant to recent parlays here on the list so I thought I would share: "Trauma in a person, decontextualized over time, looks like personality. Trauma in a family, decontextualized over time, looks like family traits. Trauma in a people, decontextualized over time, looks like culture." -Resmaa Menakem Maybe these pearls can wedge some of that space we are seeking in terms of understanding... Let's try as Anna suggests, and not go back to business as usual and attempt to see this as an opportunity. An opportunity for what though? What is desired here and now? Who would like to fill the gap with some intrepid imagination? Might we discuss further upon of Zaza's design questions, which I repost here (from her post 11/27/20 "Why generations")? 1. "What is the context for this post? I think I get it but are we talking about the same thing?" The design question we can ask ourselves: What can we do to provide better context, in a way that invites more members to add to an original post? 2. "I'm only marginally familiar with this topic, I'm curious but I won't ask questions but I don't have the energy to be "schooled" on this today." The design questions we can ask ourselves: How can we be argumentative, informative, without being toxic? What is the best way to engage novices and experts in this topic? 3. "Who else is out there, reading this? I don't know who I'm talking to except the 5 or so active members" The design question we can ask ourselves: What can we do as a community to learn more about each other, our work, and our domains of focus or ways of applying CHAT. 4. "If I post this will it turn into a long and laborious (unpleasant) email exchange? Am I ready for a fight in this space?" The design question we can ask ourselves: How do we bring critique without criticism? How do we sustain conversation without putting the burden on only the original poster? 5. "Dude, I don't read or speak Russian so I have nothing to say about the translation from the original." The design question we can ask ourselves: How do we get around the challenges of casual and virtual engagement; and the challenge of not knowing who this community is or if what I (each of us) can contribute will be valuable to the community. I find these questions very illuminating because they don't get bogged down in the snarl of it all and seem transcendent without being dismissive to the matter at hand. Would anyone like to start with #1: What can we do to provide better context, in a way that invites more members to add to an original post? What is our struggle here? Anyone? How might we connect this question to concerns recently shared? Come on in the water's fine. Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201204/e468aec1/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Tue Dec 8 09:11:52 2020 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 17:11:52 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Intriguing article about visual perception in video gamers Message-ID: Hi Xmcars! Thought this might be interesting to share with you: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.theguardian.com/games/2020/dec/02/scientists-studying-why-gamers-invert-their-controls__;!!Mih3wA!VkfmpYMgTjTIq5fngA-iRkWm4xrZNVlVpKb0j4ml3wwfTaiIMwaVoM9GiuCQ1mLSUUsVzA$ I was amused that the experiment manifested out of Twitter arguments, which makes this a kind of crowdsourced science! Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201208/b32cf8ff/attachment.html From anthonymbarra@gmail.com Tue Dec 8 20:19:14 2020 From: anthonymbarra@gmail.com (Anthony Barra) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 23:19:14 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. Message-ID: Good evening ~ some people have enjoyed these, so here are a few more: "Development of Epistemological Forms," a recent interview with Huw Lloyd - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/dbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!TSZeCGjNy0b8YGDmeRZYQpGQgw4h_JLjj1zua46-yYhLrRCgM6eDaA0rPrBwtYZTC0Nx6g$ I also enjoyed chatting with Nikolai Veresov last week: "A chat about CHAT (and CHT)" - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/ebc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!TSZeCGjNy0b8YGDmeRZYQpGQgw4h_JLjj1zua46-yYhLrRCgM6eDaA0rPrBwtYbyVFenGw$ Hopefully, one or both will bring some December enjoyment. Anthony Barra P.S. If curious, a two-minute snippet of each is here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/cbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!TSZeCGjNy0b8YGDmeRZYQpGQgw4h_JLjj1zua46-yYhLrRCgM6eDaA0rPrBwtYZb5niJjA$ and here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/4bc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!TSZeCGjNy0b8YGDmeRZYQpGQgw4h_JLjj1zua46-yYhLrRCgM6eDaA0rPrBwtYbS7ZgO5g$ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201208/7ba088ee/attachment.html From john.crippsclark@deakin.edu.au Wed Dec 9 02:17:01 2020 From: john.crippsclark@deakin.edu.au (John Cripps Clark) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 10:17:01 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Juukan Gorge Message-ID: <22FAA54E-32D6-4F3F-BE47-3484B40D8A3F@deakin.edu.au> I know that some members of the list were interested in the destruction of Juukan Gorge when it occurred. The Parliamentary inquiry has just released an interim report Below is the press release John Cripps Clark ?Never again can we allow the destruction, the devastation and the vandalism of cultural sites as has occurred with the Juukan Gorge?never again!? The report highlights the disparity in power between Indigenous peoples and industry in the protection of Indigenous heritage, and the serious failings of legislation designed to protect Indigenous heritage and promote Native Title. ?The PKKP faced a perfect storm, with no support or protection from anywhere,? ?They were let down by Rio Tinto, the Western Australian Government, the Australian Government, their own lawyers, and Native Title law.? ?In making these recommendations today, the Committee and I want to break that cycle. The neglect of the PKKP people stops here.? The report makes seven recommendations focusing on improving relations between industry and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and improving the legislative framework protecting Indigenous heritage. Among other things, it urges Rio Tinto to commit to: * A moratorium on mining in the Juukan Gorge area * Rehabilitation of the Juukan Gorge site * A review of all agreements with Traditional Owners * A stay of all actions under s.18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 * A voluntary moratorium on s.18 applications * A return of all artefacts to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura peoples Other sections of the mining industry are urged to make similar commitments, while the Western Australian Government is urged to pursue urgent reform of current State laws. The Committee also recommends on urgent review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Heritage Protection Act 1984, and changes to its application and administration in the meantime. Important Notice: The contents of this email are intended solely for the named addressee and are confidential; any unauthorised use, reproduction or storage of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and any attachments immediately and advise the sender by return email or telephone. Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments are error or virus free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201209/33339410/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Dec 9 11:04:41 2020 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 12:04:41 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Anthony, The excerpts were excellent! I simply wasn?t up to listening to the entire conversations of Huw and Nikolai. Even before I saw the excerpts I was thinking about the CHT vs. CHAT issue you discussed with Nikolai and the issue of Active Orientation that Huw talked about. I wonder if Huw would agree with me that Active Orientation is about the imagination. It is thinking that makes thought real, epistemic. As in an active imagination. Fevered even. What?s missing in CHT is the purpose of development: Activity. CHAT complements Vygotsky?s work by making Activity is the unit of analysis. Imagination is Activity in a way that simple thinking is not. ZPD, as a Vygotsky-inspired concept, rather than what he may actually have written?and there is great controversy on this?has within it Activity as Problem Solving. I think this is what Dewey was talking about. I want also to say that Helen Worthen?s conversation with Anthony was really Rising to the Concrete. Huw and Nikolai were insightful but Helen got the Narrative right on what its like to work. Huw and Nikolai worked so hard at True Concepts, in the Vygotskian sense, but the Perizhvanie of Helen on what it?s like to work was spot on. IMHO Henry > On Dec 8, 2020, at 9:19 PM, Anthony Barra wrote: > > Good evening ~ some people have enjoyed these, so here are a few more: > > "Development of Epistemological Forms," a recent interview with Huw Lloyd - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/dbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!R-K_Vi8Va2Zr79XYTD5GlNjDKEDAB0E3CfuijLszPHR7LVsDjTlc14W9u4D1TAHAwmStsw$ > > I also enjoyed chatting with Nikolai Veresov last week: "A chat about CHAT (and CHT)" - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/ebc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!R-K_Vi8Va2Zr79XYTD5GlNjDKEDAB0E3CfuijLszPHR7LVsDjTlc14W9u4D1TAGKMKJwIw$ > > Hopefully, one or both will bring some December enjoyment. > > Anthony Barra > > P.S. If curious, a two-minute snippet of each is here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/cbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!R-K_Vi8Va2Zr79XYTD5GlNjDKEDAB0E3CfuijLszPHR7LVsDjTlc14W9u4D1TAG_-Y-ETw$ and here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/4bc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!R-K_Vi8Va2Zr79XYTD5GlNjDKEDAB0E3CfuijLszPHR7LVsDjTlc14W9u4D1TAEVvzI3-g$ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201209/b044b75a/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Wed Dec 9 14:27:27 2020 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 22:27:27 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Henry and venerable others, I might add that Imagination is something like a self-imposed zone of proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to act upon that which is imagined. Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the *only* unit for analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that hard-wired about activity as the unit for analysis? That it depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit for analysis? For example, how does one use activity as the unit for analysis if one is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their notes? their lyrics? How might that work? Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of HENRY SHONERD Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 12:04 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. [EXTERNAL] Anthony, The excerpts were excellent! I simply wasn?t up to listening to the entire conversations of Huw and Nikolai. Even before I saw the excerpts I was thinking about the CHT vs. CHAT issue you discussed with Nikolai and the issue of Active Orientation that Huw talked about. I wonder if Huw would agree with me that Active Orientation is about the imagination. It is thinking that makes thought real, epistemic. As in an active imagination. Fevered even. What?s missing in CHT is the purpose of development: Activity. CHAT complements Vygotsky?s work by making Activity is the unit of analysis. Imagination is Activity in a way that simple thinking is not. ZPD, as a Vygotsky-inspired concept, rather than what he may actually have written?and there is great controversy on this?has within it Activity as Problem Solving. I think this is what Dewey was talking about. I want also to say that Helen Worthen?s conversation with Anthony was really Rising to the Concrete. Huw and Nikolai were insightful but Helen got the Narrative right on what its like to work. Huw and Nikolai worked so hard at True Concepts, in the Vygotskian sense, but the Perizhvanie of Helen on what it?s like to work was spot on. IMHO Henry On Dec 8, 2020, at 9:19 PM, Anthony Barra > wrote: Good evening ~ some people have enjoyed these, so here are a few more: "Development of Epistemological Forms," a recent interview with Huw Lloyd - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/dbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!XtzDZZyyk_TNQ9jO-HgDwJ5q0s1xMgRQNES588GBAdFoZmoT5gVWADk1DMNX2is96jbPfw$ I also enjoyed chatting with Nikolai Veresov last week: "A chat about CHAT (and CHT)" - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/ebc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!XtzDZZyyk_TNQ9jO-HgDwJ5q0s1xMgRQNES588GBAdFoZmoT5gVWADk1DMNX2islYz7i4g$ Hopefully, one or both will bring some December enjoyment. Anthony Barra P.S. If curious, a two-minute snippet of each is here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/cbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!XtzDZZyyk_TNQ9jO-HgDwJ5q0s1xMgRQNES588GBAdFoZmoT5gVWADk1DMNX2ivLqqjKBQ$ and here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/4bc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!XtzDZZyyk_TNQ9jO-HgDwJ5q0s1xMgRQNES588GBAdFoZmoT5gVWADk1DMNX2ivlDYLCkA$ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201209/2a0f6235/attachment.html From lsmolucha@hotmail.com Wed Dec 9 17:49:28 2020 From: lsmolucha@hotmail.com (Larry Smolucha) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 01:49:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: CHT vs. CHAT In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: >From Francine: If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and Nikolai as Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation Thought and Language, p. 88 and p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in Volume 3 of The Collected Works , 1997). The word is a unit that is a synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph he chose to finalize his legacy in 1934. If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's own words). Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the 'word' as unit of analysis? ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. Henry and venerable others, I might add that Imagination is something like a self-imposed zone of proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to act upon that which is imagined. Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the *only* unit for analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that hard-wired about activity as the unit for analysis? That it depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit for analysis? For example, how does one use activity as the unit for analysis if one is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their notes? their lyrics? How might that work? Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of HENRY SHONERD Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 12:04 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. [EXTERNAL] Anthony, The excerpts were excellent! I simply wasn?t up to listening to the entire conversations of Huw and Nikolai. Even before I saw the excerpts I was thinking about the CHT vs. CHAT issue you discussed with Nikolai and the issue of Active Orientation that Huw talked about. I wonder if Huw would agree with me that Active Orientation is about the imagination. It is thinking that makes thought real, epistemic. As in an active imagination. Fevered even. What?s missing in CHT is the purpose of development: Activity. CHAT complements Vygotsky?s work by making Activity is the unit of analysis. Imagination is Activity in a way that simple thinking is not. ZPD, as a Vygotsky-inspired concept, rather than what he may actually have written?and there is great controversy on this?has within it Activity as Problem Solving. I think this is what Dewey was talking about. I want also to say that Helen Worthen?s conversation with Anthony was really Rising to the Concrete. Huw and Nikolai were insightful but Helen got the Narrative right on what its like to work. Huw and Nikolai worked so hard at True Concepts, in the Vygotskian sense, but the Perizhvanie of Helen on what it?s like to work was spot on. IMHO Henry On Dec 8, 2020, at 9:19 PM, Anthony Barra > wrote: Good evening ~ some people have enjoyed these, so here are a few more: "Development of Epistemological Forms," a recent interview with Huw Lloyd - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/dbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!Vz2EYqCU6XEHLIs2Q4_VY8pRB-wSMYuIknFwRDgJxQ1eEw2e1jKLzmnFsJbU0qeNEcHc7g$ I also enjoyed chatting with Nikolai Veresov last week: "A chat about CHAT (and CHT)" - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/ebc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!Vz2EYqCU6XEHLIs2Q4_VY8pRB-wSMYuIknFwRDgJxQ1eEw2e1jKLzmnFsJbU0qcnYZqcbg$ Hopefully, one or both will bring some December enjoyment. Anthony Barra P.S. If curious, a two-minute snippet of each is here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/cbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!Vz2EYqCU6XEHLIs2Q4_VY8pRB-wSMYuIknFwRDgJxQ1eEw2e1jKLzmnFsJbU0qfv4fMq7Q$ and here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/4bc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!Vz2EYqCU6XEHLIs2Q4_VY8pRB-wSMYuIknFwRDgJxQ1eEw2e1jKLzmnFsJbU0qc51JvCnQ$ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201210/6c9823ba/attachment.html From bronwynparkin18@gmail.com Wed Dec 9 20:15:51 2020 From: bronwynparkin18@gmail.com (Bronwyn Parkin) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 14:45:51 +1030 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Humans, culture and creativity Message-ID: <011001d6ceab$27984b70$76c8e250$@gmail.com> Thank you Annalisa for this list. I am looking forward to holiday reading. Yes, if humans were not creative, our cultures would not have developed over time. However, what it means to be creative is culturally contained. The experience that started my thinking is this: I was working with a teacher on teaching English literacy in a remote Indigenous school in the top end of Australia, only accessible by plane or boat for half the year. All students (12-14 years old) spoke English as an additional language; for many of them it was their third or fourth language. We were using as a model text 'the Five Chinese Brothers', a retelling of a Chinese folk-tale by Claire Huchet Bishop (1938). These brothers were identical, but each of them had a different magic power, so, when they were sentenced to death for a crime by hanging, drowning, etc, they escaped one by one and lived happily ever after. The boys in this class had learned to read the story, and enjoyed it very much. The teacher and I then planned to use it as a model for a jointly-constructed written class text. When the teacher, building on their enthusiasm for the story, suggested that the class could write about five brothers in their own remote community, there was silence. No response at all. Then one brave student volunteered: 'We can't. We don't know these brothers'. The teacher and I had made one giant, mistaken assumption: that the students would know that this was an imaginary story; that brothers with magic powers didn't exist. It was clear that, just because other cultures make up impossible stories, using the imagination, for entertainment, doesn't mean that it was part of Indigenous cultural practice for this group of boys. The class had spent five weeks studying this story, believing it was real. So did the Indigenous assistant teacher. So what does it mean to be 'creative' and 'imaginative' in this Indigenous culture? I have observed, in remote communities, a car just making it into town with the ball joint tied to the axle with a horse's bridle; with the leaking radiator plugged with mulga sticks; I know that a punctured tyre can be mended if you heat up a patch of tyre rubber on a spade over a hot fire and quickly stick it over the hole. I would count these as creative acts. Under what circumstances do we as educators decide that a cultural practice such as making up imaginary stories is important? Why is the lack of ability to imagine in this way regarded as a personal 'lack', and if it is important, what is the role of the teacher in the ZPD to teach 'imagination'? From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Wednesday, 2 December 2020 5:52 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian Hello Bronwyn, I had to stop in my tracks to write to suggest you might include on to your reading list works by my beloved mentor Vera John-Steiner, a late member of XMCA, and a co-editor of Mind in Society back in the days of few Vygotsky texts in the US. Pertaining to your interests you might enjoy: Vygotsky and Creativity: A Cultural-historical Approach to Play, Meaning Making, and the Arts, Second Edition (Educational Psychology) 2nd Edition (2018) There was a very interesting paper Vera wrote with Panofsky (?) about Navajo and Hopi children. Perhaps Henry Shonerd can help me out with the title and date? My favorite book of hers is Notebooks of the Mind, and also Creative Collaboration. It isn't directly in line with education, but they do concern creativity studies that if I am intuiting correctly, reach to the heart of what you seek. You might also look for work by Holbrook Mahn, a student of Vera's, whose area of study includes ESL. He is still at UNM I believe. Beneath your words I sense that you do not accept there is no creativity present among your demography of concern, and I truly believe you will have your doubts confirmed were you to read these works. If one is a human, one is creative. Perhaps one must be a Vygotskian to recognize this reality; Vera was a stellar Vygotskian scholar. Enjoy! Kind regards, Annalisa _____ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bronwyn Parkin > Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:46 PM To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian [EXTERNAL] Dear all, I'm a long-time observer in this chat group. Vygotsky's theories are so big that my area of interest, education, seems like the toe of the elephant. Often I have no idea what the rest of you are talking about! Nevertheless, your discussion stretches the mind. I have been interested in the idea of creativity and childhood for some time, motivated by working with educationally marginalised students for many years, including remote Indigenous Australians. When talking with teachers about student writing, I've often heard often the statement 'Oh, they lack imagination', or 'they struggle with creativity'. I think what this means is that the cultural purpose of narrative for many English as a Second Language students is different from that of the western world. Teachers are mostly not conscious of this, and don't know what they have to make explicit. Instead of being a cultural difference, teachers perceive this 'lack' as a personal failing on the part of the student. My reading in this area is scant, and I am gleaning from recent conversations that there is plenty I've missed. Here is a snapshot from my Endnote library. I would really appreciate it if you could expand my reading list. Many thanks, Bronwyn Parkin From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of David Kellogg Sent: Tuesday, 1 December 2020 12:11 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian And Francine was kind enough to write a beautiful little cover blurb for the Korean edition of creativity and imagination in childhood back in 2014 (at the time our Russian was still so rudimentary that we checked every paragraph of our translation against hers). We also included the two other essays which she mentions (which I think are necessary, because "Creativity and Imagination in Childhood" is really a booklet Vygotsky himself wrote to present ideas--including those of other academics--to non-academics in a popular form). A propos. The eighth seminaire internationale sur Vygotski will be held in Lausanne, Switzerland, from the 7-9, and the theme is...Vygotsky's "Creativity and Imagination in Childhood", now appearing in French! The Call for Papers is hereby attached (in French). Note that there are some anglophones on the scientific committee (including me) and that you can submit and present in English. By June we may actually be able to travel again. dk David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Book with Nikolai Veresov L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov See free downloadable pdf at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!R-fcHm_VkVuvDo3TT55WSATg4CUxbqMT7pypDw0EQH-0SkD-S5bfjwv9eaSqScmZ94mS9g$ Forthcoming in 2020: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 9:20 AM Larry Smolucha > wrote: >>From Francine: Just for the record, I have never used Google translate or any internet service when doing my translations - only the Oxford Russian-English dictionary. Like David, my reading skills in Russian are my strong point, rather than speaking or auditory comprehension. I have never had a mentor fluent in Russian oversee my translations of Vygotsky's writings. Early on, I discovered that the bi-lingual English experts in Russian were not focusing on the texts, but rather coming to the texts with interpretive frameworks. Discovered this in 1984, when I undertook my first translation of a Vygotsky text Thinking and Speech. My intention was to compare (correct) my translation with the only published English translation available Thought and Language (1962) by Hanfmann and Vakar, MIT Press. Well, as soon as I held the Russian version of Thinking and Speech in my hand, I realized the title had been mistranslated and the Russian version of the book was twice as thick as the 1962 English translation. When I started translating the chapters, I discovered that roughly half of the paragraphs were omitted in a random fashion within the text. Many XMCA members first read Thinking and Speech in the full translations that came out later in 1986 (Wertsch) and 1987 (Minick). But I am of a different generation and had to discover the hard way the inadequacies of the 1962 translation. Add to this that in 1984, I undertook the translation of Thinking and Speech to prepare for my third attempt at passing the Graduate Level Reading Exam in Russian at the University of Chicago (the Hanfmann/Vakar translation would not have gotten a passing grade). Well my thoughts were "screw this" - I am correcting the official MIT publication while trying to pass my grad reading exam. Might as well translate something that I am really interested in even if it has never been translated. In 1983, my husband and I had presented our theory and research on the development of creativity as a maturation of symbolic play at a conference of the British Psychological Society in Wales. Wonder if Vygotsky wrote anything about creativity? What do you know, in a 1956 Russian publication there was a paper by Vygotsky on the development of creative imagination. Translated it, passed the reading exam with honors, and sent my translation to Jim Wertsch at Northwestern University. Got a phone call from Jim Wertsch - told me that Plenum needed translators for the Collected Works and that I could go to study in Russia to study Vygotsky's writings. I replied that what I was really interested in is 'creativity' and I want to see if Vygotsky wrote anything else on that topic. Wertsch said "No, this is the only paper, Vygotsky had no interest in creativity." I declined the offer to translate for Plenum and to study in Russia. And all by myself, discovered that Vygotsky had written two other papers on the development of creative imagination, translated those papers and got them in press. I tell you this story because reading the text for yourself is a bold thing to do. _____ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of David Kellogg > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:13 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian Many thanks to Zaza, whose translation of Tuku's song I'll be taking into my class on Ethics, Emotions, and Education tonight. I think you can see from her translation where you can go wrong with Google Translate, which is, after all, just a way of linking up bits of texts that have been previously translated by humans. Using the Google Translate function for Shona, I thought the song referred to "raped by your roomate". Zaza says it means a husband, which is expressed as the payer of bride price. At first I thought this was an accident of history, similar to the fact that our word "husband" means someone who looks after pigs, but of course if you listen to Tuku's song Haasati Aziva you can see that if it is an accident of history it's a very recent one that still casts a shadow. As Mary said--this is the stuff of a pandemic: systemic, institutionalized, and as a result blithe, indifferent and unaccountable power. As with AIDS, so too with Covid 19. Anthony--I said I don't speak Russian. I started studying in 2005 (after a short exchange with Mike) and took four years of formal classes in the language, six to eight hours a week. I have been spending at least eight hours a week reading Russian ever since. So when I look at a paragraph of Vygotsky in Russian I don't usually see any words that I don't recognize. When I do, I do what any Russian would do and look them up. Google Translate works as a bilingual dictionary only the entries are larger than the word and smaller than the clause. But human translators function more like thesauruses, where the entries are not wordings but meanings. For that reason I tend to use "Reverso", which gives whole paragraphs from the data base so you can see the context. . When I meet Nikolai or Anna, I find it impossible to use more than a few well-known phrases in Russian (mostly agreeable things like "Of course" and "You're right!", which is quite unlike my normal way of thinking...). So I think I do not speak Russian, although I have some reading knowledge of it. Operationally what that means is that when I publish a translation, I need a native speaker looking over my shoulder. Since I'm mostly translating into Korean, I actually need two, and I am fortunate that I was born with two shoulders, and even more fortunate that I have Dr. Kim Yongho, who is better than I am in both languages. (But Yongho learned his Russian from Rosetta Stone!) I have no objection to disentangling threads, but I don't really agree with Antti (who, unless I am quite mistaken, also speaks a language that utterly lacks articles) that this all belongs on a separate thread. To me, anyway, the relevant points are three. a) Racism isn't an interpersonal matter, and still less is it an intra-personal one: it's social, cultural, historical, material. That's why we say it is systemic. And if it's systemic, it is part of the way we look at other languages. Since Lewontin demonstrated the non-viability of race as a unit of analysis for human communities, language has become a stand in for race, and views about language are a stand-in for views about race. That was, after all, where Arturo was looking. b) One way that views about language have become a stand-in for views about race is that languages which lack articles are seen as deviant from some universal grammar and hence defective in some way. My colleague's "article-drop" parameter is actually part of a pattern of thinking that has been part of mainstream linguistics since the late fifties and early sixties, and is exemplified in the "Principles and Parameters" model of Universal Grammar. Chomsky argued that languages like Italian which do not require grammatical subjects as English does must have a setting that permits the omission of this universally obligatory element. This is nonsense. Italian does not drop pronouns; there's really no "pro" there to drop. We do not, after all, go around saying that English is a Korean-honorific-drop-language. Those who assume that languages are genetically hard-wired (the LAD or the magical gene that according to Chomsky created the capacity for human thought or the supposed correlation between mutations in mitochondrial DNA and languages that was alleged by Cavalli-Sforza) are making assumptions that are really not that different from assumptions previously made about the cranial capacity of lesser breeds without the law. c) Vygotsky was as much a man of his time as we are of our own. Some writers (c.f. Aaro Toomela on the Cultural Praxis site recently) have argued that Vygotsky believed in "primitive languages", e.g. the Bantu languages, to which Shona belongs. As Zaza makes abundantly clear, Shona is not primitive by any conceivable standard, and I have seen no convincing evidence that Vygotsky ever made this assumption (he did quote missionaries who clearly did make the assumption, but he is quite scathing about them on precisely this point). Certainly the idea that some languages have only the "indicative" or the "nominating" function but not the "signifying" function is not a Vygotskyan one: a language that cannot signify is not a human language, and any language that can signify can signify a concept. Languages can vary according to the meanings that they actually do express, just as registers within a language do. But human meaning potential is, if not infinite (we will not be around forever), at least undetermined and probably indeterminate. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Book with Nikolai Veresov L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov See free downloadable pdf at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!R-fcHm_VkVuvDo3TT55WSATg4CUxbqMT7pypDw0EQH-0SkD-S5bfjwv9eaSqScmZ94mS9g$ Forthcoming in 2020: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 5:08 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: I translated Piaget's book on dialectics with the aid of google. There was much work both pre- and post-googletranslate though. Part of this I put down to understanding the domain, just as one can question translations if one knows what they are about. Huw On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 18:53, Anthony Barra > wrote: Zaza, I had no idea that one could translate books without really speaking the original language, as David claims about himself. Nor did I realize the extent to which translating is about reading between the lines, along with the lines themselves. Such an interesting topic . . . Perhaps of interest: 1. A brief anecdote from David about a current Korean translation/summary project: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGU5zV6zbLI__;!!Mih3wA!R-fcHm_VkVuvDo3TT55WSATg4CUxbqMT7pypDw0EQH-0SkD-S5bfjwv9eaSqScnDYrRCRg$ (re: Vygotsky on emotions) 2. An old xmca post on translating Vygotsky into Korean: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2011_05.dir/msg00509.html I thought these were neat to hear about and maybe enjoyable or others as well. Anthony On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 3:30 PM Zaza Kabayadondo > wrote: I'm moving this to a new thread... Thank you for your question, David. I didn't realize people were using Google Translate. It's great for some languages - not so much for anything from Southern Africa at least as far as I've observed. Yes, I do speak Shona. I like to distinguish between functional Shona and idiomatic Shona. Functional Shona is literal and idiomatic Shona is literary (though spoken). I'm not a Shona linguist so I'm making up terms for the distinction I perceive but there might already be a convention for how Shona linguists describe the difference. Functional Shona is what you will hear people using on the streets. It is a more literal or explicit way of speaking and very similar to European meaning and sensemaking. In functional Shona you might say "I am tired." "She arrived yesterday." It some contexts it is considered rather crass to speak so directly of your feelings, wants, needs. I contrast this to idiomatic Shona which is a version of the language our elders spoke, it reflects pre-colonial Shona culture and thinking because it "beats around the bush". You would rarely directly ask a question, everything was a metaphor, a vague suggestion, never explicitly spelt out. It is more diplomatic, more evasive, and can be problematic when it comes to talking about social or political issues. Tuku sings in this idiomatic style. Tuku's song Bvuma is the best example of his style of which allows for double entendre (He is saying "Tolerance has faded" but he could also mean "Just accept that you're old." Todii is about HIV/AIDS. Originally, "utachiwana" meant any virus or germ, the underlying cause of an illness, but over time the only virus people talk about is HIV. (In "Hutachiwana" the "h" is a modifier emphasizes you mean "the virus"). The style is call-and-response which is typical in Shona folk music, both traditional and contemporary. The call and its response should be read as one sentence. As for the lyrics in question: Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the one you live with...If you have a virus Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma** ...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the man** who married you ...If you have a virus **The literal meaning is "by the one who paid roora (lobola/bride price)" Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: When he knows you have the virus...If you have a virus Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: And you know you have the virus...If you have a virus In the last two lines the response almost implies "hypothetically, let's say you have a virus." And for me this is really where the song touches on the sensibility of HIV/AIDS as it was experienced in Zimbabwe in the moment of the song. Not knowing who has it, suspecting who has it etc. Tuku was masterful with his play on words and structure. On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 2:56 AM David Kellogg > wrote: Zaza-- Dude, I don't really speak Russian either, as Nikolai and Anna will tell you (we only speak English). In my translation work I spend a lot more time on Google Translate than I would like, and that's why I burden the list with the queries you mention from time to time.. But I bet you speak Shona, or at least understand a little. So maybe you can help. I'm using this tune from the late great Tuku (Oliver Mtukudzi) in a class I am giving on sex education in Korea. I've been told that it doesn't really mention AIDS/HIV explicitly, and I get that--in fact, that's one of the reasons why I think it's useful for making certain parallels between pandemics and also discussing HPV and other issues I want to talk about. But I don't quite understand THIS verse--maybe you can help me? Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) So "Kana uinahwo utachiwana" means something like "If you get infected". But what is the reference to being raped by your roommate? On the subject of this thread. Like voter fraud, racism is a very serious charge, and the right has successfully made hay out of its seriousness. But as with voter fraud they have made even more hay out of rendering the charge unproveable, by removing its class content and rendering it a purely subjective inclination. This is why, I think (I hope), Arturo and others tend to raise this sort of thing in private off-list material that is so much at variance with their public writings that it fairly attracts the charge of hypocrisy or at least political timidity. After all, if you really suspect your interlocutor of racism, it's incumbent on you to keep your mouth and not just your eyes open. But you've got to put money where your mouth is: you have to provide some evidence (e.g. the paper that Harshad circulated on the list not too long ago). There are important scientific issues we need to discuss which are actually not unrelated to the one that Arturo was reacting to: whether you can accurately judge the language proficiency of a person by their race or national origin (as I have done in the second paragraph above). Not unrelated. But not identical to either, else I would not have written that paragraph. Here's an example. A dear colleague of mine, who like the vast majority of people in this country is not white and wouldn't know deficit linguistics from a surplus, has just written a paper on why Korean children tend to drop articles (i.e. "a" and "the"). He begins with the Chomskyan premise that all nouns must, according to universal human grammars which are hardwired at birth, be realized by "determiner phrases". What that means is that a noun phrase like "the cat" is not really about a cat--it's about "the", and the "the" is modified by "cat" (What kind of "the-ness" do you mean? The cat kind!) But it's THIS, and not Vygotskyan, Hallidayan, or Bernsteinian developmentalism, that is deficit linguistics. I won't say it is racist, because unfortunately that term has lost its scientific content and become nothing but a thought crime. But I will say that people who speak languages without articles or languages that emphasize nouns over determiners (e.g. Korean, Chinese, Russian) are not born with a birth defect (or "null spell out", as the Chomskyans say). Does Shona have articles or not? Do you know? https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0JssD8Hzc__;!!Mih3wA!R-fcHm_VkVuvDo3TT55WSATg4CUxbqMT7pypDw0EQH-0SkD-S5bfjwv9eaSqSckgvZgwfQ$ David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Book with Nikolai Veresov L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov See free downloadable pdf at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!R-fcHm_VkVuvDo3TT55WSATg4CUxbqMT7pypDw0EQH-0SkD-S5bfjwv9eaSqScmZ94mS9g$ Forthcoming in 2020: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:02 PM Huw Lloyd > wrote: P.S. To my best understanding (very minimal, no doubt), the subject matter of Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory is the development of human higher psychological functions. (How that is "left," "right," or otherwise is beyond me.) Political propensities can be discerned across some (adult) developmental stages. Huw -- To schedule up a 30 minute call using Calendly: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://calendly.com/with-zaza__;!!Mih3wA!R-fcHm_VkVuvDo3TT55WSATg4CUxbqMT7pypDw0EQH-0SkD-S5bfjwv9eaSqSckG5aQxRg$ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201210/013f7d6f/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 16536 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201210/013f7d6f/attachment.png From annalisa@unm.edu Wed Dec 9 21:03:34 2020 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 05:03:34 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Humans, culture and creativity In-Reply-To: <011001d6ceab$27984b70$76c8e250$@gmail.com> References: <011001d6ceab$27984b70$76c8e250$@gmail.com> Message-ID: WOW Bronwyn, You made my day with such a marvelous telling of a marvelous story about cultural differences! I am so in love with this story of a story in a story! ?? I would contend however that your experience does not pertain to whether or not the boys had imaginations, but rather the cultural value of stories and how they are taken as having a different kind of reality in their lives than we take them in ours. Perhaps I am naive in my own understanding of Aboriginal culture, but it reminded me of the movie Australia (I adore this movie can never tire of watching it), and I remember the young boy about to be a man (manling?) that he said you aren't anything if you can't tell your (own) story. So there is a personal connection to a story that when you tell it, it is connected to the person telling it in a very intimiate way. So could this be why they thought it to be a true story, because it was told by people they trusted to tell the truth to them, and it never occured to anyone in their culture to not tell a story unless it is factually true. This has nothing to do with imagination. In fact, that they took the story to be true means that they had superb imaginations, if one can allow imagining to mean putting an image in the mind based upon words one is told. I figure this must be the case because they liked the story. They made sense out of it. What do you think about my thoughts on that? Also, when the brave student said, "We can't. We don't know these brothers." Did he mean We can't because we don't know anyone like this who are five brothers with powers?" (i.e., we could know two brothers not five) Or, did he mean We can't because we know five brothers but they do not have powers. In other words this isn't about imagination, but taking you literally, and not understanding what you were asking them to do. This means the error is in the teachers not the students, if you ask me! Last, I'm thrilled you will read Vera's works. You might also try Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and his concept of "flow". He and Vera knew one another, and both are Hungarian. Check this ted talk out (I've not watched it, but it might provide you instant gratification to learn about him and his concepts on creativity): https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_flow_the_secret_to_happiness__;!!Mih3wA!SxmOrehXrFGacu7hr23Wn6dfSPfFJpZbVisMWdmn18cebxJ3YRfT9-w_96ydpA9GSL42tQ$ and then there's https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.amazon.com/Flow-Psychology-Experience-Perennial-Classics/dp/0061339202__;!!Mih3wA!SxmOrehXrFGacu7hr23Wn6dfSPfFJpZbVisMWdmn18cebxJ3YRfT9-w_96ydpA84bKKYDw$ Enjoy! Kindest regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bronwyn Parkin Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 9:15 PM To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Humans, culture and creativity [EXTERNAL] Thank you Annalisa for this list. I am looking forward to holiday reading. Yes, if humans were not creative, our cultures would not have developed over time. However, what it means to be creative is culturally contained. The experience that started my thinking is this: I was working with a teacher on teaching English literacy in a remote Indigenous school in the top end of Australia, only accessible by plane or boat for half the year. All students (12-14 years old) spoke English as an additional language; for many of them it was their third or fourth language. We were using as a model text ?the Five Chinese Brothers?, a retelling of a Chinese folk-tale by Claire Huchet Bishop (1938). These brothers were identical, but each of them had a different magic power, so, when they were sentenced to death for a crime by hanging, drowning, etc, they escaped one by one and lived happily ever after. The boys in this class had learned to read the story, and enjoyed it very much. The teacher and I then planned to use it as a model for a jointly-constructed written class text. When the teacher, building on their enthusiasm for the story, suggested that the class could write about five brothers in their own remote community, there was silence. No response at all. Then one brave student volunteered: ?We can?t. We don?t know these brothers?. The teacher and I had made one giant, mistaken assumption: that the students would know that this was an imaginary story; that brothers with magic powers didn?t exist. It was clear that, just because other cultures make up impossible stories, using the imagination, for entertainment, doesn?t mean that it was part of Indigenous cultural practice for this group of boys. The class had spent five weeks studying this story, believing it was real. So did the Indigenous assistant teacher. So what does it mean to be ?creative? and ?imaginative? in this Indigenous culture? I have observed, in remote communities, a car just making it into town with the ball joint tied to the axle with a horse?s bridle; with the leaking radiator plugged with mulga sticks; I know that a punctured tyre can be mended if you heat up a patch of tyre rubber on a spade over a hot fire and quickly stick it over the hole. I would count these as creative acts. Under what circumstances do we as educators decide that a cultural practice such as making up imaginary stories is important? Why is the lack of ability to imagine in this way regarded as a personal ?lack?, and if it is important, what is the role of the teacher in the ZPD to teach ?imagination?? From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Wednesday, 2 December 2020 5:52 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian Hello Bronwyn, I had to stop in my tracks to write to suggest you might include on to your reading list works by my beloved mentor Vera John-Steiner, a late member of XMCA, and a co-editor of Mind in Society back in the days of few Vygotsky texts in the US. Pertaining to your interests you might enjoy: Vygotsky and Creativity: A Cultural-historical Approach to Play, Meaning Making, and the Arts, Second Edition (Educational Psychology) 2nd Edition (2018) There was a very interesting paper Vera wrote with Panofsky (?) about Navajo and Hopi children. Perhaps Henry Shonerd can help me out with the title and date? My favorite book of hers is Notebooks of the Mind, and also Creative Collaboration. It isn't directly in line with education, but they do concern creativity studies that if I am intuiting correctly, reach to the heart of what you seek. You might also look for work by Holbrook Mahn, a student of Vera's, whose area of study includes ESL. He is still at UNM I believe. Beneath your words I sense that you do not accept there is no creativity present among your demography of concern, and I truly believe you will have your doubts confirmed were you to read these works. If one is a human, one is creative. Perhaps one must be a Vygotskian to recognize this reality; Vera was a stellar Vygotskian scholar. Enjoy! Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Bronwyn Parkin > Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:46 PM To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian [EXTERNAL] Dear all, I?m a long-time observer in this chat group. Vygotsky?s theories are so big that my area of interest, education, seems like the toe of the elephant. Often I have no idea what the rest of you are talking about! Nevertheless, your discussion stretches the mind. I have been interested in the idea of creativity and childhood for some time, motivated by working with educationally marginalised students for many years, including remote Indigenous Australians. When talking with teachers about student writing, I?ve often heard often the statement ?Oh, they lack imagination?, or ?they struggle with creativity?. I think what this means is that the cultural purpose of narrative for many English as a Second Language students is different from that of the western world. Teachers are mostly not conscious of this, and don?t know what they have to make explicit. Instead of being a cultural difference, teachers perceive this ?lack? as a personal failing on the part of the student. My reading in this area is scant, and I am gleaning from recent conversations that there is plenty I?ve missed. Here is a snapshot from my Endnote library. I would really appreciate it if you could expand my reading list. Many thanks, Bronwyn Parkin [cid:image001.png@01D6CEFC.E8780AF0] From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of David Kellogg Sent: Tuesday, 1 December 2020 12:11 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian And Francine was kind enough to write a beautiful little cover blurb for the Korean edition of creativity and imagination in childhood back in 2014 (at the time our Russian was still so rudimentary that we checked every paragraph of our translation against hers). We also included the two other essays which she mentions (which I think are necessary, because "Creativity and Imagination in Childhood" is really a booklet Vygotsky himself wrote to present ideas--including those of other academics--to non-academics in a popular form). A propos. The eighth seminaire internationale sur Vygotski will be held in Lausanne, Switzerland, from the 7-9, and the theme is...Vygotsky's "Creativity and Imagination in Childhood", now appearing in French! The Call for Papers is hereby attached (in French). Note that there are some anglophones on the scientific committee (including me) and that you can submit and present in English. By June we may actually be able to travel again. dk David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Book with Nikolai Veresov L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov See free downloadable pdf at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!SxmOrehXrFGacu7hr23Wn6dfSPfFJpZbVisMWdmn18cebxJ3YRfT9-w_96ydpA8d6d-YBQ$ Forthcoming in 2020: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 9:20 AM Larry Smolucha > wrote: >>From Francine: Just for the record, I have never used Google translate or any internet service when doing my translations - only the Oxford Russian-English dictionary. Like David, my reading skills in Russian are my strong point, rather than speaking or auditory comprehension. I have never had a mentor fluent in Russian oversee my translations of Vygotsky's writings. Early on, I discovered that the bi-lingual English experts in Russian were not focusing on the texts, but rather coming to the texts with interpretive frameworks. Discovered this in 1984, when I undertook my first translation of a Vygotsky text Thinking and Speech. My intention was to compare (correct) my translation with the only published English translation available Thought and Language (1962) by Hanfmann and Vakar, MIT Press. Well, as soon as I held the Russian version of Thinking and Speech in my hand, I realized the title had been mistranslated and the Russian version of the book was twice as thick as the 1962 English translation. When I started translating the chapters, I discovered that roughly half of the paragraphs were omitted in a random fashion within the text. Many XMCA members first read Thinking and Speech in the full translations that came out later in 1986 (Wertsch) and 1987 (Minick). But I am of a different generation and had to discover the hard way the inadequacies of the 1962 translation. Add to this that in 1984, I undertook the translation of Thinking and Speech to prepare for my third attempt at passing the Graduate Level Reading Exam in Russian at the University of Chicago (the Hanfmann/Vakar translation would not have gotten a passing grade). Well my thoughts were "screw this" - I am correcting the official MIT publication while trying to pass my grad reading exam. Might as well translate something that I am really interested in even if it has never been translated. In 1983, my husband and I had presented our theory and research on the development of creativity as a maturation of symbolic play at a conference of the British Psychological Society in Wales. Wonder if Vygotsky wrote anything about creativity? What do you know, in a 1956 Russian publication there was a paper by Vygotsky on the development of creative imagination. Translated it, passed the reading exam with honors, and sent my translation to Jim Wertsch at Northwestern University. Got a phone call from Jim Wertsch - told me that Plenum needed translators for the Collected Works and that I could go to study in Russia to study Vygotsky's writings. I replied that what I was really interested in is 'creativity' and I want to see if Vygotsky wrote anything else on that topic. Wertsch said "No, this is the only paper, Vygotsky had no interest in creativity." I declined the offer to translate for Plenum and to study in Russia. And all by myself, discovered that Vygotsky had written two other papers on the development of creative imagination, translated those papers and got them in press. I tell you this story because reading the text for yourself is a bold thing to do. ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of David Kellogg > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:13 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Translations - Shona and Russian Many thanks to Zaza, whose translation of Tuku's song I'll be taking into my class on Ethics, Emotions, and Education tonight. I think you can see from her translation where you can go wrong with Google Translate, which is, after all, just a way of linking up bits of texts that have been previously translated by humans. Using the Google Translate function for Shona, I thought the song referred to "raped by your roomate". Zaza says it means a husband, which is expressed as the payer of bride price. At first I thought this was an accident of history, similar to the fact that our word "husband" means someone who looks after pigs, but of course if you listen to Tuku's song Haasati Aziva you can see that if it is an accident of history it's a very recent one that still casts a shadow. As Mary said--this is the stuff of a pandemic: systemic, institutionalized, and as a result blithe, indifferent and unaccountable power. As with AIDS, so too with Covid 19. Anthony--I said I don't speak Russian. I started studying in 2005 (after a short exchange with Mike) and took four years of formal classes in the language, six to eight hours a week. I have been spending at least eight hours a week reading Russian ever since. So when I look at a paragraph of Vygotsky in Russian I don't usually see any words that I don't recognize. When I do, I do what any Russian would do and look them up. Google Translate works as a bilingual dictionary only the entries are larger than the word and smaller than the clause. But human translators function more like thesauruses, where the entries are not wordings but meanings. For that reason I tend to use "Reverso", which gives whole paragraphs from the data base so you can see the context. . When I meet Nikolai or Anna, I find it impossible to use more than a few well-known phrases in Russian (mostly agreeable things like "Of course" and "You're right!", which is quite unlike my normal way of thinking...). So I think I do not speak Russian, although I have some reading knowledge of it. Operationally what that means is that when I publish a translation, I need a native speaker looking over my shoulder. Since I'm mostly translating into Korean, I actually need two, and I am fortunate that I was born with two shoulders, and even more fortunate that I have Dr. Kim Yongho, who is better than I am in both languages. (But Yongho learned his Russian from Rosetta Stone!) I have no objection to disentangling threads, but I don't really agree with Antti (who, unless I am quite mistaken, also speaks a language that utterly lacks articles) that this all belongs on a separate thread. To me, anyway, the relevant points are three. a) Racism isn't an interpersonal matter, and still less is it an intra-personal one: it's social, cultural, historical, material. That's why we say it is systemic. And if it's systemic, it is part of the way we look at other languages. Since Lewontin demonstrated the non-viability of race as a unit of analysis for human communities, language has become a stand in for race, and views about language are a stand-in for views about race. That was, after all, where Arturo was looking. b) One way that views about language have become a stand-in for views about race is that languages which lack articles are seen as deviant from some universal grammar and hence defective in some way. My colleague's "article-drop" parameter is actually part of a pattern of thinking that has been part of mainstream linguistics since the late fifties and early sixties, and is exemplified in the "Principles and Parameters" model of Universal Grammar. Chomsky argued that languages like Italian which do not require grammatical subjects as English does must have a setting that permits the omission of this universally obligatory element. This is nonsense. Italian does not drop pronouns; there's really no "pro" there to drop. We do not, after all, go around saying that English is a Korean-honorific-drop-language. Those who assume that languages are genetically hard-wired (the LAD or the magical gene that according to Chomsky created the capacity for human thought or the supposed correlation between mutations in mitochondrial DNA and languages that was alleged by Cavalli-Sforza) are making assumptions that are really not that different from assumptions previously made about the cranial capacity of lesser breeds without the law. c) Vygotsky was as much a man of his time as we are of our own. Some writers (c.f. Aaro Toomela on the Cultural Praxis site recently) have argued that Vygotsky believed in "primitive languages", e.g. the Bantu languages, to which Shona belongs. As Zaza makes abundantly clear, Shona is not primitive by any conceivable standard, and I have seen no convincing evidence that Vygotsky ever made this assumption (he did quote missionaries who clearly did make the assumption, but he is quite scathing about them on precisely this point). Certainly the idea that some languages have only the "indicative" or the "nominating" function but not the "signifying" function is not a Vygotskyan one: a language that cannot signify is not a human language, and any language that can signify can signify a concept. Languages can vary according to the meanings that they actually do express, just as registers within a language do. But human meaning potential is, if not infinite (we will not be around forever), at least undetermined and probably indeterminate. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Book with Nikolai Veresov L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov See free downloadable pdf at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!SxmOrehXrFGacu7hr23Wn6dfSPfFJpZbVisMWdmn18cebxJ3YRfT9-w_96ydpA8d6d-YBQ$ Forthcoming in 2020: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 5:08 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: I translated Piaget's book on dialectics with the aid of google. There was much work both pre- and post-googletranslate though. Part of this I put down to understanding the domain, just as one can question translations if one knows what they are about. Huw On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 18:53, Anthony Barra > wrote: Zaza, I had no idea that one could translate books without really speaking the original language, as David claims about himself. Nor did I realize the extent to which translating is about reading between the lines, along with the lines themselves. Such an interesting topic . . . Perhaps of interest: 1. A brief anecdote from David about a current Korean translation/summary project: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGU5zV6zbLI__;!!Mih3wA!SxmOrehXrFGacu7hr23Wn6dfSPfFJpZbVisMWdmn18cebxJ3YRfT9-w_96ydpA-GqJ7uOA$ (re: Vygotsky on emotions) 2. An old xmca post on translating Vygotsky into Korean: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2011_05.dir/msg00509.html I thought these were neat to hear about and maybe enjoyable or others as well. Anthony On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 3:30 PM Zaza Kabayadondo > wrote: I'm moving this to a new thread... Thank you for your question, David. I didn't realize people were using Google Translate. It's great for some languages - not so much for anything from Southern Africa at least as far as I've observed. Yes, I do speak Shona. I like to distinguish between functional Shona and idiomatic Shona. Functional Shona is literal and idiomatic Shona is literary (though spoken). I'm not a Shona linguist so I'm making up terms for the distinction I perceive but there might already be a convention for how Shona linguists describe the difference. Functional Shona is what you will hear people using on the streets. It is a more literal or explicit way of speaking and very similar to European meaning and sensemaking. In functional Shona you might say "I am tired." "She arrived yesterday." It some contexts it is considered rather crass to speak so directly of your feelings, wants, needs. I contrast this to idiomatic Shona which is a version of the language our elders spoke, it reflects pre-colonial Shona culture and thinking because it "beats around the bush". You would rarely directly ask a question, everything was a metaphor, a vague suggestion, never explicitly spelt out. It is more diplomatic, more evasive, and can be problematic when it comes to talking about social or political issues. Tuku sings in this idiomatic style. Tuku's song Bvuma is the best example of his style of which allows for double entendre (He is saying "Tolerance has faded" but he could also mean "Just accept that you're old." Todii is about HIV/AIDS. Originally, "utachiwana" meant any virus or germ, the underlying cause of an illness, but over time the only virus people talk about is HIV. (In "Hutachiwana" the "h" is a modifier emphasizes you mean "the virus"). The style is call-and-response which is typical in Shona folk music, both traditional and contemporary. The call and its response should be read as one sentence. As for the lyrics in question: Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the one you live with...If you have a virus Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma** ...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: How it must hurt to be raped by the man** who married you ...If you have a virus **The literal meaning is "by the one who paid roora (lobola/bride price)" Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: When he knows you have the virus...If you have a virus Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana...(Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Translation: And you know you have the virus...If you have a virus In the last two lines the response almost implies "hypothetically, let's say you have a virus." And for me this is really where the song touches on the sensibility of HIV/AIDS as it was experienced in Zimbabwe in the moment of the song. Not knowing who has it, suspecting who has it etc. Tuku was masterful with his play on words and structure. On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 2:56 AM David Kellogg > wrote: Zaza-- Dude, I don't really speak Russian either, as Nikolai and Anna will tell you (we only speak English). In my translation work I spend a lot more time on Google Translate than I would like, and that's why I burden the list with the queries you mention from time to time.. But I bet you speak Shona, or at least understand a little. So maybe you can help. I'm using this tune from the late great Tuku (Oliver Mtukudzi) in a class I am giving on sex education in Korea. I've been told that it doesn't really mention AIDS/HIV explicitly, and I get that--in fact, that's one of the reasons why I think it's useful for making certain parallels between pandemics and also discussing HPV and other issues I want to talk about. But I don't quite understand THIS verse--maybe you can help me? Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa newaugere naye (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Zvinorwadza sei kubhinywa neakabvisa pfuma (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Achiziva unahwo hutachiwana (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) Ende uchiziva unahwo hutachiwana (Kana uinahwo utachiwana) So "Kana uinahwo utachiwana" means something like "If you get infected". But what is the reference to being raped by your roommate? On the subject of this thread. Like voter fraud, racism is a very serious charge, and the right has successfully made hay out of its seriousness. But as with voter fraud they have made even more hay out of rendering the charge unproveable, by removing its class content and rendering it a purely subjective inclination. This is why, I think (I hope), Arturo and others tend to raise this sort of thing in private off-list material that is so much at variance with their public writings that it fairly attracts the charge of hypocrisy or at least political timidity. After all, if you really suspect your interlocutor of racism, it's incumbent on you to keep your mouth and not just your eyes open. But you've got to put money where your mouth is: you have to provide some evidence (e.g. the paper that Harshad circulated on the list not too long ago). There are important scientific issues we need to discuss which are actually not unrelated to the one that Arturo was reacting to: whether you can accurately judge the language proficiency of a person by their race or national origin (as I have done in the second paragraph above). Not unrelated. But not identical to either, else I would not have written that paragraph. Here's an example. A dear colleague of mine, who like the vast majority of people in this country is not white and wouldn't know deficit linguistics from a surplus, has just written a paper on why Korean children tend to drop articles (i.e. "a" and "the"). He begins with the Chomskyan premise that all nouns must, according to universal human grammars which are hardwired at birth, be realized by "determiner phrases". What that means is that a noun phrase like "the cat" is not really about a cat--it's about "the", and the "the" is modified by "cat" (What kind of "the-ness" do you mean? The cat kind!) But it's THIS, and not Vygotskyan, Hallidayan, or Bernsteinian developmentalism, that is deficit linguistics. I won't say it is racist, because unfortunately that term has lost its scientific content and become nothing but a thought crime. But I will say that people who speak languages without articles or languages that emphasize nouns over determiners (e.g. Korean, Chinese, Russian) are not born with a birth defect (or "null spell out", as the Chomskyans say). Does Shona have articles or not? Do you know? https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0JssD8Hzc__;!!Mih3wA!SxmOrehXrFGacu7hr23Wn6dfSPfFJpZbVisMWdmn18cebxJ3YRfT9-w_96ydpA_dDss9bw$ David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Book with Nikolai Veresov L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. I: The Foundations of Pedology Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by David Kellogg and Nikolai Veresov See free downloadable pdf at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007*2F978-981-15-0528-7__;JQ!!Mih3wA!SxmOrehXrFGacu7hr23Wn6dfSPfFJpZbVisMWdmn18cebxJ3YRfT9-w_96ydpA8d6d-YBQ$ Forthcoming in 2020: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 6:02 PM Huw Lloyd > wrote: P.S. To my best understanding (very minimal, no doubt), the subject matter of Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory is the development of human higher psychological functions. (How that is "left," "right," or otherwise is beyond me.) Political propensities can be discerned across some (adult) developmental stages. Huw -- To schedule up a 30 minute call using Calendly: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://calendly.com/with-zaza__;!!Mih3wA!SxmOrehXrFGacu7hr23Wn6dfSPfFJpZbVisMWdmn18cebxJ3YRfT9-w_96ydpA9pFjK8AQ$ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201210/62d95ea0/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 16536 bytes Desc: image001.png Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201210/62d95ea0/attachment.png From ajrajala@gmail.com Thu Dec 10 00:47:12 2020 From: ajrajala@gmail.com (Antti Rajala) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:47:12 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Reminder: Call for Nominations! Cultural-Historical SIG Awards (Due date: 12/20): Graduate Student Award_Early Career Award_Lifetime Contribution Award Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, On behalf of the AERA Cultural-Historical Research SIG (CH SIG), we are asking your advice to nominate candidates for the 2021 Cultural-Historical Research SIG Awards. These awards recognize our members? scholarly contributions to research grounded in cultural-historical, sociocultural and activity theoretic approaches in the following three categories: 1. Graduate Student Award 2. Early Career Award 3. Lifetime Contribution Award Please see the attached Call for Nominations for more descriptions about each award, including details about the nomination process. The Call is also available below. Importantly, *all *required nomination materials must be submitted to the 2021 Award Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, antti.rajala@oulu.fi by *December 20, 2020. *The committee will make its selection by January 20, 2021. Nominators must be members of the CH SIG. Please email general questions regarding the awards to the 2021 Award Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, antti.rajala@oulu.fi. Thank you and best regards, AERA Cultural-Historical Award Committee and SIG *Graduate Student Award of AERA Cultural-Historical Research SIG* The Graduate Student Award recognizes an outstanding work of original and independent research produced by a graduate student, either as doctoral research or pre-doctoral research. Please note the following conditions of the call: *Eligibility Criteria: *Nominees must be enrolled in a university doctoral program. *Nomination Process and Timeline: *The nominator must be a member of the CH SIG and must submit a brief statement justifying the nomination, along with electronic contact information for the nominee. Upon receipt of the nomination, the Chair of the Awards Committee will request an abstract from the nominee. The nominee should submit an abstract of 1000 words or fewer of the work to be considered. Depending on the number of nominations, a sub-set of 3 nominees may be asked to submit a paper of no more than 5000 words that will be submitted for the committee?s final selection. *The nominations should be sent by email to theAward Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, **antti.rajala@oulu.fi* *The deadline for the nominations is December 20, 2020. *The committee will make its selection by January 20, 2021. *Composition of the Awards Committee: *The SIG Chair has appointed the three members of the Awards Committee.The committee is chaired by Dr. Antti Rajala (University of Oulu, Finland). The other members are Dr. Zitlali Morales (University of Illinois Chicago, USA) and Dr. Aria Razfar (University of Illinois Chicago, USA). *Selection Criteria: *The awardee will have created an outstanding work of original and independent research as either as doctoral research or pre-doctoral research. The winner will be given a plaque with an inscription to be presented at the SIG business meeting at theAERA annual meeting and invited to make a presentation at a SIG-sponsored session of the annual meeting. Announcement of the Awardee will be made through email to SIG members, on the SIG Facebook page, and at the SIG business meeting at the AERA annual meeting. Contact Person for the Award: 2021 Award Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, antti.rajala@oulu.fi *Early Career Award of AERA Cultural-Historical Research SIG* The Early Career Award acknowledges the contribution of one person, or co-authors, who have contributed a piece of work, for example, a book chapter, a research article or a monograph, that 1) moves the field of CHAT research or theory in a particularly interesting direction, 2) elaborates a concept or set of concepts in a particularly helpful way, or 3) provides links across research and practice that prove foundational. This award should be given to individuals who are at least 3 years past completion of the doctoral degree. Please note the following conditions of the call: *Eligibility Criteria: *This award should be given to individuals who are at least three years past completion of the doctoral degree. *Nomination Process and Timeline: *The candidate must be nominated by a member of the SIG and seconded by another member. The nominator (and/or seconder) should submit a copy of the piece of work to be considered along with a statement justifying the nomination. *The nominations should be sent by email to theAward Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, **antti.rajala@oulu.fi* *The deadline for the nominations is December 20, 2020. *The committee will make its selection by January 20, 2021. *Composition of the Awards Committee: *The SIG Chair has appointed the three members of the Awards Committee.The committee is chaired by Dr. Antti Rajala (University of Oulu, Finland). The other members are Dr. Zitlali Morales (University of Illinois Chicago, USA) andDr. Aria Razfar (University of Illinois Chicago, USA). *Selection Criteria: *Awardee should have contributed a piece of work such as a book chapter, research article or monograph, that moves CHAT research or theory in a particularly interesting direction, elaborates a concept or set of concepts in a particularly helpful way, and/or provides links across research and practice that prove foundational. The winner will be given a plaque with an inscription to be presented at the SIG business meeting at theAERA annual meeting and invited to make a presentation at a SIG-sponsored session of the annual meeting. Announcement of the Awardee will be made through email to SIG members, on the SIG Facebook page, and at the SIG business meeting at the AERA annual meeting. Contact Person for the Award: 2021 Award Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, antti.rajala@oulu.fi *Lifetime Contribution Award of AERA Cultural Historical Research SIG* The Lifetime Contribution to Cultural-Historical Research Award acknowledges the contribution of one person, over the course of his/her career, to the Cultural-Historical Research field as reflected in foundational books, series of publications, lectures, conference presentations, grants, speeches, and important engagement with the field broadly speaking including outreach and service. Please note the following conditions of the call: *Eligibility Criteria: *Anyone who fits the above definition. *Nomination Process and Timeline: *The candidate must be nominated by a member of the SIG. Nomination packets should include a letter of nomination and a copy of the candidate?s CV. All nominations should be submitted electronically. *The nominations should be sent by email to theAward Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, **antti.rajala@oulu.fi* *The deadline for the nominations is December 20, 2020. *The committee will make its selection by January 20, 2021. *Composition of the Awards Committee: *The SIG Chair has appointed the three members of the Awards Committee. The committee is chaired by Dr. Antti Rajala (University of Oulu, Finland). The other members are Dr. Zitlali Morales (University of Illinois Chicago, USA) and Dr. Aria Razfar (University of Illinois Chicago, USA). *Selection Criteria:*The career body of work of a nominee will be evaluated according to its impact as measured by volume and influence of foundational books, series of publications, lectures, conference presentations, grants, speeches, and important engagement with the field broadly speaking including outreach and service, and impact on educational practice. A plaque with an inscription will be awarded. The winner will give an invited talk in the SIG?s annual meeting program at the following year?s AERA meeting. Announcement of the Awardee will be made through email to SIG members, on the SIG Facebook page, and at the SIG business meeting at the AERA annual meeting. Contact Person for the Award: 2021 Award Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, antti.rajala@oulu.fi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201210/d5c46d86/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CH SIG 2021 Awards.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 105783 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201210/d5c46d86/attachment-0001.pdf From annalisa@unm.edu Thu Dec 10 21:02:10 2020 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 05:02:10 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] Message-ID: Hi Francine (and venerable others), In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from Zeus. "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" Yes, what is in a word? I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for understanding what he was trying to understand. There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if you press me I can look for it. I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very important distinction in our discussions. For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the specific to the general. I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why combined are not flammable. Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot be there. Right? So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes sense to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the specific to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* [specific] connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) [general]. If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the child and consciousness of the child. It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too simplistic in my explanation about it. Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I don't wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only unit worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a lot of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. I am not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. But I think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of the engine problem in need of repair. My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study for the purpose of analysis. For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant operates). But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets really complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, the guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of the activity? However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development of mind. He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in AT is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in what one wishes to study. I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. What do you think about that? Kind regards, Annalisa >From Francine: If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and Nikolai as Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation Thought and Language, p. 88 and p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in Volume 3 of The Collected Works , 1997). The word is a unit that is a synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph he chose to finalize his legacy in 1934. If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's own words). Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the 'word' as unit of analysis? ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. Henry and venerable others, I might add that Imagination is something like a self-imposed zone of proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to act upon that which is imagined. Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the *only* unit for analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that hard-wired about activity as the unit for analysis? That it depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit for analysis? For example, how does one use activity as the unit for analysis if one is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their notes? their lyrics? How might that work? Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201211/6678fc64/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Thu Dec 10 21:05:19 2020 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 05:05:19 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Typo!! I did not mean UFO but UFA! The UFO was an unidentified flying object from my keyboard. Please excuse! Annalisa ________________________________ From: Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:02 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] Hi Francine (and venerable others), In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from Zeus. "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" Yes, what is in a word? I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for understanding what he was trying to understand. There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if you press me I can look for it. I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very important distinction in our discussions. For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the specific to the general. I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why combined are not flammable. Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot be there. Right? So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes sense to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the specific to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* [specific] connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) [general]. If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the child and consciousness of the child. It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too simplistic in my explanation about it. Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I don't wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only unit worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a lot of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. I am not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. But I think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of the engine problem in need of repair. My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study for the purpose of analysis. For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant operates). But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets really complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, the guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of the activity? However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development of mind. He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in AT is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in what one wishes to study. I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. What do you think about that? Kind regards, Annalisa >From Francine: If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and Nikolai as Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation Thought and Language, p. 88 and p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in Volume 3 of The Collected Works , 1997). The word is a unit that is a synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph he chose to finalize his legacy in 1934. If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's own words). Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the 'word' as unit of analysis? ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. Henry and venerable others, I might add that Imagination is something like a self-imposed zone of proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to act upon that which is imagined. Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the *only* unit for analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that hard-wired about activity as the unit for analysis? That it depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit for analysis? For example, how does one use activity as the unit for analysis if one is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their notes? their lyrics? How might that work? Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201211/f45618e4/attachment.html From lsmolucha@hotmail.com Fri Dec 11 03:35:53 2020 From: lsmolucha@hotmail.com (Larry Smolucha) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 11:35:53 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >From Francine: Good Morning Annalisa, I enjoyed reading your commentary. The Vygotsky quote you are looking for is on the second page of "Thought and Word" (p.211 in Thought and Language 1986). There the Kozulin translation is unit of analysis, just after Vygotsky describes how hydrogen and oxygen create a water droplet with properties different from the two flammable gases (combined in every molecule of water). Vygotsky then elaborates that in a water droplet the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This can be understood as the synthesis of a thesis and antithesis in a dialectic, referring back to Vygotsky's earlier argument for the use of dialectic in the The Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology (1926-1927). It can also be understood as a type of synergy - my husband Larry and I first introduced Synergistic Psychology in a publication in 1988 and have been advancing it as a theory ever since. Please note: "Thought and Word" begins with the analogy of a 'word' as being like water droplet and ends with an analogy with a water droplet. In the final paragraph - consciousness being reflected in a word just as sunlight is reflected off every drop of water, as well as the ocean. If you prefer using the terminology unit for analysis to describe what has been translated as unit of analysis, my guess is most people will still use the term unit of analysis. I don't think this is incorrect. We could look at the Russian text (if anyone has a copy) - the preposition is probably 'v' in Russian usually translated as 'of'. (Would anyone care to argue that it is better translated as 'for' ?) And yes, it is time to examine the applicability of the concept of activity as the unit for analysis versus Vygotsky's use of a 'word'. But what does this do to CHAT? Does CHAT as a theory offer two frameworks (the Cultural Historical Theory of Vygotsky and the Activity Theory of Leontiev) or one unifying framework? Just asking . . . ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 11:02 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] Hi Francine (and venerable others), In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from Zeus. "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" Yes, what is in a word? I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for understanding what he was trying to understand. There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if you press me I can look for it. I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very important distinction in our discussions. For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the specific to the general. I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why combined are not flammable. Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot be there. Right? So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes sense to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the specific to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* [specific] connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) [general]. If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the child and consciousness of the child. It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too simplistic in my explanation about it. Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I don't wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only unit worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a lot of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. I am not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. But I think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of the engine problem in need of repair. My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study for the purpose of analysis. For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant operates). But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets really complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, the guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of the activity? However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development of mind. He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in AT is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in what one wishes to study. I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. What do you think about that? Kind regards, Annalisa >From Francine: If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and Nikolai as Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation Thought and Language, p. 88 and p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in Volume 3 of The Collected Works , 1997). The word is a unit that is a synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph he chose to finalize his legacy in 1934. If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's own words). Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the 'word' as unit of analysis? ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. Henry and venerable others, I might add that Imagination is something like a self-imposed zone of proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to act upon that which is imagined. Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the *only* unit for analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that hard-wired about activity as the unit for analysis? That it depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit for analysis? For example, how does one use activity as the unit for analysis if one is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their notes? their lyrics? How might that work? Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201211/08bfdc73/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Dec 11 04:21:10 2020 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:21:10 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: CHT vs. CHAT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Francine, for clarification, I have considered CHAT to be an umbrella category, e.g. where the T may stand for Theories. Hence what Nikolai specifically focuses upon are Leontyev's AT, Vygotsky's CHT, and ?Yrj? Engestr?m's AT. Re units, various people (Andy comes to mind) have noted that LSV employed numerous units of analysis. On that basis my inference is that you are questioning the relation between activity-as-consciousness with word-meaning-as-consciousness (in the cognitive sense). If that is the case, then simply some practical thinking around manifestations of awareness and thinking reveals that word meanings are not the only vehicle for such awareness. This seems harder for linguists to recognise and recollect because this seems to be their principal medium. Best, Huw On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 01:51, Larry Smolucha wrote: > >From Francine: > > If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and > Nikolai as* Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity > Theory*. > > Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The > Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding > paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed > in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation *Thought and Language*, p. 88 and > p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on > p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like > sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The > Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in > Volume 3 of *The Collected Works* , 1997). The word is a unit that is a > synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's > writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph *he chose* to finalize > his legacy in 1934. > > If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his > writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. > Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in > Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no > connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a > coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper > that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's > own words). > > Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the > 'word' as unit of analysis? > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. > > Henry and venerable others, > > I might add that *Imagination* is something like a self-imposed zone of > proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to > act upon that which is imagined. > > Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the > *only* unit *for* analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that > hard-wired about activity as the unit *for* analysis? That it depends > upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between > CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit *for* analysis? > > For example, how does one use activity as the unit *for* analysis if one > is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? > > If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them > be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they > are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their > notes? their lyrics? > > How might that work? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 9, 2020 12:04 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. > > > * [EXTERNAL]* > Anthony, > The excerpts were excellent! I simply wasn?t up to listening to the entire > conversations of Huw and Nikolai. > Even before I saw the excerpts I was thinking about the CHT vs. CHAT issue > you discussed with Nikolai and the issue of Active Orientation that Huw > talked about. > I wonder if Huw would agree with me that Active Orientation is about the > imagination. It is thinking that makes thought real, epistemic. As in an > active imagination. Fevered even. > What?s missing in CHT is the purpose of development: Activity. CHAT > complements Vygotsky?s work by making Activity is the unit of analysis. > Imagination is Activity in a way that simple thinking is not. ZPD, as a > Vygotsky-inspired concept, rather than what he may actually have > written?and there is great controversy on this?has within it Activity as > Problem Solving. I think this is what Dewey was talking about. > > I want also to say that Helen Worthen?s conversation with Anthony was > really Rising to the Concrete. Huw and Nikolai were insightful but Helen > got the Narrative right on what its like to work. Huw and Nikolai worked so > hard at True Concepts, in the Vygotskian sense, but the Perizhvanie of > Helen on what it?s like to work was spot on. > > IMHO > Henry > > > On Dec 8, 2020, at 9:19 PM, Anthony Barra wrote: > > Good evening ~ some people have enjoyed these, so here are a few more: > > "Development of Epistemological Forms," a recent interview with Huw Lloyd > - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/dbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!Ts7E_iQ8MOwA-6wLhoyIO2JbHFI9_nNzSGZE3aPSHgyiNikoaaVpw5GovON-Gg1HlYYlHQ$ > > > I also enjoyed chatting with Nikolai Veresov last week: "A chat about CHAT > (and CHT)" - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/ebc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!Ts7E_iQ8MOwA-6wLhoyIO2JbHFI9_nNzSGZE3aPSHgyiNikoaaVpw5GovON-Gg0F7SBQcQ$ > > > > Hopefully, one or both will bring some December enjoyment. > > Anthony Barra > > P.S. If curious, a two-minute snippet of each is here: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/cbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!Ts7E_iQ8MOwA-6wLhoyIO2JbHFI9_nNzSGZE3aPSHgyiNikoaaVpw5GovON-Gg1BcL4vgA$ > > and here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/4bc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!Ts7E_iQ8MOwA-6wLhoyIO2JbHFI9_nNzSGZE3aPSHgyiNikoaaVpw5GovON-Gg223IoE1w$ > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201211/999a782a/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Dec 11 12:14:52 2020 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:14:52 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <811C07D0-EA35-463C-BC7D-71AD263ECFFF@gmail.com> Francine and Annalisa, I like Andy?s use of Project, of course and activity, as the unit of analysis in CHAT, because it is clearly collaborative. Regarding word meaning, it depends very much on the context of the speaking, what?s off stage as well as on stage, the history of the discourse (both individually and collectively), what?s off stage as well as on stage. Henry > On Dec 11, 2020, at 4:35 AM, Larry Smolucha wrote: > > >From Francine: > > Good Morning Annalisa, > I enjoyed reading your commentary. > > The Vygotsky quote you are looking for is on the second page of "Thought and Word" (p.211 in Thought and Language 1986). There the Kozulin translation is unit of analysis, just after Vygotsky describes how hydrogen and oxygen create a water droplet with properties different from the two flammable gases (combined in every molecule of water). Vygotsky then elaborates that in a water droplet the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This can be understood as the synthesis of a thesis and antithesis in a dialectic, referring back to Vygotsky's earlier argument for the use of dialectic in the The Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology (1926-1927). It can also be understood as a type of synergy - my husband Larry and I first introduced Synergistic Psychology in a publication in 1988 and have been advancing it as a theory ever since. > > Please note: "Thought and Word" begins with the analogy of a 'word' as being like water droplet and ends with an analogy with a water droplet. In the final paragraph - consciousness being reflected in a word just as sunlight is reflected off every drop of water, as well as the ocean. > > If you prefer using the terminology unit for analysis to describe what has been translated as unit of analysis, > my guess is most people will still use the term unit of analysis. I don't think this is incorrect. We could look at the Russian text (if anyone has a copy) - the preposition is probably 'v' in Russian usually translated as 'of'. (Would anyone care to argue that it is better translated as 'for' ?) > > And yes, it is time to examine the applicability of the concept of activity as the unit for analysis versus Vygotsky's use of a 'word'. But what does this do to CHAT? Does CHAT as a theory offer two frameworks (the Cultural Historical Theory of Vygotsky and the Activity Theory of Leontiev) or one unifying framework? Just asking . . . > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 11:02 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Hi Francine (and venerable others), > > In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from Zeus. > > "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" > > Yes, what is in a word? > > I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for understanding what he was trying to understand. > > There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if you press me I can look for it. > > I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very important distinction in our discussions. > > For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. > > UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the specific to the general. > > I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why combined are not flammable. > > Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? > > Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot be there. Right? > > So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes sense to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the specific to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* [specific] connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) [general]. > > If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the child and consciousness of the child. > > It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too simplistic in my explanation about it. > > Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I don't wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only unit worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a lot of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. I am not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. But I think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. > > If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of the engine problem in need of repair. > > My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study for the purpose of analysis. > > For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant operates). > > But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets really complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, the guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of the activity? > > However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. > > What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development of mind. > > He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? > > But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in AT is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in what one wishes to study. > > I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. > > With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. > > What do you think about that? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > > > > > >From Francine: > > If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and Nikolai as Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. > > Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation Thought and Language, p. 88 and p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on > p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in Volume 3 of The Collected Works , 1997). The word is a unit that is a synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph he chose to finalize his legacy in 1934. > > If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's own words). > > Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the 'word' as unit of analysis? > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > > Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. > > Henry and venerable others, > > I might add that Imagination is something like a self-imposed zone of proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to act upon that which is imagined. > > Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the *only* unit for analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that hard-wired about activity as the unit for analysis? That it depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit for analysis? > > For example, how does one use activity as the unit for analysis if one is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? > > If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their notes? their lyrics? > > How might that work? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201211/196d7a90/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Dec 11 12:18:12 2020 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:18:12 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: CHT vs. CHAT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Huw, et. al. ?Some practical mainifestations of awareness and thinking" include gesture and other non-linguistic phenomena of discourse. Linguists are aware of these very embodied aspects of language use. Henry > On Dec 11, 2020, at 5:21 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Francine, for clarification, I have considered CHAT to be an umbrella category, e.g. where the T may stand for Theories. Hence what Nikolai specifically focuses upon are Leontyev's AT, Vygotsky's CHT, and ?Yrj? Engestr?m's AT. > > Re units, various people (Andy comes to mind) have noted that LSV employed numerous units of analysis. On that basis my inference is that you are questioning the relation between activity-as-consciousness with word-meaning-as-consciousness (in the cognitive sense). If that is the case, then simply some practical thinking around manifestations of awareness and thinking reveals that word meanings are not the only vehicle for such awareness. This seems harder for linguists to recognise and recollect because this seems to be their principal medium. > > Best, > Huw > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 01:51, Larry Smolucha > wrote: > >From Francine: > > If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and Nikolai as Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. > > Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation Thought and Language, p. 88 and p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on > p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in Volume 3 of The Collected Works , 1997). The word is a unit that is a synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph he chose to finalize his legacy in 1934. > > If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's own words). > > Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the 'word' as unit of analysis? > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > > Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. > > Henry and venerable others, > > I might add that Imagination is something like a self-imposed zone of proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to act upon that which is imagined. > > Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the *only* unit for analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that hard-wired about activity as the unit for analysis? That it depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit for analysis? > > For example, how does one use activity as the unit for analysis if one is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? > > If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their notes? their lyrics? > > How might that work? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of HENRY SHONERD > > Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 12:04 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. > > [EXTERNAL] > Anthony, > The excerpts were excellent! I simply wasn?t up to listening to the entire conversations of Huw and Nikolai. > Even before I saw the excerpts I was thinking about the CHT vs. CHAT issue you discussed with Nikolai and the issue of Active Orientation that Huw talked about. > I wonder if Huw would agree with me that Active Orientation is about the imagination. It is thinking that makes thought real, epistemic. As in an active imagination. Fevered even. > What?s missing in CHT is the purpose of development: Activity. CHAT complements Vygotsky?s work by making Activity is the unit of analysis. Imagination is Activity in a way that simple thinking is not. ZPD, as a Vygotsky-inspired concept, rather than what he may actually have written?and there is great controversy on this?has within it Activity as Problem Solving. I think this is what Dewey was talking about. > > I want also to say that Helen Worthen?s conversation with Anthony was really Rising to the Concrete. Huw and Nikolai were insightful but Helen got the Narrative right on what its like to work. Huw and Nikolai worked so hard at True Concepts, in the Vygotskian sense, but the Perizhvanie of Helen on what it?s like to work was spot on. > > IMHO > Henry > > >> On Dec 8, 2020, at 9:19 PM, Anthony Barra > wrote: >> >> Good evening ~ some people have enjoyed these, so here are a few more: >> >> "Development of Epistemological Forms," a recent interview with Huw Lloyd - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/dbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!XUtqDgevsKB91fhvmNmyEJuZSH3sGjuauN0KlujvncJPh7hmwJq_Tsb0Ju7499YpYjhciA$ >> >> I also enjoyed chatting with Nikolai Veresov last week: "A chat about CHAT (and CHT)" - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/ebc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!XUtqDgevsKB91fhvmNmyEJuZSH3sGjuauN0KlujvncJPh7hmwJq_Tsb0Ju7499a1X9jHBQ$ >> >> Hopefully, one or both will bring some December enjoyment. >> >> Anthony Barra >> >> P.S. If curious, a two-minute snippet of each is here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/cbc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!XUtqDgevsKB91fhvmNmyEJuZSH3sGjuauN0KlujvncJPh7hmwJq_Tsb0Ju7499b0tHn-6A$ and here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/4bc6tz__;!!Mih3wA!XUtqDgevsKB91fhvmNmyEJuZSH3sGjuauN0KlujvncJPh7hmwJq_Tsb0Ju7499YvWeF2zg$ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201211/3d1be84f/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Fri Dec 11 12:19:30 2020 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 20:19:30 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi Francine, Huw and of course, venerable others, Bypassing the opportunity to ignite the naming debate that Huw might be inadvertently inviting, and acknowledging that I have not watched the video in question, I am convinced there must be a way to differentiate any old unit of analysis from the unit selected for analysis. I maintain this is key to understanding Vygotsky's work. Keystone might be a better metaphor. Without this understanding, I contend that the arch of the theory collapses. I would be open to hearing from others on this if my affirmation should be disabused. This has to do with intentionality and how a study is designed; how a study will generalize, its validity, etc. This is a particularly hairy endeavor when dealing with psychology studies of Vygotky's time, or cognitive science studies, as we might know such studies today. I think a beautiful example of this choosing of units is Edwin Hutchin's Cognition in the Wild (1995) which is a study of navigation, as a cultural practice. The unit for analysis in his undertaking (even if he himself might say "unit of analysis") is the plot fix. Everything is tied together with that unit. That can be witnessed from reading the book, as all the chapters deal with a different aspect of the cultural practice of maritime navigation, but they all tie together with the unit of the plot fix. I have said it sometime ago I think the book is a masterpiece, and I still feel this way. I maintain that by using the phrase "unit for analysis" a researcher is signaling her conscious intention to choose the unit as connecting the specific to the general. This is an approach that Vygotsky recognizes as the only way to study development of the mind in a child, since children cannot communicate effectively what is going on in their minds or why, and certainly dissecting children to learn what is happening in their brains is an untenable method to legitimately study child development, and would only offer us biological data on brain development really, and that's making an assumption that minds are actually located in brains (they are not). At the same time, trying to avoid the pitfalls of the reflexologists (such as Pavlov) isn't it the case that LSV's assertion that the study of behavior, as is the practice of behaviorism, which reflexology anticipates, will not explain with precision the development of mind in the child. Behavior is too imprecise a unit to indicate thoughts of the subject. But then what I have worried about with activity theory, is whether it just a refabrication of behaviorism? I do not mean to be flip about that or to disparage AT, because I am not conversant in its approaches. I freely admit that. It's just I must disagree with connecting activity as a means of identifying awareness in an individual. Expertise can be measured by behavior, but consciousness? I'm not so sure. What is the indication of a meditating swami's awareness? If the swami is simply sitting, doing nothing? Nothing can be revealed. But if the swami teaches, the words the swami uses will indicate the level of conscious awareness the swami possesses. The word offers more precision. But again, it depends upon the objective of the inquiry. Thank you, Francine for locating the molecule quote, and I am remiss that I may have recalled the metaphor clumsily. You have corrected me and in so doing I am feeling the pull to read The Crisis again to refresh my memory. To Huw's credit it is true that some linguists might be chauvinistic toward their "medium", but that doesn't seem to jibe as a weakness for LSV, indeed he is promoting a very flexible approach. Also, while I'm not going to be the thought police of whether researchers use the right prepositions, OF or FOR, what I am supporting is the usage of UNITS FOR ANALYSIS as a means to distinguish intentionality, given the problems rife in translation. It would not be incorrect to say UNIT OF ANALYSIS, but it would be less precise. Furthermore, truly, I would have to defer to Holbrook here and I hope if he is out there, he might jump in. He is the one who put the notion in my head and explained its importance to me. I readily admit that that was some years ago and the mists of time could have obstructed my own ability to substantiate for you it as he did for me. This is to say that even if OF is a correct translation from the Russian, I did not argue that OF is a wrong translation of the Russian proposition used, but rather that FOR is a better translation of the word-meaning. If I gave that impression, that was my mistake. I would also suggest that the focus of discussion is not about word vs activity. That would a false dichotomy. It is about the units chosen for the purposes of analysis. That stance opens up many possibilities. I am a little agnostic about CHAT being the umbrella term that includes all the varieties of the theory. Though, honestly it doesn't sit comfortably for me, but that's why I might be a heretic and reference Vygotsky's theory as sociocultural theory. But I also recognize, others may feel the same way about that term, as I might feel about CHAT, for the same reason that it leaves something out. That is why I don't feel it's accurate to say it is two frameworks because there could be others in the future, and this would cause the acronym, CHAT, to break. So, the debate as framed, to me, would be: Under what conditions is the word the best unit for analysis, under what conditions is activity the best unit for analysis, and...(and this is an important concatenation) are there other possible units that could be better suited? This allows the theory to flex with advancing understanding in cognitive science (my umbrella term to include all the disciplines as referenced in Howard Gardener's diagram in The Mind?s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution(1987); these being anthropology, artificial intelligence (comp sci), linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology). New units could be revealed as appropriate, which should be a welcomed innovation! Vygotsky is in my mind the first bona fide cognitive scientist, even though computer science was not even an embryo during his lifetime. He would have been amazed by the ways that computers are being used to model neural activity, and other forms of simulation, as well as how computers are learning language. Just imagine what he might do with a smart phone. WOW. This is why LSV's insights are so tremendous, because he includes a space for developments of the future. We stand on the shoulders of a beloved, gentle giant. Kind regards, Annalisa xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Huw Lloyd Fri 12/11/2020 5:24 AM Francine, for clarification, I have considered CHAT to be an umbrella category, e.g. where the T may stand for Theories. Hence what Nikolai specifically focuses upon are Leontyev's AT, Vygotsky's CHT, and ?Yrj? Engestr?m's AT. Re units, various people (Andy comes to mind) have noted that LSV employed numerous units of analysis. On that basis my inference is that you are questioning the relation between activity-as-consciousness with word-meaning-as-consciousness (in the cognitive sense). If that is the case, then simply some practical thinking around manifestations of awareness and thinking reveals that word meanings are not the only vehicle for such awareness. This seems harder for linguists to recognise and recollect because this seems to be their principal medium. Best, Huw xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Larry Smolucha Wed 12/9/2020 6:53 PM >From Francine: Good Morning Annalisa, I enjoyed reading your commentary. The Vygotsky quote you are looking for is on the second page of "Thought and Word" (p.211 in Thought and Language 1986). There the Kozulin translation is unit of analysis, just after Vygotsky describes how hydrogen and oxygen create a water droplet with properties different from the two flammable gases (combined in every molecule of water). Vygotsky then elaborates that in a water droplet the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This can be understood as the synthesis of a thesis and antithesis in a dialectic, referring back to Vygotsky's earlier argument for the use of dialectic in the The Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology (1926-1927). It can also be understood as a type of synergy - my husband Larry and I first introduced Synergistic Psychology in a publication in 1988 and have been advancing it as a theory ever since. Please note: "Thought and Word" begins with the analogy of a 'word' as being like water droplet and ends with an analogy with a water droplet. In the final paragraph - consciousness being reflected in a word just as sunlight is reflected off every drop of water, as well as the ocean. If you prefer using the terminology unit for analysis to describe what has been translated as unit of analysis, my guess is most people will still use the term unit of analysis. I don't think this is incorrect. We could look at the Russian text (if anyone has a copy) - the preposition is probably 'v' in Russian usually translated as 'of'. (Would anyone care to argue that it is better translated as 'for' ?) And yes, it is time to examine the applicability of the concept of activity as the unit for analysis versus Vygotsky's use of a 'word'. But what does this do to CHAT? Does CHAT as a theory offer two frameworks (the Cultural Historical Theory of Vygotsky and the Activity Theory of Leontiev) or one unifying framework? Just asking . . . ________________________________ From: Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:05 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] Typo!! I did not mean UFO but UFA! The UFO was an unidentified flying object from my keyboard. Please excuse! Annalisa ________________________________ From: Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:02 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] Hi Francine (and venerable others), In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from Zeus. "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" Yes, what is in a word? I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for understanding what he was trying to understand. There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if you press me I can look for it. I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very important distinction in our discussions. For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the specific to the general. I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why combined are not flammable. Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot be there. Right? So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes sense to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the specific to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* [specific] connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) [general]. If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the child and consciousness of the child. It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too simplistic in my explanation about it. Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I don't wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only unit worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a lot of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. I am not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. But I think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of the engine problem in need of repair. My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study for the purpose of analysis. For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant operates). But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets really complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, the guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of the activity? However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development of mind. He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in AT is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in what one wishes to study. I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. What do you think about that? Kind regards, Annalisa >From Francine: If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and Nikolai as Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation Thought and Language, p. 88 and p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in Volume 3 of The Collected Works , 1997). The word is a unit that is a synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph he chose to finalize his legacy in 1934. If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's own words). Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the 'word' as unit of analysis? ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. Henry and venerable others, I might add that Imagination is something like a self-imposed zone of proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to act upon that which is imagined. Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the *only* unit for analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that hard-wired about activity as the unit for analysis? That it depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit for analysis? For example, how does one use activity as the unit for analysis if one is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their notes? their lyrics? How might that work? Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201211/38359156/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Dec 11 14:32:50 2020 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:32:50 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07A97CC7-A8FE-47A3-8536-C383DB27A488@gmail.com> Holbrook, Annalisa Aguilar is pointing to the distinction, in understanding Vygotsky, between unit of analysis and unit for analysis. I take her distinction to be about rising to the concrete. Annalisa can correct me on this, but I wanted you to tune in, in case you want to add something to the discussion. Henry > On Dec 10, 2020, at 10:05 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > > Typo!! I did not mean UFO but UFA! The UFO was an unidentified flying object from my keyboard. Please excuse! > > Annalisa > From: Annalisa Aguilar > > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:02 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Hi Francine (and venerable others), > > In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from Zeus. > > "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" > > Yes, what is in a word? > > I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for understanding what he was trying to understand. > > There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if you press me I can look for it. > > I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very important distinction in our discussions. > > For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. > > UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the specific to the general. > > I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why combined are not flammable. > > Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? > > Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot be there. Right? > > So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes sense to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the specific to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* [specific] connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) [general]. > > If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the child and consciousness of the child. > > It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too simplistic in my explanation about it. > > Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I don't wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only unit worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a lot of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. I am not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. But I think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. > > If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of the engine problem in need of repair. > > My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study for the purpose of analysis. > > For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant operates). > > But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets really complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, the guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of the activity? > > However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. > > What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development of mind. > > He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? > > But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in AT is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in what one wishes to study. > > I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. > > With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. > > What do you think about that? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > > > > > >From Francine: > > If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and Nikolai as Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. > > Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation Thought and Language, p. 88 and p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on > p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in Volume 3 of The Collected Works , 1997). The word is a unit that is a synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph he chose to finalize his legacy in 1934. > > If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's own words). > > Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the 'word' as unit of analysis? > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > > Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. > > Henry and venerable others, > > I might add that Imagination is something like a self-imposed zone of proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to act upon that which is imagined. > > Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the *only* unit for analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that hard-wired about activity as the unit for analysis? That it depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit for analysis? > > For example, how does one use activity as the unit for analysis if one is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? > > If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their notes? their lyrics? > > How might that work? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201211/0f2e385f/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Dec 11 14:38:04 2020 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:38:04 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1482B294-F95C-4239-9ABA-F293E61F8A8E@gmail.com> Holbrook, Annalisa is at it again! Please read what she says here about Unit of analysis and unit for analysis.I think it is important. In another post I made a similar claim about word meaning ?in the wild?,(to use Ed Hutchin?s lingo) as very much determined by the context of use of the word, i.e. rising to the concrete. Henry > On Dec 11, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > > Hi Francine, Huw and of course, venerable others, > > Bypassing the opportunity to ignite the naming debate that Huw might be inadvertently inviting, and acknowledging that I have not watched the video in question, I am convinced there must be a way to differentiate any old unit of analysis from the unit selected for analysis. I maintain this is key to understanding Vygotsky's work. Keystone might be a better metaphor. Without this understanding, I contend that the arch of the theory collapses. I would be open to hearing from others on this if my affirmation should be disabused. > > This has to do with intentionality and how a study is designed; how a study will generalize, its validity, etc. This is a particularly hairy endeavor when dealing with psychology studies of Vygotky's time, or cognitive science studies, as we might know such studies today. > > I think a beautiful example of this choosing of units is Edwin Hutchin's Cognition in the Wild (1995) which is a study of navigation, as a cultural practice. The unit for analysis in his undertaking (even if he himself might say "unit of analysis") is the plot fix. Everything is tied together with that unit. That can be witnessed from reading the book, as all the chapters deal with a different aspect of the cultural practice of maritime navigation, but they all tie together with the unit of the plot fix. I have said it sometime ago I think the book is a masterpiece, and I still feel this way. > > I maintain that by using the phrase "unit for analysis" a researcher is signaling her conscious intention to choose the unit as connecting the specific to the general. This is an approach that Vygotsky recognizes as the only way to study development of the mind in a child, since children cannot communicate effectively what is going on in their minds or why, and certainly dissecting children to learn what is happening in their brains is an untenable method to legitimately study child development, and would only offer us biological data on brain development really, and that's making an assumption that minds are actually located in brains (they are not). At the same time, trying to avoid the pitfalls of the reflexologists (such as Pavlov) isn't it the case that LSV's assertion that the study of behavior, as is the practice of behaviorism, which reflexology anticipates, will not explain with precision the development of mind in the child. Behavior is too imprecise a unit to indicate thoughts of the subject. > > But then what I have worried about with activity theory, is whether it just a refabrication of behaviorism? I do not mean to be flip about that or to disparage AT, because I am not conversant in its approaches. I freely admit that. > > It's just I must disagree with connecting activity as a means of identifying awareness in an individual. Expertise can be measured by behavior, but consciousness? I'm not so sure. > > What is the indication of a meditating swami's awareness? If the swami is simply sitting, doing nothing? Nothing can be revealed. But if the swami teaches, the words the swami uses will indicate the level of conscious awareness the swami possesses. > > The word offers more precision. But again, it depends upon the objective of the inquiry. > > Thank you, Francine for locating the molecule quote, and I am remiss that I may have recalled the metaphor clumsily. You have corrected me and in so doing I am feeling the pull to read The Crisis again to refresh my memory. > > To Huw's credit it is true that some linguists might be chauvinistic toward their "medium", but that doesn't seem to jibe as a weakness for LSV, indeed he is promoting a very flexible approach. > > Also, while I'm not going to be the thought police of whether researchers use the right prepositions, OF or FOR, what I am supporting is the usage of UNITS FOR ANALYSIS as a means to distinguish intentionality, given the problems rife in translation. It would not be incorrect to say UNIT OF ANALYSIS, but it would be less precise. > > Furthermore, truly, I would have to defer to Holbrook here and I hope if he is out there, he might jump in. He is the one who put the notion in my head and explained its importance to me. I readily admit that that was some years ago and the mists of time could have obstructed my own ability to substantiate for you it as he did for me. > > This is to say that even if OF is a correct translation from the Russian, I did not argue that OF is a wrong translation of the Russian proposition used, but rather that FOR is a better translation of the word-meaning. If I gave that impression, that was my mistake. > > I would also suggest that the focus of discussion is not about word vs activity. That would a false dichotomy. It is about the units chosen for the purposes of analysis. That stance opens up many possibilities. > > I am a little agnostic about CHAT being the umbrella term that includes all the varieties of the theory. Though, honestly it doesn't sit comfortably for me, but that's why I might be a heretic and reference Vygotsky's theory as sociocultural theory. But I also recognize, others may feel the same way about that term, as I might feel about CHAT, for the same reason that it leaves something out. That is why I don't feel it's accurate to say it is two frameworks because there could be others in the future, and this would cause the acronym, CHAT, to break. > > So, the debate as framed, to me, would be: Under what conditions is the word the best unit for analysis, under what conditions is activity the best unit for analysis, and...(and this is an important concatenation) are there other possible units that could be better suited? > > This allows the theory to flex with advancing understanding in cognitive science (my umbrella term to include all the disciplines as referenced in Howard Gardener's diagram inThe Mind?s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution(1987); these being anthropology, artificial intelligence (comp sci), linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology). New units could be revealed as appropriate, which should be a welcomed innovation! > > Vygotsky is in my mind the first bona fide cognitive scientist, even though computer science was not even an embryo during his lifetime. He would have been amazed by the ways that computers are being used to model neural activity, and other forms of simulation, as well as how computers are learning language. Just imagine what he might do with a smart phone. > > WOW. > > This is why LSV's insights are so tremendous, because he includes a space for developments of the future. > > We stand on the shoulders of a beloved, gentle giant. > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > Huw Lloyd > > Fri 12/11/2020 5:24 AM > Francine, for clarification, I have considered CHAT to be an umbrella category, e.g. where the T may stand for Theories. Hence what Nikolai specifically focuses upon are Leontyev's AT, Vygotsky's CHT, and ?Yrj? Engestr?m's AT. > > Re units, various people (Andy comes to mind) have noted that LSV employed numerous units of analysis. On that basis my inference is that you are questioning the relation between activity-as-consciousness with word-meaning-as-consciousness (in the cognitive sense). If that is the case, then simply some practical thinking around manifestations of awareness and thinking reveals that word meanings are not the only vehicle for such awareness. This seems harder for linguists to recognise and recollect because this seems to be their principal medium. > > Best, > Huw > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > Larry Smolucha > > Wed 12/9/2020 6:53 PM > > >From Francine: > > Good Morning Annalisa, > I enjoyed reading your commentary. > > The Vygotsky quote you are looking for is on the second page of "Thought and Word" (p.211 in Thought and Language 1986). There the Kozulin translation is unit of analysis, just after Vygotsky describes how hydrogen and oxygen create a water droplet with properties different from the two flammable gases (combined in every molecule of water). Vygotsky then elaborates that in a water droplet the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This can be understood as the synthesis of a thesis and antithesis in a dialectic, referring back to Vygotsky's earlier argument for the use of dialectic in the The Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology (1926-1927). It can also be understood as a type of synergy - my husband Larry and I first introduced Synergistic Psychology in a publication in 1988 and have been advancing it as a theory ever since. > > Please note: "Thought and Word" begins with the analogy of a 'word' as being like water droplet and ends with an analogy with a water droplet. In the final paragraph - consciousness being reflected in a word just as sunlight is reflected off every drop of water, as well as the ocean. > > If you prefer using the terminology unit for analysis to describe what has been translated as unit of analysis, > my guess is most people will still use the term unit of analysis. I don't think this is incorrect. We could look at the Russian text (if anyone has a copy) - the preposition is probably 'v' in Russian usually translated as 'of'. (Would anyone care to argue that it is better translated as 'for' ?) > > And yes, it is time to examine the applicability of the concept of activity as the unit for analysis versus Vygotsky's use of a 'word'. But what does this do to CHAT? Does CHAT as a theory offer two frameworks (the Cultural Historical Theory of Vygotsky and the Activity Theory of Leontiev) or one unifying framework? Just asking . . . > > From: Annalisa Aguilar > > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:05 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Typo!! I did not mean UFO but UFA! The UFO was an unidentified flying object from my keyboard. Please excuse! > > Annalisa > From: Annalisa Aguilar > > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:02 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Hi Francine (and venerable others), > > In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from Zeus. > > "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" > > Yes, what is in a word? > > I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for understanding what he was trying to understand. > > There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if you press me I can look for it. > > I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very important distinction in our discussions. > > For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. > > UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the specific to the general. > > I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why combined are not flammable. > > Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? > > Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot be there. Right? > > So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes sense to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the specific to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* [specific] connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) [general]. > > If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the child and consciousness of the child. > > It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too simplistic in my explanation about it. > > Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I don't wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only unit worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a lot of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. I am not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. But I think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. > > If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of the engine problem in need of repair. > > My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study for the purpose of analysis. > > For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant operates). > > But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets really complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, the guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of the activity? > > However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. > > What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development of mind. > > He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? > > But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in AT is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in what one wishes to study. > > I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. > > With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. > > What do you think about that? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > > > > > >From Francine: > > If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and Nikolai as Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. > > Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation Thought and Language, p. 88 and p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on > p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in Volume 3 of The Collected Works , 1997). The word is a unit that is a synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph he chose to finalize his legacy in 1934. > > If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's own words). > > Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the 'word' as unit of analysis? > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > > Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. > > Henry and venerable others, > > I might add that Imagination is something like a self-imposed zone of proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to act upon that which is imagined. > > Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the *only* unit for analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that hard-wired about activity as the unit for analysis? That it depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit for analysis? > > For example, how does one use activity as the unit for analysis if one is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? > > If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their notes? their lyrics? > > How might that work? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201211/b3eb6964/attachment.html From lsmolucha@hotmail.com Fri Dec 11 15:01:51 2020 From: lsmolucha@hotmail.com (Larry Smolucha) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 23:01:51 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: From Francine: Huw, You mention that Vygotsky used different units of analysis - can you give some examples? Vygotsky was very clear that the 'word' is the unit of analysis for consciousness in the sense of self-awareness (not in the sense of waking consciousness versus an unconscious state like Stage 4 Delta Sleep or coma). What other unit of analysis did Vygotsky use? Vygotsky did discuss object substitutions during pretend play such as using a stick as if it was a horse, but he saw that as a transitional activity toward abstract thinking - naming and renaming objects, activities, and even internalized thoughts and images. Then there is sign language with words but not vocalizations, but still the 'word' remains the unit of analysis (once again naming). Just wondering . . . ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 2:19 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] Hi Francine, Huw and of course, venerable others, Bypassing the opportunity to ignite the naming debate that Huw might be inadvertently inviting, and acknowledging that I have not watched the video in question, I am convinced there must be a way to differentiate any old unit of analysis from the unit selected for analysis. I maintain this is key to understanding Vygotsky's work. Keystone might be a better metaphor. Without this understanding, I contend that the arch of the theory collapses. I would be open to hearing from others on this if my affirmation should be disabused. This has to do with intentionality and how a study is designed; how a study will generalize, its validity, etc. This is a particularly hairy endeavor when dealing with psychology studies of Vygotky's time, or cognitive science studies, as we might know such studies today. I think a beautiful example of this choosing of units is Edwin Hutchin's Cognition in the Wild (1995) which is a study of navigation, as a cultural practice. The unit for analysis in his undertaking (even if he himself might say "unit of analysis") is the plot fix. Everything is tied together with that unit. That can be witnessed from reading the book, as all the chapters deal with a different aspect of the cultural practice of maritime navigation, but they all tie together with the unit of the plot fix. I have said it sometime ago I think the book is a masterpiece, and I still feel this way. I maintain that by using the phrase "unit for analysis" a researcher is signaling her conscious intention to choose the unit as connecting the specific to the general. This is an approach that Vygotsky recognizes as the only way to study development of the mind in a child, since children cannot communicate effectively what is going on in their minds or why, and certainly dissecting children to learn what is happening in their brains is an untenable method to legitimately study child development, and would only offer us biological data on brain development really, and that's making an assumption that minds are actually located in brains (they are not). At the same time, trying to avoid the pitfalls of the reflexologists (such as Pavlov) isn't it the case that LSV's assertion that the study of behavior, as is the practice of behaviorism, which reflexology anticipates, will not explain with precision the development of mind in the child. Behavior is too imprecise a unit to indicate thoughts of the subject. But then what I have worried about with activity theory, is whether it just a refabrication of behaviorism? I do not mean to be flip about that or to disparage AT, because I am not conversant in its approaches. I freely admit that. It's just I must disagree with connecting activity as a means of identifying awareness in an individual. Expertise can be measured by behavior, but consciousness? I'm not so sure. What is the indication of a meditating swami's awareness? If the swami is simply sitting, doing nothing? Nothing can be revealed. But if the swami teaches, the words the swami uses will indicate the level of conscious awareness the swami possesses. The word offers more precision. But again, it depends upon the objective of the inquiry. Thank you, Francine for locating the molecule quote, and I am remiss that I may have recalled the metaphor clumsily. You have corrected me and in so doing I am feeling the pull to read The Crisis again to refresh my memory. To Huw's credit it is true that some linguists might be chauvinistic toward their "medium", but that doesn't seem to jibe as a weakness for LSV, indeed he is promoting a very flexible approach. Also, while I'm not going to be the thought police of whether researchers use the right prepositions, OF or FOR, what I am supporting is the usage of UNITS FOR ANALYSIS as a means to distinguish intentionality, given the problems rife in translation. It would not be incorrect to say UNIT OF ANALYSIS, but it would be less precise. Furthermore, truly, I would have to defer to Holbrook here and I hope if he is out there, he might jump in. He is the one who put the notion in my head and explained its importance to me. I readily admit that that was some years ago and the mists of time could have obstructed my own ability to substantiate for you it as he did for me. This is to say that even if OF is a correct translation from the Russian, I did not argue that OF is a wrong translation of the Russian proposition used, but rather that FOR is a better translation of the word-meaning. If I gave that impression, that was my mistake. I would also suggest that the focus of discussion is not about word vs activity. That would a false dichotomy. It is about the units chosen for the purposes of analysis. That stance opens up many possibilities. I am a little agnostic about CHAT being the umbrella term that includes all the varieties of the theory. Though, honestly it doesn't sit comfortably for me, but that's why I might be a heretic and reference Vygotsky's theory as sociocultural theory. But I also recognize, others may feel the same way about that term, as I might feel about CHAT, for the same reason that it leaves something out. That is why I don't feel it's accurate to say it is two frameworks because there could be others in the future, and this would cause the acronym, CHAT, to break. So, the debate as framed, to me, would be: Under what conditions is the word the best unit for analysis, under what conditions is activity the best unit for analysis, and...(and this is an important concatenation) are there other possible units that could be better suited? This allows the theory to flex with advancing understanding in cognitive science (my umbrella term to include all the disciplines as referenced in Howard Gardener's diagram in The Mind?s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution(1987); these being anthropology, artificial intelligence (comp sci), linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology). New units could be revealed as appropriate, which should be a welcomed innovation! Vygotsky is in my mind the first bona fide cognitive scientist, even though computer science was not even an embryo during his lifetime. He would have been amazed by the ways that computers are being used to model neural activity, and other forms of simulation, as well as how computers are learning language. Just imagine what he might do with a smart phone. WOW. This is why LSV's insights are so tremendous, because he includes a space for developments of the future. We stand on the shoulders of a beloved, gentle giant. Kind regards, Annalisa xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Huw Lloyd Fri 12/11/2020 5:24 AM Francine, for clarification, I have considered CHAT to be an umbrella category, e.g. where the T may stand for Theories. Hence what Nikolai specifically focuses upon are Leontyev's AT, Vygotsky's CHT, and ?Yrj? Engestr?m's AT. Re units, various people (Andy comes to mind) have noted that LSV employed numerous units of analysis. On that basis my inference is that you are questioning the relation between activity-as-consciousness with word-meaning-as-consciousness (in the cognitive sense). If that is the case, then simply some practical thinking around manifestations of awareness and thinking reveals that word meanings are not the only vehicle for such awareness. This seems harder for linguists to recognise and recollect because this seems to be their principal medium. Best, Huw xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Larry Smolucha Wed 12/9/2020 6:53 PM >From Francine: Good Morning Annalisa, I enjoyed reading your commentary. The Vygotsky quote you are looking for is on the second page of "Thought and Word" (p.211 in Thought and Language 1986). There the Kozulin translation is unit of analysis, just after Vygotsky describes how hydrogen and oxygen create a water droplet with properties different from the two flammable gases (combined in every molecule of water). Vygotsky then elaborates that in a water droplet the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This can be understood as the synthesis of a thesis and antithesis in a dialectic, referring back to Vygotsky's earlier argument for the use of dialectic in the The Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology (1926-1927). It can also be understood as a type of synergy - my husband Larry and I first introduced Synergistic Psychology in a publication in 1988 and have been advancing it as a theory ever since. Please note: "Thought and Word" begins with the analogy of a 'word' as being like water droplet and ends with an analogy with a water droplet. In the final paragraph - consciousness being reflected in a word just as sunlight is reflected off every drop of water, as well as the ocean. If you prefer using the terminology unit for analysis to describe what has been translated as unit of analysis, my guess is most people will still use the term unit of analysis. I don't think this is incorrect. We could look at the Russian text (if anyone has a copy) - the preposition is probably 'v' in Russian usually translated as 'of'. (Would anyone care to argue that it is better translated as 'for' ?) And yes, it is time to examine the applicability of the concept of activity as the unit for analysis versus Vygotsky's use of a 'word'. But what does this do to CHAT? Does CHAT as a theory offer two frameworks (the Cultural Historical Theory of Vygotsky and the Activity Theory of Leontiev) or one unifying framework? Just asking . . . ________________________________ From: Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:05 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] Typo!! I did not mean UFO but UFA! The UFO was an unidentified flying object from my keyboard. Please excuse! Annalisa ________________________________ From: Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:02 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] Hi Francine (and venerable others), In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from Zeus. "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" Yes, what is in a word? I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for understanding what he was trying to understand. There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if you press me I can look for it. I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very important distinction in our discussions. For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the specific to the general. I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why combined are not flammable. Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot be there. Right? So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes sense to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the specific to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* [specific] connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) [general]. If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the child and consciousness of the child. It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too simplistic in my explanation about it. Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I don't wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only unit worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a lot of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. I am not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. But I think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of the engine problem in need of repair. My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study for the purpose of analysis. For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant operates). But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets really complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, the guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of the activity? However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development of mind. He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in AT is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in what one wishes to study. I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. What do you think about that? Kind regards, Annalisa >From Francine: If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and Nikolai as Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation Thought and Language, p. 88 and p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in Volume 3 of The Collected Works , 1997). The word is a unit that is a synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph he chose to finalize his legacy in 1934. If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's own words). Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the 'word' as unit of analysis? ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. Henry and venerable others, I might add that Imagination is something like a self-imposed zone of proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to act upon that which is imagined. Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the *only* unit for analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that hard-wired about activity as the unit for analysis? That it depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit for analysis? For example, how does one use activity as the unit for analysis if one is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their notes? their lyrics? How might that work? Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201211/594a0ed6/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Sun Dec 13 10:53:07 2020 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 18:53:07 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] In-Reply-To: References: , , , Message-ID: Francine, Huw had mentioned Andy said this about Vygotskian units, perhaps Andy would be interested in responding. I am also trying to invite Holbrook to wade in, but Henry and I don't seem to be having much luck. Something was uttered about not being any fun. I do think that the element of play is missing from the ambience of this list that would be delightful to see reborn. Anyone have any toys? Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Larry Smolucha Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 4:01 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] [EXTERNAL] From Francine: Huw, You mention that Vygotsky used different units of analysis - can you give some examples? Vygotsky was very clear that the 'word' is the unit of analysis for consciousness in the sense of self-awareness (not in the sense of waking consciousness versus an unconscious state like Stage 4 Delta Sleep or coma). What other unit of analysis did Vygotsky use? Vygotsky did discuss object substitutions during pretend play such as using a stick as if it was a horse, but he saw that as a transitional activity toward abstract thinking - naming and renaming objects, activities, and even internalized thoughts and images. Then there is sign language with words but not vocalizations, but still the 'word' remains the unit of analysis (once again naming). Just wondering . . . ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 2:19 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] Hi Francine, Huw and of course, venerable others, Bypassing the opportunity to ignite the naming debate that Huw might be inadvertently inviting, and acknowledging that I have not watched the video in question, I am convinced there must be a way to differentiate any old unit of analysis from the unit selected for analysis. I maintain this is key to understanding Vygotsky's work. Keystone might be a better metaphor. Without this understanding, I contend that the arch of the theory collapses. I would be open to hearing from others on this if my affirmation should be disabused. This has to do with intentionality and how a study is designed; how a study will generalize, its validity, etc. This is a particularly hairy endeavor when dealing with psychology studies of Vygotky's time, or cognitive science studies, as we might know such studies today. I think a beautiful example of this choosing of units is Edwin Hutchin's Cognition in the Wild (1995) which is a study of navigation, as a cultural practice. The unit for analysis in his undertaking (even if he himself might say "unit of analysis") is the plot fix. Everything is tied together with that unit. That can be witnessed from reading the book, as all the chapters deal with a different aspect of the cultural practice of maritime navigation, but they all tie together with the unit of the plot fix. I have said it sometime ago I think the book is a masterpiece, and I still feel this way. I maintain that by using the phrase "unit for analysis" a researcher is signaling her conscious intention to choose the unit as connecting the specific to the general. This is an approach that Vygotsky recognizes as the only way to study development of the mind in a child, since children cannot communicate effectively what is going on in their minds or why, and certainly dissecting children to learn what is happening in their brains is an untenable method to legitimately study child development, and would only offer us biological data on brain development really, and that's making an assumption that minds are actually located in brains (they are not). At the same time, trying to avoid the pitfalls of the reflexologists (such as Pavlov) isn't it the case that LSV's assertion that the study of behavior, as is the practice of behaviorism, which reflexology anticipates, will not explain with precision the development of mind in the child. Behavior is too imprecise a unit to indicate thoughts of the subject. But then what I have worried about with activity theory, is whether it just a refabrication of behaviorism? I do not mean to be flip about that or to disparage AT, because I am not conversant in its approaches. I freely admit that. It's just I must disagree with connecting activity as a means of identifying awareness in an individual. Expertise can be measured by behavior, but consciousness? I'm not so sure. What is the indication of a meditating swami's awareness? If the swami is simply sitting, doing nothing? Nothing can be revealed. But if the swami teaches, the words the swami uses will indicate the level of conscious awareness the swami possesses. The word offers more precision. But again, it depends upon the objective of the inquiry. Thank you, Francine for locating the molecule quote, and I am remiss that I may have recalled the metaphor clumsily. You have corrected me and in so doing I am feeling the pull to read The Crisis again to refresh my memory. To Huw's credit it is true that some linguists might be chauvinistic toward their "medium", but that doesn't seem to jibe as a weakness for LSV, indeed he is promoting a very flexible approach. Also, while I'm not going to be the thought police of whether researchers use the right prepositions, OF or FOR, what I am supporting is the usage of UNITS FOR ANALYSIS as a means to distinguish intentionality, given the problems rife in translation. It would not be incorrect to say UNIT OF ANALYSIS, but it would be less precise. Furthermore, truly, I would have to defer to Holbrook here and I hope if he is out there, he might jump in. He is the one who put the notion in my head and explained its importance to me. I readily admit that that was some years ago and the mists of time could have obstructed my own ability to substantiate for you it as he did for me. This is to say that even if OF is a correct translation from the Russian, I did not argue that OF is a wrong translation of the Russian proposition used, but rather that FOR is a better translation of the word-meaning. If I gave that impression, that was my mistake. I would also suggest that the focus of discussion is not about word vs activity. That would a false dichotomy. It is about the units chosen for the purposes of analysis. That stance opens up many possibilities. I am a little agnostic about CHAT being the umbrella term that includes all the varieties of the theory. Though, honestly it doesn't sit comfortably for me, but that's why I might be a heretic and reference Vygotsky's theory as sociocultural theory. But I also recognize, others may feel the same way about that term, as I might feel about CHAT, for the same reason that it leaves something out. That is why I don't feel it's accurate to say it is two frameworks because there could be others in the future, and this would cause the acronym, CHAT, to break. So, the debate as framed, to me, would be: Under what conditions is the word the best unit for analysis, under what conditions is activity the best unit for analysis, and...(and this is an important concatenation) are there other possible units that could be better suited? This allows the theory to flex with advancing understanding in cognitive science (my umbrella term to include all the disciplines as referenced in Howard Gardener's diagram in The Mind?s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution(1987); these being anthropology, artificial intelligence (comp sci), linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology). New units could be revealed as appropriate, which should be a welcomed innovation! Vygotsky is in my mind the first bona fide cognitive scientist, even though computer science was not even an embryo during his lifetime. He would have been amazed by the ways that computers are being used to model neural activity, and other forms of simulation, as well as how computers are learning language. Just imagine what he might do with a smart phone. WOW. This is why LSV's insights are so tremendous, because he includes a space for developments of the future. We stand on the shoulders of a beloved, gentle giant. Kind regards, Annalisa xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Huw Lloyd Fri 12/11/2020 5:24 AM Francine, for clarification, I have considered CHAT to be an umbrella category, e.g. where the T may stand for Theories. Hence what Nikolai specifically focuses upon are Leontyev's AT, Vygotsky's CHT, and ?Yrj? Engestr?m's AT. Re units, various people (Andy comes to mind) have noted that LSV employed numerous units of analysis. On that basis my inference is that you are questioning the relation between activity-as-consciousness with word-meaning-as-consciousness (in the cognitive sense). If that is the case, then simply some practical thinking around manifestations of awareness and thinking reveals that word meanings are not the only vehicle for such awareness. This seems harder for linguists to recognise and recollect because this seems to be their principal medium. Best, Huw xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Larry Smolucha Wed 12/9/2020 6:53 PM >From Francine: Good Morning Annalisa, I enjoyed reading your commentary. The Vygotsky quote you are looking for is on the second page of "Thought and Word" (p.211 in Thought and Language 1986). There the Kozulin translation is unit of analysis, just after Vygotsky describes how hydrogen and oxygen create a water droplet with properties different from the two flammable gases (combined in every molecule of water). Vygotsky then elaborates that in a water droplet the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This can be understood as the synthesis of a thesis and antithesis in a dialectic, referring back to Vygotsky's earlier argument for the use of dialectic in the The Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology (1926-1927). It can also be understood as a type of synergy - my husband Larry and I first introduced Synergistic Psychology in a publication in 1988 and have been advancing it as a theory ever since. Please note: "Thought and Word" begins with the analogy of a 'word' as being like water droplet and ends with an analogy with a water droplet. In the final paragraph - consciousness being reflected in a word just as sunlight is reflected off every drop of water, as well as the ocean. If you prefer using the terminology unit for analysis to describe what has been translated as unit of analysis, my guess is most people will still use the term unit of analysis. I don't think this is incorrect. We could look at the Russian text (if anyone has a copy) - the preposition is probably 'v' in Russian usually translated as 'of'. (Would anyone care to argue that it is better translated as 'for' ?) And yes, it is time to examine the applicability of the concept of activity as the unit for analysis versus Vygotsky's use of a 'word'. But what does this do to CHAT? Does CHAT as a theory offer two frameworks (the Cultural Historical Theory of Vygotsky and the Activity Theory of Leontiev) or one unifying framework? Just asking . . . ________________________________ From: Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:05 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] Typo!! I did not mean UFO but UFA! The UFO was an unidentified flying object from my keyboard. Please excuse! Annalisa ________________________________ From: Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:02 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] Hi Francine (and venerable others), In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from Zeus. "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" Yes, what is in a word? I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for understanding what he was trying to understand. There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if you press me I can look for it. I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very important distinction in our discussions. For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the specific to the general. I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why combined are not flammable. Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot be there. Right? So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes sense to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the specific to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* [specific] connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) [general]. If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the child and consciousness of the child. It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too simplistic in my explanation about it. Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I don't wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only unit worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a lot of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. I am not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. But I think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of the engine problem in need of repair. My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study for the purpose of analysis. For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant operates). But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets really complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, the guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of the activity? However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development of mind. He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in AT is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in what one wishes to study. I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. What do you think about that? Kind regards, Annalisa >From Francine: If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and Nikolai as Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation Thought and Language, p. 88 and p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in Volume 3 of The Collected Works , 1997). The word is a unit that is a synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph he chose to finalize his legacy in 1934. If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's own words). Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the 'word' as unit of analysis? ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. Henry and venerable others, I might add that Imagination is something like a self-imposed zone of proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to act upon that which is imagined. Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the *only* unit for analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that hard-wired about activity as the unit for analysis? That it depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit for analysis? For example, how does one use activity as the unit for analysis if one is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their notes? their lyrics? How might that work? Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201213/aa6d6a5e/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Sun Dec 13 11:31:23 2020 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 12:31:23 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: :)) > On Dec 13, 2020, at 11:53 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > > Francine, > > Huw had mentioned Andy said this about Vygotskian units, perhaps Andy would be interested in responding. > > I am also trying to invite Holbrook to wade in, but Henry and I don't seem to be having much luck. > > Something was uttered about not being any fun. > > I do think that the element of play is missing from the ambience of this list that would be delightful to see reborn. > > Anyone have any toys? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Larry Smolucha > > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 4:01 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > [EXTERNAL] > From Francine: > > Huw, You mention that Vygotsky used different units of analysis - can you give some examples? > > Vygotsky was very clear that the 'word' is the unit of analysis for consciousness in the sense of self-awareness (not in the sense of waking consciousness versus an unconscious state like Stage 4 Delta Sleep or coma). > What other unit of analysis did Vygotsky use? Vygotsky did discuss object substitutions during pretend play such as using a stick as if it was a horse, but he saw that as a transitional activity toward abstract thinking - naming and renaming objects, activities, and even internalized thoughts and images. > Then there is sign language with words but not vocalizations, but still the 'word' remains the unit of analysis (once again naming). > > Just wondering . . . > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 2:19 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Hi Francine, Huw and of course, venerable others, > > Bypassing the opportunity to ignite the naming debate that Huw might be inadvertently inviting, and acknowledging that I have not watched the video in question, I am convinced there must be a way to differentiate any old unit of analysis from the unit selected for analysis. I maintain this is key to understanding Vygotsky's work. Keystone might be a better metaphor. Without this understanding, I contend that the arch of the theory collapses. I would be open to hearing from others on this if my affirmation should be disabused. > > This has to do with intentionality and how a study is designed; how a study will generalize, its validity, etc. This is a particularly hairy endeavor when dealing with psychology studies of Vygotky's time, or cognitive science studies, as we might know such studies today. > > I think a beautiful example of this choosing of units is Edwin Hutchin's Cognition in the Wild (1995) which is a study of navigation, as a cultural practice. The unit for analysis in his undertaking (even if he himself might say "unit of analysis") is the plot fix. Everything is tied together with that unit. That can be witnessed from reading the book, as all the chapters deal with a different aspect of the cultural practice of maritime navigation, but they all tie together with the unit of the plot fix. I have said it sometime ago I think the book is a masterpiece, and I still feel this way. > > I maintain that by using the phrase "unit for analysis" a researcher is signaling her conscious intention to choose the unit as connecting the specific to the general. This is an approach that Vygotsky recognizes as the only way to study development of the mind in a child, since children cannot communicate effectively what is going on in their minds or why, and certainly dissecting children to learn what is happening in their brains is an untenable method to legitimately study child development, and would only offer us biological data on brain development really, and that's making an assumption that minds are actually located in brains (they are not). At the same time, trying to avoid the pitfalls of the reflexologists (such as Pavlov) isn't it the case that LSV's assertion that the study of behavior, as is the practice of behaviorism, which reflexology anticipates, will not explain with precision the development of mind in the child. Behavior is too imprecise a unit to indicate thoughts of the subject. > > But then what I have worried about with activity theory, is whether it just a refabrication of behaviorism? I do not mean to be flip about that or to disparage AT, because I am not conversant in its approaches. I freely admit that. > > It's just I must disagree with connecting activity as a means of identifying awareness in an individual. Expertise can be measured by behavior, but consciousness? I'm not so sure. > > What is the indication of a meditating swami's awareness? If the swami is simply sitting, doing nothing? Nothing can be revealed. But if the swami teaches, the words the swami uses will indicate the level of conscious awareness the swami possesses. > > The word offers more precision. But again, it depends upon the objective of the inquiry. > > Thank you, Francine for locating the molecule quote, and I am remiss that I may have recalled the metaphor clumsily. You have corrected me and in so doing I am feeling the pull to read The Crisis again to refresh my memory. > > To Huw's credit it is true that some linguists might be chauvinistic toward their "medium", but that doesn't seem to jibe as a weakness for LSV, indeed he is promoting a very flexible approach. > > Also, while I'm not going to be the thought police of whether researchers use the right prepositions, OF or FOR, what I am supporting is the usage of UNITS FOR ANALYSIS as a means to distinguish intentionality, given the problems rife in translation. It would not be incorrect to say UNIT OF ANALYSIS, but it would be less precise. > > Furthermore, truly, I would have to defer to Holbrook here and I hope if he is out there, he might jump in. He is the one who put the notion in my head and explained its importance to me. I readily admit that that was some years ago and the mists of time could have obstructed my own ability to substantiate for you it as he did for me. > > This is to say that even if OF is a correct translation from the Russian, I did not argue that OF is a wrong translation of the Russian proposition used, but rather that FOR is a better translation of the word-meaning. If I gave that impression, that was my mistake. > > I would also suggest that the focus of discussion is not about word vs activity. That would a false dichotomy. It is about the units chosen for the purposes of analysis. That stance opens up many possibilities. > > I am a little agnostic about CHAT being the umbrella term that includes all the varieties of the theory. Though, honestly it doesn't sit comfortably for me, but that's why I might be a heretic and reference Vygotsky's theory as sociocultural theory. But I also recognize, others may feel the same way about that term, as I might feel about CHAT, for the same reason that it leaves something out. That is why I don't feel it's accurate to say it is two frameworks because there could be others in the future, and this would cause the acronym, CHAT, to break. > > So, the debate as framed, to me, would be: Under what conditions is the word the best unit for analysis, under what conditions is activity the best unit for analysis, and...(and this is an important concatenation) are there other possible units that could be better suited? > > This allows the theory to flex with advancing understanding in cognitive science (my umbrella term to include all the disciplines as referenced in Howard Gardener's diagram in The Mind?s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution(1987); these being anthropology, artificial intelligence (comp sci), linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology). New units could be revealed as appropriate, which should be a welcomed innovation! > > Vygotsky is in my mind the first bona fide cognitive scientist, even though computer science was not even an embryo during his lifetime. He would have been amazed by the ways that computers are being used to model neural activity, and other forms of simulation, as well as how computers are learning language. Just imagine what he might do with a smart phone. > > WOW. > > This is why LSV's insights are so tremendous, because he includes a space for developments of the future. > > We stand on the shoulders of a beloved, gentle giant. > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > Huw Lloyd > > Fri 12/11/2020 5:24 AM > Francine, for clarification, I have considered CHAT to be an umbrella category, e.g. where the T may stand for Theories. Hence what Nikolai specifically focuses upon are Leontyev's AT, Vygotsky's CHT, and ?Yrj? Engestr?m's AT. > > Re units, various people (Andy comes to mind) have noted that LSV employed numerous units of analysis. On that basis my inference is that you are questioning the relation between activity-as-consciousness with word-meaning-as-consciousness (in the cognitive sense). If that is the case, then simply some practical thinking around manifestations of awareness and thinking reveals that word meanings are not the only vehicle for such awareness. This seems harder for linguists to recognise and recollect because this seems to be their principal medium. > > Best, > Huw > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > Larry Smolucha > > Wed 12/9/2020 6:53 PM > > >From Francine: > > Good Morning Annalisa, > I enjoyed reading your commentary. > > The Vygotsky quote you are looking for is on the second page of "Thought and Word" (p.211 in Thought and Language 1986). There the Kozulin translation is unit of analysis, just after Vygotsky describes how hydrogen and oxygen create a water droplet with properties different from the two flammable gases (combined in every molecule of water). Vygotsky then elaborates that in a water droplet the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This can be understood as the synthesis of a thesis and antithesis in a dialectic, referring back to Vygotsky's earlier argument for the use of dialectic in the The Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology (1926-1927). It can also be understood as a type of synergy - my husband Larry and I first introduced Synergistic Psychology in a publication in 1988 and have been advancing it as a theory ever since. > > Please note: "Thought and Word" begins with the analogy of a 'word' as being like water droplet and ends with an analogy with a water droplet. In the final paragraph - consciousness being reflected in a word just as sunlight is reflected off every drop of water, as well as the ocean. > > If you prefer using the terminology unit for analysis to describe what has been translated as unit of analysis, > my guess is most people will still use the term unit of analysis. I don't think this is incorrect. We could look at the Russian text (if anyone has a copy) - the preposition is probably 'v' in Russian usually translated as 'of'. (Would anyone care to argue that it is better translated as 'for' ?) > > And yes, it is time to examine the applicability of the concept of activity as the unit for analysis versus Vygotsky's use of a 'word'. But what does this do to CHAT? Does CHAT as a theory offer two frameworks (the Cultural Historical Theory of Vygotsky and the Activity Theory of Leontiev) or one unifying framework? Just asking . . . > > From: Annalisa Aguilar > > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:05 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Typo!! I did not mean UFO but UFA! The UFO was an unidentified flying object from my keyboard. Please excuse! > > Annalisa > From: Annalisa Aguilar > > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:02 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Hi Francine (and venerable others), > > In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from Zeus. > > "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" > > Yes, what is in a word? > > I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for understanding what he was trying to understand. > > There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if you press me I can look for it. > > I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very important distinction in our discussions. > > For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. > > UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the specific to the general. > > I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why combined are not flammable. > > Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? > > Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot be there. Right? > > So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes sense to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the specific to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* [specific] connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) [general]. > > If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the child and consciousness of the child. > > It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too simplistic in my explanation about it. > > Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I don't wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only unit worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a lot of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. I am not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. But I think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. > > If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of the engine problem in need of repair. > > My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study for the purpose of analysis. > > For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant operates). > > But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets really complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, the guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of the activity? > > However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. > > What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development of mind. > > He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? > > But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in AT is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in what one wishes to study. > > I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. > > With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. > > What do you think about that? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > > > > > >From Francine: > > If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and Nikolai as Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. > > Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation Thought and Language, p. 88 and p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on > p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in Volume 3 of The Collected Works , 1997). The word is a unit that is a synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph he chose to finalize his legacy in 1934. > > If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's own words). > > Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the 'word' as unit of analysis? > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > > Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. > > Henry and venerable others, > > I might add that Imagination is something like a self-imposed zone of proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to act upon that which is imagined. > > Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the *only* unit for analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that hard-wired about activity as the unit for analysis? That it depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit for analysis? > > For example, how does one use activity as the unit for analysis if one is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? > > If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their notes? their lyrics? > > How might that work? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201213/76f2606c/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sun Dec 13 14:32:18 2020 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 22:32:18 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Francine, I suggest you email Andy if you want to dig into that. Multiple units seems quite sensible to me given that Vygotsky focused upon a variety of experimental situations. If signing counts as wording then you can pick mostly anything. It would be more accurate to describe that as signs. Given that signs are used to integrate operations (or at least they are in my formulations) it seems you may have answered your first question. Huw On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 23:04, Larry Smolucha wrote: > From Francine: > > Huw, You mention that Vygotsky used different units of analysis - can > you give some examples? > > Vygotsky was very clear that the 'word' is the unit of analysis for > consciousness in the sense of self-awareness (not in the sense of waking > consciousness versus an unconscious state like Stage 4 Delta Sleep or > coma). > What other unit of analysis did Vygotsky use? Vygotsky did > discuss object substitutions during pretend play such as using a stick as > if it was a horse, but he saw that as a transitional activity toward > abstract thinking - *naming* and *renaming* objects, activities, and even > internalized thoughts and images. > Then there is sign language with words but not > vocalizations, but still the 'word' remains the unit of analysis (once > again *naming*). > > Just wondering . . . > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2020 2:19 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical > Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Hi Francine, Huw and of course, venerable others, > > Bypassing the opportunity to ignite the naming debate that Huw might be > inadvertently inviting, and acknowledging that I have not watched the video > in question, I am convinced there must be a way to differentiate any old > unit of analysis from the unit selected for analysis. I maintain this is > key to understanding Vygotsky's work. Keystone might be a better metaphor. > Without this understanding, I contend that the arch of the theory > collapses. I would be open to hearing from others on this if my affirmation > should be disabused. > > This has to do with intentionality and how a study is designed; how a > study will generalize, its validity, etc. This is a particularly hairy > endeavor when dealing with psychology studies of Vygotky's time, or > cognitive science studies, as we might know such studies today. > > I think a beautiful example of this choosing of units is Edwin Hutchin's > Cognition in the Wild (1995) which is a study of navigation, as a cultural > practice. The unit for analysis in his undertaking (even if he himself > might say "unit of analysis") is the plot fix. Everything is tied together > with that unit. That can be witnessed from reading the book, as all the > chapters deal with a different aspect of the cultural practice of maritime > navigation, but they all tie together with the unit of the plot fix. I have > said it sometime ago I think the book is a masterpiece, and I still feel > this way. > > I maintain that by using the phrase "unit for analysis" a researcher is > signaling her conscious intention to choose the unit as connecting the > specific to the general. This is an approach that Vygotsky recognizes as > the only way to study development of the mind in a child, since children > cannot communicate effectively what is going on in their minds or why, and > certainly dissecting children to learn what is happening in their brains is > an untenable method to legitimately study child development, and would only > offer us biological data on brain development really, and that's making an > assumption that minds are actually located in brains (they are not). At the > same time, trying to avoid the pitfalls of the reflexologists (such as > Pavlov) isn't it the case that LSV's assertion that the study of behavior, > as is the practice of behaviorism, which reflexology anticipates, will not > explain with precision the development of mind in the child. Behavior is > too imprecise a unit to indicate thoughts of the subject. > > But then what I have worried about with activity theory, is whether it > just a refabrication of behaviorism? I do not mean to be flip about that or > to disparage AT, because I am not conversant in its approaches. I freely > admit that. > > It's just I must disagree with connecting activity as a means of > identifying awareness in an individual. Expertise can be measured by > behavior, but consciousness? I'm not so sure. > > What is the indication of a meditating swami's awareness? If the swami is > simply sitting, doing nothing? Nothing can be revealed. But if the swami > teaches, the words the swami uses will indicate the level of conscious > awareness the swami possesses. > > The word offers more precision. But again, it depends upon the objective > of the inquiry. > > Thank you, Francine for locating the molecule quote, and I am remiss that > I may have recalled the metaphor clumsily. You have corrected me and in so > doing I am feeling the pull to read *The Crisis* again to refresh my > memory. > > To Huw's credit it is true that some linguists might be chauvinistic > toward their "medium", but that doesn't seem to jibe as a weakness for LSV, > indeed he is promoting a very flexible approach. > > Also, while I'm not going to be the thought police of whether researchers > use the right prepositions, OF or FOR, what I am supporting is the usage of > UNITS FOR ANALYSIS as a means to distinguish intentionality, given the > problems rife in translation. It would not be incorrect to say UNIT OF > ANALYSIS, but it would be less precise. > > Furthermore, truly, I would have to defer to Holbrook here and I hope if > he is out there, he might jump in. He is the one who put the notion in my > head and explained its importance to me. I readily admit that that was some > years ago and the mists of time could have obstructed my own ability to > substantiate for you it as he did for me. > > This is to say that even if OF is a correct translation from the Russian, > I did not argue that OF is a wrong translation of the Russian proposition > used, but rather that FOR is a better translation of the word-meaning. If I > gave that impression, that was my mistake. > > I would also suggest that the focus of discussion is not about word vs > activity. That would a false dichotomy. It is about the units chosen for > the purposes of analysis. That stance opens up many possibilities. > > I am a little agnostic about CHAT being the umbrella term that includes > all the varieties of the theory. Though, honestly it doesn't sit > comfortably for me, but that's why I might be a heretic and reference > Vygotsky's theory as sociocultural theory. But I also recognize, others may > feel the same way about that term, as I might feel about CHAT, for the same > reason that it leaves something out. That is why I don't feel it's accurate > to say it is two frameworks because there could be others in the future, > and this would cause the acronym, CHAT, to break. > > So, the debate as framed, to me, would be: Under what conditions is the > word the best unit for analysis, under what conditions is activity the best > unit for analysis, and...(and this is an important concatenation) are there > other possible units that could be better suited? > > This allows the theory to flex with advancing understanding in cognitive > science (my umbrella term to include all the disciplines as referenced in > Howard Gardener's diagram in *The Mind?s New Science: A History of the > Cognitive Revolution(1987); *these being anthropology, artificial > intelligence (comp sci), linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, and > psychology*)*. New units could be revealed as appropriate, which should > be a welcomed innovation! > > Vygotsky is in my mind the first bona fide cognitive scientist, even > though computer science was not even an embryo during his lifetime. He > would have been amazed by the ways that computers are being used to model > neural activity, and other forms of simulation, as well as how computers > are learning language. Just imagine what he might do with a smart phone. > > WOW. > > This is why LSV's insights are so tremendous, because he includes a space > for developments of the future. > > We stand on the shoulders of a beloved, gentle giant. > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of > Huw Lloyd > Fri 12/11/2020 5:24 AM > Francine, for clarification, I have considered CHAT to be an umbrella > category, e.g. where the T may stand for Theories. Hence what Nikolai > specifically focuses upon are Leontyev's AT, Vygotsky's CHT, and ?Yrj? > Engestr?m's AT. > > Re units, various people (Andy comes to mind) have noted that LSV employed > numerous units of analysis. On that basis my inference is that you are > questioning the relation between activity-as-consciousness with > word-meaning-as-consciousness (in the cognitive sense). If that is the > case, then simply some practical thinking around manifestations of > awareness and thinking reveals that word meanings are not the only vehicle > for such awareness. This seems harder for linguists to recognise and > recollect because this seems to be their principal medium. > > Best, > Huw > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of > Larry Smolucha > Wed 12/9/2020 6:53 PM > > >From Francine: > > Good Morning Annalisa, > I enjoyed reading your commentary. > > The Vygotsky quote you are looking for is on the second page of "Thought > and Word" (p.211 in *Thought and Language* 1986). There the Kozulin > translation is *unit of analysis*, just after Vygotsky describes how > hydrogen and oxygen create a water droplet with properties different from > the two flammable gases (combined in every molecule of water). Vygotsky > then elaborates that in a water droplet the whole is greater than the sum > of the parts. This can be understood as the *synthesis of a thesis and > antithesis* in a dialectic, referring back to Vygotsky's earlier argument > for the use of dialectic in the* The Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology* > (1926-1927). It can also be understood as a type of synergy - my husband > Larry and I first introduced *Synergistic Psychology* in a publication in > 1988 and have been advancing it as a theory ever since. > > Please note: "Thought and Word" *begins* with the analogy of a 'word' as > being like water droplet and *ends* with an analogy with a water droplet. > In the final paragraph - consciousness being reflected in a word just as > sunlight is reflected off every drop of water, as well as the ocean. > > If you prefer using the terminology *unit for analysis* to describe what > has been translated as *unit of analysis*, > my guess is *most people will still use the term unit of analysis*. I > don't think this is incorrect. We could look at the Russian text (if anyone > has a copy) - the preposition is probably 'v' in Russian usually translated > as 'of'. (Would anyone care to argue that it is better translated as 'for' > ?) > > And yes, it is time to examine the applicability of the concept of > activity as the unit for analysis versus Vygotsky's use of a 'word'. But > what does this do to CHAT? Does CHAT as a theory offer two frameworks (the > Cultural Historical Theory of Vygotsky *and* the Activity Theory of > Leontiev) or one unifying framework? Just asking . . . > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:05 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical > Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Typo!! I did not mean UFO but UFA! The UFO was an unidentified flying > object from my keyboard. Please excuse! > > Annalisa > ------------------------------ > *From:* Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:02 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical > Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Hi Francine (and venerable others), > > In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously > debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from > Zeus. > > "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" > > > Yes, what is in a word? > > I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for > understanding what he was trying to understand. > > There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning > and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF > analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if > you press me I can look for it. > > I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very important > distinction in our discussions. > > For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. > > UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily > connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. > The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to > the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the > specific to the general. > > I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light > on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I > mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought > it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. > Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand > the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the > behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to > understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why > combined are not flammable. > > Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? > > Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word > like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between > UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows > us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the > manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, > the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot > be there. Right? > > So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes sense > to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the specific > to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* [specific] > connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) [general]. > > If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore > understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the > child and consciousness of the child. > > It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too > simplistic in my explanation about it. > > Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I don't > wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only unit > worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a lot > of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. I am > not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. But I > think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. > > If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am > working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a > crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is > what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of > the engine problem in need of repair. > > My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for > the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which > we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that > very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study *for > the purpose of analysis. * > > For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for > analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels > (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as > ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects > the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant > operates). > > But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets really > complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, the > guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even > perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this > activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of > the activity? > > However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service > versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, > the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an > analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for > analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are > connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they > influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. > > What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I > confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I > also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar > standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development > of mind. > > He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his > writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? > > But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in AT > is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a > unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held > as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly > appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as > the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in > what one wishes to study. > > I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a > dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am > perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. > I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he > preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied > through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of > his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. > > With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or > vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object > of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that > is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. > > What do you think about that? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > > > > > >From Francine: > > If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and > Nikolai as* Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity > Theory*. > > Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The > Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding > paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed > in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation *Thought and Language*, p. 88 and > p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on > p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like > sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The > Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in > Volume 3 of *The Collected Works* , 1997). The word is a unit that is a > synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's > writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph *he chose* to finalize > his legacy in 1934. > > If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his > writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. > Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in > Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no > connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a > coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper > that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's > own words). > > Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the > 'word' as unit of analysis? > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. > > Henry and venerable others, > > I might add that *Imagination* is something like a self-imposed zone of > proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to > act upon that which is imagined. > > Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the > *only* unit *for* analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that > hard-wired about activity as the unit *for* analysis? That it depends > upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between > CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit *for* analysis? > > For example, how does one use activity as the unit *for* analysis if one > is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? > > If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them > be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they > are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their > notes? their lyrics? > > How might that work? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201213/dbe955ad/attachment.html From wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com Sun Dec 13 15:01:39 2020 From: wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com (Wolff-Michael Roth) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:01:39 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Vygotsky actually says that the sense of the word is determined but the WORLD as a whole (in Thought and Language). As Vygotsky rejected much of his work in the final months of his life (see his notes that Anton Yasnitzky and E. Zavershneva published with commentaries), I would rather look at the kinds of units he might have pursued if he had the opportunity to develop his new program rather than only being able to see the new land, as Moses did, without being available to step on it (paraphrasing his own words). Michael On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 2:34 PM Huw Lloyd wrote: > Hello Francine, > > I suggest you email Andy if you want to dig into that. Multiple units > seems quite sensible to me given that Vygotsky focused upon a variety of > experimental situations. > > If signing counts as wording then you can pick mostly anything. It would > be more accurate to describe that as signs. Given that signs are used to > integrate operations (or at least they are in my formulations) it seems you > may have answered your first question. > > Huw > > On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 23:04, Larry Smolucha > wrote: > >> >From Francine: >> >> Huw, You mention that Vygotsky used different units of analysis - can >> you give some examples? >> >> Vygotsky was very clear that the 'word' is the unit of analysis for >> consciousness in the sense of self-awareness (not in the sense of waking >> consciousness versus an unconscious state like Stage 4 Delta Sleep or >> coma). >> What other unit of analysis did Vygotsky use? Vygotsky did >> discuss object substitutions during pretend play such as using a stick as >> if it was a horse, but he saw that as a transitional activity toward >> abstract thinking - *naming* and *renaming* objects, activities, and >> even internalized thoughts and images. >> Then there is sign language with words but not >> vocalizations, but still the 'word' remains the unit of analysis (once >> again *naming*). >> >> Just wondering . . . >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar >> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2020 2:19 PM >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs >> Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] >> >> Hi Francine, Huw and of course, venerable others, >> >> Bypassing the opportunity to ignite the naming debate that Huw might be >> inadvertently inviting, and acknowledging that I have not watched the video >> in question, I am convinced there must be a way to differentiate any old >> unit of analysis from the unit selected for analysis. I maintain this is >> key to understanding Vygotsky's work. Keystone might be a better metaphor. >> Without this understanding, I contend that the arch of the theory >> collapses. I would be open to hearing from others on this if my affirmation >> should be disabused. >> >> This has to do with intentionality and how a study is designed; how a >> study will generalize, its validity, etc. This is a particularly hairy >> endeavor when dealing with psychology studies of Vygotky's time, or >> cognitive science studies, as we might know such studies today. >> >> I think a beautiful example of this choosing of units is Edwin Hutchin's >> Cognition in the Wild (1995) which is a study of navigation, as a cultural >> practice. The unit for analysis in his undertaking (even if he himself >> might say "unit of analysis") is the plot fix. Everything is tied together >> with that unit. That can be witnessed from reading the book, as all the >> chapters deal with a different aspect of the cultural practice of maritime >> navigation, but they all tie together with the unit of the plot fix. I have >> said it sometime ago I think the book is a masterpiece, and I still feel >> this way. >> >> I maintain that by using the phrase "unit for analysis" a researcher is >> signaling her conscious intention to choose the unit as connecting the >> specific to the general. This is an approach that Vygotsky recognizes as >> the only way to study development of the mind in a child, since children >> cannot communicate effectively what is going on in their minds or why, and >> certainly dissecting children to learn what is happening in their brains is >> an untenable method to legitimately study child development, and would only >> offer us biological data on brain development really, and that's making an >> assumption that minds are actually located in brains (they are not). At the >> same time, trying to avoid the pitfalls of the reflexologists (such as >> Pavlov) isn't it the case that LSV's assertion that the study of behavior, >> as is the practice of behaviorism, which reflexology anticipates, will not >> explain with precision the development of mind in the child. Behavior is >> too imprecise a unit to indicate thoughts of the subject. >> >> But then what I have worried about with activity theory, is whether it >> just a refabrication of behaviorism? I do not mean to be flip about that or >> to disparage AT, because I am not conversant in its approaches. I freely >> admit that. >> >> It's just I must disagree with connecting activity as a means of >> identifying awareness in an individual. Expertise can be measured by >> behavior, but consciousness? I'm not so sure. >> >> What is the indication of a meditating swami's awareness? If the swami is >> simply sitting, doing nothing? Nothing can be revealed. But if the swami >> teaches, the words the swami uses will indicate the level of conscious >> awareness the swami possesses. >> >> The word offers more precision. But again, it depends upon the objective >> of the inquiry. >> >> Thank you, Francine for locating the molecule quote, and I am remiss that >> I may have recalled the metaphor clumsily. You have corrected me and in so >> doing I am feeling the pull to read *The Crisis* again to refresh my >> memory. >> >> To Huw's credit it is true that some linguists might be chauvinistic >> toward their "medium", but that doesn't seem to jibe as a weakness for LSV, >> indeed he is promoting a very flexible approach. >> >> Also, while I'm not going to be the thought police of whether researchers >> use the right prepositions, OF or FOR, what I am supporting is the usage of >> UNITS FOR ANALYSIS as a means to distinguish intentionality, given the >> problems rife in translation. It would not be incorrect to say UNIT OF >> ANALYSIS, but it would be less precise. >> >> Furthermore, truly, I would have to defer to Holbrook here and I hope if >> he is out there, he might jump in. He is the one who put the notion in my >> head and explained its importance to me. I readily admit that that was some >> years ago and the mists of time could have obstructed my own ability to >> substantiate for you it as he did for me. >> >> This is to say that even if OF is a correct translation from the Russian, >> I did not argue that OF is a wrong translation of the Russian proposition >> used, but rather that FOR is a better translation of the word-meaning. If I >> gave that impression, that was my mistake. >> >> I would also suggest that the focus of discussion is not about word vs >> activity. That would a false dichotomy. It is about the units chosen for >> the purposes of analysis. That stance opens up many possibilities. >> >> I am a little agnostic about CHAT being the umbrella term that includes >> all the varieties of the theory. Though, honestly it doesn't sit >> comfortably for me, but that's why I might be a heretic and reference >> Vygotsky's theory as sociocultural theory. But I also recognize, others may >> feel the same way about that term, as I might feel about CHAT, for the same >> reason that it leaves something out. That is why I don't feel it's accurate >> to say it is two frameworks because there could be others in the future, >> and this would cause the acronym, CHAT, to break. >> >> So, the debate as framed, to me, would be: Under what conditions is the >> word the best unit for analysis, under what conditions is activity the best >> unit for analysis, and...(and this is an important concatenation) are there >> other possible units that could be better suited? >> >> This allows the theory to flex with advancing understanding in cognitive >> science (my umbrella term to include all the disciplines as referenced in >> Howard Gardener's diagram in *The Mind?s New Science: A History of the >> Cognitive Revolution(1987); *these being anthropology, artificial >> intelligence (comp sci), linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, and >> psychology*)*. New units could be revealed as appropriate, which should >> be a welcomed innovation! >> >> Vygotsky is in my mind the first bona fide cognitive scientist, even >> though computer science was not even an embryo during his lifetime. He >> would have been amazed by the ways that computers are being used to model >> neural activity, and other forms of simulation, as well as how computers >> are learning language. Just imagine what he might do with a smart phone. >> >> WOW. >> >> This is why LSV's insights are so tremendous, because he includes a space >> for developments of the future. >> >> We stand on the shoulders of a beloved, gentle giant. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Annalisa >> >> >> >> >> >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of >> Huw Lloyd >> Fri 12/11/2020 5:24 AM >> Francine, for clarification, I have considered CHAT to be an umbrella >> category, e.g. where the T may stand for Theories. Hence what Nikolai >> specifically focuses upon are Leontyev's AT, Vygotsky's CHT, and ?Yrj? >> Engestr?m's AT. >> >> Re units, various people (Andy comes to mind) have noted that LSV >> employed numerous units of analysis. On that basis my inference is that >> you are questioning the relation between activity-as-consciousness with >> word-meaning-as-consciousness (in the cognitive sense). If that is the >> case, then simply some practical thinking around manifestations of >> awareness and thinking reveals that word meanings are not the only vehicle >> for such awareness. This seems harder for linguists to recognise and >> recollect because this seems to be their principal medium. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of >> Larry Smolucha >> Wed 12/9/2020 6:53 PM >> >> >>From Francine: >> >> Good Morning Annalisa, >> I enjoyed reading your commentary. >> >> The Vygotsky quote you are looking for is on the second page of "Thought >> and Word" (p.211 in *Thought and Language* 1986). There the Kozulin >> translation is *unit of analysis*, just after Vygotsky describes how >> hydrogen and oxygen create a water droplet with properties different from >> the two flammable gases (combined in every molecule of water). Vygotsky >> then elaborates that in a water droplet the whole is greater than the sum >> of the parts. This can be understood as the *synthesis of a thesis and >> antithesis* in a dialectic, referring back to Vygotsky's earlier >> argument for the use of dialectic in the* The Meaning of the Crisis in >> Psychology* (1926-1927). It can also be understood as a type of synergy >> - my husband Larry and I first introduced *Synergistic Psychology* in a >> publication in 1988 and have been advancing it as a theory ever since. >> >> Please note: "Thought and Word" *begins* with the analogy of a 'word' as >> being like water droplet and *ends* with an analogy with a water >> droplet. In the final paragraph - consciousness being reflected in a word >> just as sunlight is reflected off every drop of water, as well as the >> ocean. >> >> If you prefer using the terminology *unit for analysis* to describe what >> has been translated as *unit of analysis*, >> my guess is *most people will still use the term unit of analysis*. I >> don't think this is incorrect. We could look at the Russian text (if anyone >> has a copy) - the preposition is probably 'v' in Russian usually translated >> as 'of'. (Would anyone care to argue that it is better translated as 'for' >> ?) >> >> And yes, it is time to examine the applicability of the concept of >> activity as the unit for analysis versus Vygotsky's use of a 'word'. But >> what does this do to CHAT? Does CHAT as a theory offer two frameworks (the >> Cultural Historical Theory of Vygotsky *and* the Activity Theory of >> Leontiev) or one unifying framework? Just asking . . . >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Annalisa Aguilar >> *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:05 PM >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs >> Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] >> >> Typo!! I did not mean UFO but UFA! The UFO was an unidentified flying >> object from my keyboard. Please excuse! >> >> Annalisa >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Annalisa Aguilar >> *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:02 PM >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical >> Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] >> >> Hi Francine (and venerable others), >> >> In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously >> debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from >> Zeus. >> >> "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" >> >> >> Yes, what is in a word? >> >> I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for >> understanding what he was trying to understand. >> >> There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning >> and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF >> analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if >> you press me I can look for it. >> >> I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very >> important distinction in our discussions. >> >> For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. >> >> UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily >> connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. >> The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to >> the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the >> specific to the general. >> >> I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light >> on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I >> mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought >> it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. >> Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand >> the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the >> behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to >> understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why >> combined are not flammable. >> >> Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? >> >> Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word >> like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between >> UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows >> us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the >> manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, >> the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot >> be there. Right? >> >> So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes >> sense to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the >> specific to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* >> [specific] connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) >> [general]. >> >> If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore >> understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the >> child and consciousness of the child. >> >> It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too >> simplistic in my explanation about it. >> >> Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I >> don't wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only >> unit worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a >> lot of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. >> I am not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. >> But I think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. >> >> If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am >> working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a >> crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is >> what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of >> the engine problem in need of repair. >> >> My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for >> the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which >> we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that >> very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study *for >> the purpose of analysis. * >> >> For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for >> analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels >> (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as >> ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects >> the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant >> operates). >> >> But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets >> really complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, >> the guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even >> perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this >> activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of >> the activity? >> >> However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service >> versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, >> the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an >> analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for >> analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are >> connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they >> influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. >> >> What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I >> confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I >> also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar >> standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development >> of mind. >> >> He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his >> writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? >> >> But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in >> AT is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a >> unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held >> as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly >> appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as >> the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in >> what one wishes to study. >> >> I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a >> dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am >> perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. >> I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he >> preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied >> through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of >> his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. >> >> With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or >> vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object >> of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that >> is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. >> >> What do you think about that? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Annalisa >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>From Francine: >> >> If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and >> Nikolai as* Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity >> Theory*. >> >> Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The >> Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding >> paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed >> in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation *Thought and Language*, p. 88 >> and p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on >> p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like >> sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The >> Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in >> Volume 3 of *The Collected Works* , 1997). The word is a unit that is a >> synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's >> writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph *he chose* to >> finalize his legacy in 1934. >> >> If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his >> writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. >> Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in >> Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no >> connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a >> coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper >> that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's >> own words). >> >> Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with >> the 'word' as unit of analysis? >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. >> >> Henry and venerable others, >> >> I might add that *Imagination* is something like a self-imposed zone of >> proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to >> act upon that which is imagined. >> >> Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is >> the *only* unit *for* analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be >> that hard-wired about activity as the unit *for* analysis? That it >> depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference >> between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit *for* >> analysis? >> >> For example, how does one use activity as the unit *for* analysis if one >> is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? >> >> If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them >> be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they >> are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their >> notes? their lyrics? >> >> How might that work? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Annalisa >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201213/27a67615/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Dec 13 15:39:52 2020 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:39:52 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Annalisa: This toy is really for you, although maybe it wasn't originally. I started an introduction to our new comic book about Vygotsky's theory of emotions, and as you will see it got out of hand. My idea was to write about ONE proposition from the Ethics every day. If you are game, I am game! dk David Kellogg Sangmyung University , New Article with Song Seon-mi in Early Years: Un-naming names: Using Vygotsky?s language games and Halliday?s grammar to study how children learn how names are made and unmade Some free e-prints available at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/2C9HCKGJEYNVEKUGHYKV/full?target=10.1080*09575146.2020.1853682__;Lw!!Mih3wA!WT40Qhar4ta8fwFd21ic1EkZPjrEiL8BUhXVga03HSQAP9m8R3l1eiUv6f7u5K_4wnXTBg$ New book forthcoming in 2021: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:55 AM Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Francine, > > Huw had mentioned Andy said this about Vygotskian units, perhaps Andy > would be interested in responding. > > I am also trying to invite Holbrook to wade in, but Henry and I don't seem > to be having much luck. > > Something was uttered about not being any fun. > > I do think that the element of play is missing from the ambience of this > list that would be delightful to see reborn. > > Anyone have any toys? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Larry Smolucha > *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2020 4:01 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical > Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > > * [EXTERNAL]* > From Francine: > > Huw, You mention that Vygotsky used different units of analysis - can > you give some examples? > > Vygotsky was very clear that the 'word' is the unit of analysis for > consciousness in the sense of self-awareness (not in the sense of waking > consciousness versus an unconscious state like Stage 4 Delta Sleep or > coma). > What other unit of analysis did Vygotsky use? Vygotsky did > discuss object substitutions during pretend play such as using a stick as > if it was a horse, but he saw that as a transitional activity toward > abstract thinking - *naming* and *renaming* objects, activities, and even > internalized thoughts and images. > Then there is sign language with words but not > vocalizations, but still the 'word' remains the unit of analysis (once > again *naming*). > > Just wondering . . . > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2020 2:19 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical > Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Hi Francine, Huw and of course, venerable others, > > Bypassing the opportunity to ignite the naming debate that Huw might be > inadvertently inviting, and acknowledging that I have not watched the video > in question, I am convinced there must be a way to differentiate any old > unit of analysis from the unit selected for analysis. I maintain this is > key to understanding Vygotsky's work. Keystone might be a better metaphor. > Without this understanding, I contend that the arch of the theory > collapses. I would be open to hearing from others on this if my affirmation > should be disabused. > > This has to do with intentionality and how a study is designed; how a > study will generalize, its validity, etc. This is a particularly hairy > endeavor when dealing with psychology studies of Vygotky's time, or > cognitive science studies, as we might know such studies today. > > I think a beautiful example of this choosing of units is Edwin Hutchin's > Cognition in the Wild (1995) which is a study of navigation, as a cultural > practice. The unit for analysis in his undertaking (even if he himself > might say "unit of analysis") is the plot fix. Everything is tied together > with that unit. That can be witnessed from reading the book, as all the > chapters deal with a different aspect of the cultural practice of maritime > navigation, but they all tie together with the unit of the plot fix. I have > said it sometime ago I think the book is a masterpiece, and I still feel > this way. > > I maintain that by using the phrase "unit for analysis" a researcher is > signaling her conscious intention to choose the unit as connecting the > specific to the general. This is an approach that Vygotsky recognizes as > the only way to study development of the mind in a child, since children > cannot communicate effectively what is going on in their minds or why, and > certainly dissecting children to learn what is happening in their brains is > an untenable method to legitimately study child development, and would only > offer us biological data on brain development really, and that's making an > assumption that minds are actually located in brains (they are not). At the > same time, trying to avoid the pitfalls of the reflexologists (such as > Pavlov) isn't it the case that LSV's assertion that the study of behavior, > as is the practice of behaviorism, which reflexology anticipates, will not > explain with precision the development of mind in the child. Behavior is > too imprecise a unit to indicate thoughts of the subject. > > But then what I have worried about with activity theory, is whether it > just a refabrication of behaviorism? I do not mean to be flip about that or > to disparage AT, because I am not conversant in its approaches. I freely > admit that. > > It's just I must disagree with connecting activity as a means of > identifying awareness in an individual. Expertise can be measured by > behavior, but consciousness? I'm not so sure. > > What is the indication of a meditating swami's awareness? If the swami is > simply sitting, doing nothing? Nothing can be revealed. But if the swami > teaches, the words the swami uses will indicate the level of conscious > awareness the swami possesses. > > The word offers more precision. But again, it depends upon the objective > of the inquiry. > > Thank you, Francine for locating the molecule quote, and I am remiss that > I may have recalled the metaphor clumsily. You have corrected me and in so > doing I am feeling the pull to read *The Crisis* again to refresh my > memory. > > To Huw's credit it is true that some linguists might be chauvinistic > toward their "medium", but that doesn't seem to jibe as a weakness for LSV, > indeed he is promoting a very flexible approach. > > Also, while I'm not going to be the thought police of whether researchers > use the right prepositions, OF or FOR, what I am supporting is the usage of > UNITS FOR ANALYSIS as a means to distinguish intentionality, given the > problems rife in translation. It would not be incorrect to say UNIT OF > ANALYSIS, but it would be less precise. > > Furthermore, truly, I would have to defer to Holbrook here and I hope if > he is out there, he might jump in. He is the one who put the notion in my > head and explained its importance to me. I readily admit that that was some > years ago and the mists of time could have obstructed my own ability to > substantiate for you it as he did for me. > > This is to say that even if OF is a correct translation from the Russian, > I did not argue that OF is a wrong translation of the Russian proposition > used, but rather that FOR is a better translation of the word-meaning. If I > gave that impression, that was my mistake. > > I would also suggest that the focus of discussion is not about word vs > activity. That would a false dichotomy. It is about the units chosen for > the purposes of analysis. That stance opens up many possibilities. > > I am a little agnostic about CHAT being the umbrella term that includes > all the varieties of the theory. Though, honestly it doesn't sit > comfortably for me, but that's why I might be a heretic and reference > Vygotsky's theory as sociocultural theory. But I also recognize, others may > feel the same way about that term, as I might feel about CHAT, for the same > reason that it leaves something out. That is why I don't feel it's accurate > to say it is two frameworks because there could be others in the future, > and this would cause the acronym, CHAT, to break. > > So, the debate as framed, to me, would be: Under what conditions is the > word the best unit for analysis, under what conditions is activity the best > unit for analysis, and...(and this is an important concatenation) are there > other possible units that could be better suited? > > This allows the theory to flex with advancing understanding in cognitive > science (my umbrella term to include all the disciplines as referenced in > Howard Gardener's diagram in *The Mind?s New Science: A History of the > Cognitive Revolution(1987); *these being anthropology, artificial > intelligence (comp sci), linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, and > psychology*)*. New units could be revealed as appropriate, which should > be a welcomed innovation! > > Vygotsky is in my mind the first bona fide cognitive scientist, even > though computer science was not even an embryo during his lifetime. He > would have been amazed by the ways that computers are being used to model > neural activity, and other forms of simulation, as well as how computers > are learning language. Just imagine what he might do with a smart phone. > > WOW. > > This is why LSV's insights are so tremendous, because he includes a space > for developments of the future. > > We stand on the shoulders of a beloved, gentle giant. > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of > Huw Lloyd > Fri 12/11/2020 5:24 AM > Francine, for clarification, I have considered CHAT to be an umbrella > category, e.g. where the T may stand for Theories. Hence what Nikolai > specifically focuses upon are Leontyev's AT, Vygotsky's CHT, and ?Yrj? > Engestr?m's AT. > > Re units, various people (Andy comes to mind) have noted that LSV employed > numerous units of analysis. On that basis my inference is that you are > questioning the relation between activity-as-consciousness with > word-meaning-as-consciousness (in the cognitive sense). If that is the > case, then simply some practical thinking around manifestations of > awareness and thinking reveals that word meanings are not the only vehicle > for such awareness. This seems harder for linguists to recognise and > recollect because this seems to be their principal medium. > > Best, > Huw > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of > Larry Smolucha > Wed 12/9/2020 6:53 PM > > >From Francine: > > Good Morning Annalisa, > I enjoyed reading your commentary. > > The Vygotsky quote you are looking for is on the second page of "Thought > and Word" (p.211 in *Thought and Language* 1986). There the Kozulin > translation is *unit of analysis*, just after Vygotsky describes how > hydrogen and oxygen create a water droplet with properties different from > the two flammable gases (combined in every molecule of water). Vygotsky > then elaborates that in a water droplet the whole is greater than the sum > of the parts. This can be understood as the *synthesis of a thesis and > antithesis* in a dialectic, referring back to Vygotsky's earlier argument > for the use of dialectic in the* The Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology* > (1926-1927). It can also be understood as a type of synergy - my husband > Larry and I first introduced *Synergistic Psychology* in a publication in > 1988 and have been advancing it as a theory ever since. > > Please note: "Thought and Word" *begins* with the analogy of a 'word' as > being like water droplet and *ends* with an analogy with a water droplet. > In the final paragraph - consciousness being reflected in a word just as > sunlight is reflected off every drop of water, as well as the ocean. > > If you prefer using the terminology *unit for analysis* to describe what > has been translated as *unit of analysis*, > my guess is *most people will still use the term unit of analysis*. I > don't think this is incorrect. We could look at the Russian text (if anyone > has a copy) - the preposition is probably 'v' in Russian usually translated > as 'of'. (Would anyone care to argue that it is better translated as 'for' > ?) > > And yes, it is time to examine the applicability of the concept of > activity as the unit for analysis versus Vygotsky's use of a 'word'. But > what does this do to CHAT? Does CHAT as a theory offer two frameworks (the > Cultural Historical Theory of Vygotsky *and* the Activity Theory of > Leontiev) or one unifying framework? Just asking . . . > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:05 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical > Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Typo!! I did not mean UFO but UFA! The UFO was an unidentified flying > object from my keyboard. Please excuse! > > Annalisa > ------------------------------ > *From:* Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:02 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical > Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Hi Francine (and venerable others), > > In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously > debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from > Zeus. > > "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" > > > Yes, what is in a word? > > I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for > understanding what he was trying to understand. > > There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning > and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF > analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if > you press me I can look for it. > > I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very important > distinction in our discussions. > > For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. > > UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily > connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. > The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to > the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the > specific to the general. > > I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light > on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I > mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought > it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. > Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand > the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the > behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to > understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why > combined are not flammable. > > Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? > > Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word > like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between > UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows > us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the > manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, > the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot > be there. Right? > > So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes sense > to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the specific > to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* [specific] > connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) [general]. > > If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore > understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the > child and consciousness of the child. > > It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too > simplistic in my explanation about it. > > Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I don't > wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only unit > worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a lot > of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. I am > not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. But I > think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. > > If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am > working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a > crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is > what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of > the engine problem in need of repair. > > My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for > the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which > we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that > very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study *for > the purpose of analysis. * > > For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for > analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels > (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as > ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects > the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant > operates). > > But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets really > complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, the > guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even > perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this > activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of > the activity? > > However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service > versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, > the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an > analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for > analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are > connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they > influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. > > What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I > confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I > also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar > standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development > of mind. > > He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his > writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? > > But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in AT > is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a > unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held > as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly > appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as > the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in > what one wishes to study. > > I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a > dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am > perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. > I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he > preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied > through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of > his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. > > With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or > vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object > of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that > is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. > > What do you think about that? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > > > > > >From Francine: > > If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and > Nikolai as* Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity > Theory*. > > Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The > Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding > paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed > in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation *Thought and Language*, p. 88 and > p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on > p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like > sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The > Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in > Volume 3 of *The Collected Works* , 1997). The word is a unit that is a > synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's > writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph *he chose* to finalize > his legacy in 1934. > > If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his > writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. > Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in > Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no > connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a > coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper > that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's > own words). > > Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the > 'word' as unit of analysis? > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. > > Henry and venerable others, > > I might add that *Imagination* is something like a self-imposed zone of > proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to > act upon that which is imagined. > > Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the > *only* unit *for* analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that > hard-wired about activity as the unit *for* analysis? That it depends > upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between > CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit *for* analysis? > > For example, how does one use activity as the unit *for* analysis if one > is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? > > If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them > be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they > are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their > notes? their lyrics? > > How might that work? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201214/fbf437bb/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: A Toy for Annalisa and Holbrook.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 2007776 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201214/fbf437bb/attachment-0001.bin From helenaworthen@gmail.com Sun Dec 13 10:13:21 2020 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 10:13:21 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] How Sci-Fi Shaped Socialism Message-ID: <7519012F-78F5-4308-8637-AA7EC90E429F@gmail.com> This article from The Tribune, which I saw republished in Portside, captures the flow of scientific materialism in the early USSR into sci fi and utopian thinking. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/12/how-sci-fi-shaped-socialism__;!!Mih3wA!XZrw6NXkklkE0UZQvr3BSsalXuBI5Zi0SNISSTyRDN5RU1VU20vyXyl4Fb47RtI8PQ$ Thanks for reading it ? Helena Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201213/0cc76665/attachment.html From ajrajala@gmail.com Mon Dec 14 10:44:17 2020 From: ajrajala@gmail.com (Antti Rajala) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:44:17 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Change of requirements: Call for Nominations! Cultural-Historical SIG Awards (Due date: 12/20): Graduate Student Award_Early Career Award_Lifetime Contribution Award In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, We have received several inquiries about the requirements for the nominators and seconders. As it seemed that we might not get enough nominations, we decided to relax these requirements somewhat. Importantly, *the nominee does not need to be SIG member*, this was not required initially, but just making this clear as there were some questions. Secondly, we decided to relax the requirements so that *either the nominator or the seconder should be a SIG member, but not necessarily both.* Looking forward to your nominations. Please be reminded that *all* required nomination materials must be submitted to antti.rajala@oulu.fi by December 20, 2020. Best regards, on behalf of the Awards Committee Zizlali Morales, Aria Razfar, Antti Rajala On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 10:47, Antti Rajala wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > > > On behalf of the AERA Cultural-Historical Research SIG (CH SIG), we are > asking your advice to nominate candidates for the 2021 Cultural-Historical > Research SIG Awards. These awards recognize our members? scholarly > contributions to research grounded in cultural-historical, sociocultural > and activity theoretic approaches in the following three categories: > > 1. Graduate Student Award > 2. Early Career Award > 3. Lifetime Contribution Award > > Please see the attached Call for Nominations for more descriptions about > each award, including details about the nomination process. The Call is > also available below. > > > > Importantly, *all *required nomination materials must be submitted to the > 2021 Award Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, antti.rajala@oulu.fi by *December > 20, 2020. *The committee will make its selection by January 20, 2021. Nominators > must be members of the CH SIG. > > > > Please email general questions regarding the awards to the 2021 Award > Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, antti.rajala@oulu.fi. > > > > Thank you and best regards, > > > > AERA Cultural-Historical Award Committee and SIG > > > > *Graduate Student Award of AERA Cultural-Historical Research SIG* > > > > The Graduate Student Award recognizes an outstanding work of original and > independent research produced by a graduate student, either as doctoral > research or pre-doctoral research. > > > > Please note the following conditions of the call: > > > > *Eligibility Criteria: *Nominees must be enrolled in a university > doctoral program. > > > *Nomination Process and Timeline: *The nominator must be a member of the > CH SIG and must submit a brief statement justifying the nomination, along > with electronic contact information for the nominee. Upon receipt of the > nomination, the Chair of the Awards Committee will request an abstract from > the nominee. The nominee should submit an abstract of 1000 words or fewer > of the work to be considered. Depending on the number of nominations, a > sub-set of 3 nominees may be asked to submit a paper of no more than 5000 > words that will be submitted for the committee?s final selection. > > > > *The nominations should be sent by email to theAward Committee Chair, > Antti Rajala, **antti.rajala@oulu.fi* > > > > *The deadline for the nominations is December 20, 2020. *The committee > will make its selection by January 20, 2021. > > > *Composition of the Awards Committee: *The SIG Chair has appointed the > three members of the Awards Committee.The committee is chaired by Dr. > Antti Rajala (University of Oulu, Finland). The other members are Dr. > Zitlali Morales (University of Illinois Chicago, USA) and Dr. Aria Razfar > (University of Illinois Chicago, USA). > > > > *Selection Criteria: *The awardee will have created an outstanding work > of original and independent research as either as doctoral research or > pre-doctoral research. > > > > The winner will be given a plaque with an inscription to be presented at > the SIG business meeting at theAERA annual meeting and invited to make a > presentation at a SIG-sponsored session of the annual meeting. > > > > Announcement of the Awardee will be made through email to SIG members, on > the SIG Facebook page, and at the SIG business meeting at the AERA annual > meeting. > > > > Contact Person for the Award: 2021 Award Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, > antti.rajala@oulu.fi > > > *Early Career Award of AERA Cultural-Historical Research SIG* > > The Early Career Award acknowledges the contribution of one person, or > co-authors, who have contributed a piece of work, for example, a book > chapter, a research article or a monograph, that 1) moves the field of CHAT > research or theory in a particularly interesting direction, 2) elaborates a > concept or set of concepts in a particularly helpful way, or 3) provides > links across research and practice that prove foundational. This award > should be given to individuals who are at least 3 years past completion of > the doctoral degree. > > > > Please note the following conditions of the call: > > > > *Eligibility Criteria: *This award should be given to individuals who are > at least three years past completion of the doctoral degree. > > > *Nomination Process and Timeline: *The candidate must be nominated by a > member of the SIG and seconded by another member. The nominator (and/or > seconder) should submit a copy of the piece of work to be considered along > with a statement justifying the nomination. > > > > *The nominations should be sent by email to theAward Committee Chair, > Antti Rajala, **antti.rajala@oulu.fi* > > > > *The deadline for the nominations is December 20, 2020. *The committee > will make its selection by January 20, 2021. > > > *Composition of the Awards Committee: *The SIG Chair has appointed the > three members of the Awards Committee.The committee is chaired by Dr. > Antti Rajala (University of Oulu, Finland). The other members are Dr. > Zitlali Morales (University of Illinois Chicago, USA) andDr. Aria Razfar > (University of Illinois Chicago, USA). > > > > *Selection Criteria: *Awardee should have contributed a piece of work > such as a book chapter, research article or monograph, that moves CHAT > research or theory in a particularly interesting direction, elaborates a > concept or set of concepts in a particularly helpful way, and/or provides > links across research and practice that prove foundational. > > > > The winner will be given a plaque with an inscription to be presented at > the SIG business meeting at theAERA annual meeting and invited to make a > presentation at a SIG-sponsored session of the annual meeting. > > > > Announcement of the Awardee will be made through email to SIG members, on > the SIG Facebook page, and at the SIG business meeting at the AERA annual > meeting. > > > > Contact Person for the Award: 2021 Award Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, > antti.rajala@oulu.fi > > > *Lifetime Contribution Award of AERA Cultural Historical Research SIG* > > > The Lifetime Contribution to Cultural-Historical Research Award > acknowledges the contribution of one person, over the course of his/her > career, to the Cultural-Historical Research field as reflected in > foundational books, series of publications, lectures, conference > presentations, grants, speeches, and important engagement with the field > broadly speaking including outreach and service. > > > > Please note the following conditions of the call: > > > > *Eligibility Criteria: *Anyone who fits the above definition. > > > *Nomination Process and Timeline: *The candidate must be nominated by a > member of the SIG. > > Nomination packets should include a letter of nomination and a copy of the > candidate?s CV. All nominations should be submitted electronically. > > > > *The nominations should be sent by email to theAward Committee Chair, > Antti Rajala, **antti.rajala@oulu.fi* > > > > *The deadline for the nominations is December 20, 2020. *The committee > will make its selection by January 20, 2021. > > > *Composition of the Awards Committee: *The SIG Chair has appointed the > three members of the Awards Committee. The committee is chaired by Dr. > Antti Rajala (University of Oulu, Finland). The other members are Dr. > Zitlali Morales (University of Illinois Chicago, USA) and Dr. Aria Razfar > (University of Illinois Chicago, USA). > > > > *Selection Criteria:*The career body of work of a nominee will be > evaluated according to its impact as measured by volume and influence of > foundational books, series of publications, lectures, conference > presentations, grants, speeches, and important engagement with the field > broadly speaking including outreach and service, and impact on educational > practice. > > > > A plaque with an inscription will be awarded. The winner will give an > invited talk in the SIG?s annual meeting program at the following year?s > AERA meeting. > > > > Announcement of the Awardee will be made through email to SIG members, on > the SIG Facebook page, and at the SIG business meeting at the AERA annual > meeting. > > > > Contact Person for the Award: 2021 Award Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, > antti.rajala@oulu.fi > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201214/2c7743ae/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Thu Dec 17 10:18:38 2020 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 18:18:38 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi David, I'm sure that Henry will forward the comic book intro to Holbrook as they are in frequent contact, at least on Zoom. At first when I opened it, I thought , gee there's a lot of words here for a comic book. But then I saw you said it was an introduction. But then do comic books, as a genre, ever have introductions? My former classmate Courtney Angermeier is probably the first person to ever do a comic book on Vygotsky. I never was able to see it completed but I think she finished it. It was a project she undertook in Vera's Creativity seminar. Or maybe it was the Vygotsky seminar. I can't remember, it was over ten years ago now. I'm not sure if you were propositioning (pun intended) me to play with Spinoza's propositions. I'd be game to do that on the list and others can join in as they wish. It might be an interesting community project. You can introduce them and lead, and if I can, I will be your second fiddle, your interlocutor. Then, if it's worth its weight in pixels, we can collect this material, edit it and make a book of it. In honor of the XMCA list. Do you think we could find a publisher? Given that there are so many Spinoza propositions, this might end up being a multi-volume project. Concerning structure: In the Part 1, "Concerning God," there are 8 definitions, 7 axioms and 36 propositions and 1 appendix alone (and don't forget the appendix) and of course each proposition has a proof that follows. I would hope that it wouldn't put the hair on fire of the humanists on this list to talk of God, but I guess they could just observe the insanity as a flying-spaghetti-monster thought experiment. I am not averse to their participation, as long as it is only as high as a rigorous respectful debate, and not as low as ad hominums. The other subsequent parts are: Part 2. "On the Nature and Origin of the Mind": 7 definitions, 5 axioms, and 49 propositions Part 3. "On the Origin and Nature of the Emotions": 3 definitions, 59 propositions, 47 definitions (of the emotions) and one section of a general definition of the emotions. Part 4. "Of Human Bondage or The Strength of the Emotions": A preface, 8 definitions, 1 axiom, 73 propositions and an appendix with 32 points Part 5. "Of the Power of the Understanding, or of Human Freedom": A preface, 2 axioms, 42 propositions. Running totals of the 5 Parts: * 2 prefaces * 173 definitions * 15 axioms * 259 propositions * 2 appendices (1 with 32 points). That's a total 554 sundry units that make up the entire work. Are you sure that's what you want to do? It would take over a year, even if we covered 1 part per day. It's a massive undertaking. Let me know your thoughts? Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 4:39 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] [EXTERNAL] Annalisa: This toy is really for you, although maybe it wasn't originally. I started an introduction to our new comic book about Vygotsky's theory of emotions, and as you will see it got out of hand. My idea was to write about ONE proposition from the Ethics every day. If you are game, I am game! dk David Kellogg Sangmyung University , New Article with Song Seon-mi in Early Years: Un-naming names: Using Vygotsky?s language games and Halliday?s grammar to study how children learn how names are made and unmade Some free e-prints available at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/2C9HCKGJEYNVEKUGHYKV/full?target=10.1080*09575146.2020.1853682__;Lw!!Mih3wA!SGC7ZNHN_vxjDtBbS2geNy5sntwxvnoobtRvI2xGu2bifd50ZYid0YPUSySKzZYLW6Y7tg$ New book forthcoming in 2021: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:55 AM Annalisa Aguilar > wrote: Francine, Huw had mentioned Andy said this about Vygotskian units, perhaps Andy would be interested in responding. I am also trying to invite Holbrook to wade in, but Henry and I don't seem to be having much luck. Something was uttered about not being any fun. I do think that the element of play is missing from the ambience of this list that would be delightful to see reborn. Anyone have any toys? Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Larry Smolucha > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 4:01 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] [EXTERNAL] >From Francine: Huw, You mention that Vygotsky used different units of analysis - can you give some examples? Vygotsky was very clear that the 'word' is the unit of analysis for consciousness in the sense of self-awareness (not in the sense of waking consciousness versus an unconscious state like Stage 4 Delta Sleep or coma). What other unit of analysis did Vygotsky use? Vygotsky did discuss object substitutions during pretend play such as using a stick as if it was a horse, but he saw that as a transitional activity toward abstract thinking - naming and renaming objects, activities, and even internalized thoughts and images. Then there is sign language with words but not vocalizations, but still the 'word' remains the unit of analysis (once again naming). Just wondering . . . ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 2:19 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] Hi Francine, Huw and of course, venerable others, Bypassing the opportunity to ignite the naming debate that Huw might be inadvertently inviting, and acknowledging that I have not watched the video in question, I am convinced there must be a way to differentiate any old unit of analysis from the unit selected for analysis. I maintain this is key to understanding Vygotsky's work. Keystone might be a better metaphor. Without this understanding, I contend that the arch of the theory collapses. I would be open to hearing from others on this if my affirmation should be disabused. This has to do with intentionality and how a study is designed; how a study will generalize, its validity, etc. This is a particularly hairy endeavor when dealing with psychology studies of Vygotky's time, or cognitive science studies, as we might know such studies today. I think a beautiful example of this choosing of units is Edwin Hutchin's Cognition in the Wild (1995) which is a study of navigation, as a cultural practice. The unit for analysis in his undertaking (even if he himself might say "unit of analysis") is the plot fix. Everything is tied together with that unit. That can be witnessed from reading the book, as all the chapters deal with a different aspect of the cultural practice of maritime navigation, but they all tie together with the unit of the plot fix. I have said it sometime ago I think the book is a masterpiece, and I still feel this way. I maintain that by using the phrase "unit for analysis" a researcher is signaling her conscious intention to choose the unit as connecting the specific to the general. This is an approach that Vygotsky recognizes as the only way to study development of the mind in a child, since children cannot communicate effectively what is going on in their minds or why, and certainly dissecting children to learn what is happening in their brains is an untenable method to legitimately study child development, and would only offer us biological data on brain development really, and that's making an assumption that minds are actually located in brains (they are not). At the same time, trying to avoid the pitfalls of the reflexologists (such as Pavlov) isn't it the case that LSV's assertion that the study of behavior, as is the practice of behaviorism, which reflexology anticipates, will not explain with precision the development of mind in the child. Behavior is too imprecise a unit to indicate thoughts of the subject. But then what I have worried about with activity theory, is whether it just a refabrication of behaviorism? I do not mean to be flip about that or to disparage AT, because I am not conversant in its approaches. I freely admit that. It's just I must disagree with connecting activity as a means of identifying awareness in an individual. Expertise can be measured by behavior, but consciousness? I'm not so sure. What is the indication of a meditating swami's awareness? If the swami is simply sitting, doing nothing? Nothing can be revealed. But if the swami teaches, the words the swami uses will indicate the level of conscious awareness the swami possesses. The word offers more precision. But again, it depends upon the objective of the inquiry. Thank you, Francine for locating the molecule quote, and I am remiss that I may have recalled the metaphor clumsily. You have corrected me and in so doing I am feeling the pull to read The Crisis again to refresh my memory. To Huw's credit it is true that some linguists might be chauvinistic toward their "medium", but that doesn't seem to jibe as a weakness for LSV, indeed he is promoting a very flexible approach. Also, while I'm not going to be the thought police of whether researchers use the right prepositions, OF or FOR, what I am supporting is the usage of UNITS FOR ANALYSIS as a means to distinguish intentionality, given the problems rife in translation. It would not be incorrect to say UNIT OF ANALYSIS, but it would be less precise. Furthermore, truly, I would have to defer to Holbrook here and I hope if he is out there, he might jump in. He is the one who put the notion in my head and explained its importance to me. I readily admit that that was some years ago and the mists of time could have obstructed my own ability to substantiate for you it as he did for me. This is to say that even if OF is a correct translation from the Russian, I did not argue that OF is a wrong translation of the Russian proposition used, but rather that FOR is a better translation of the word-meaning. If I gave that impression, that was my mistake. I would also suggest that the focus of discussion is not about word vs activity. That would a false dichotomy. It is about the units chosen for the purposes of analysis. That stance opens up many possibilities. I am a little agnostic about CHAT being the umbrella term that includes all the varieties of the theory. Though, honestly it doesn't sit comfortably for me, but that's why I might be a heretic and reference Vygotsky's theory as sociocultural theory. But I also recognize, others may feel the same way about that term, as I might feel about CHAT, for the same reason that it leaves something out. That is why I don't feel it's accurate to say it is two frameworks because there could be others in the future, and this would cause the acronym, CHAT, to break. So, the debate as framed, to me, would be: Under what conditions is the word the best unit for analysis, under what conditions is activity the best unit for analysis, and...(and this is an important concatenation) are there other possible units that could be better suited? This allows the theory to flex with advancing understanding in cognitive science (my umbrella term to include all the disciplines as referenced in Howard Gardener's diagram in The Mind?s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution(1987); these being anthropology, artificial intelligence (comp sci), linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology). New units could be revealed as appropriate, which should be a welcomed innovation! Vygotsky is in my mind the first bona fide cognitive scientist, even though computer science was not even an embryo during his lifetime. He would have been amazed by the ways that computers are being used to model neural activity, and other forms of simulation, as well as how computers are learning language. Just imagine what he might do with a smart phone. WOW. This is why LSV's insights are so tremendous, because he includes a space for developments of the future. We stand on the shoulders of a beloved, gentle giant. Kind regards, Annalisa xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Huw Lloyd > Fri 12/11/2020 5:24 AM Francine, for clarification, I have considered CHAT to be an umbrella category, e.g. where the T may stand for Theories. Hence what Nikolai specifically focuses upon are Leontyev's AT, Vygotsky's CHT, and ?Yrj? Engestr?m's AT. Re units, various people (Andy comes to mind) have noted that LSV employed numerous units of analysis. On that basis my inference is that you are questioning the relation between activity-as-consciousness with word-meaning-as-consciousness (in the cognitive sense). If that is the case, then simply some practical thinking around manifestations of awareness and thinking reveals that word meanings are not the only vehicle for such awareness. This seems harder for linguists to recognise and recollect because this seems to be their principal medium. Best, Huw xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Larry Smolucha > Wed 12/9/2020 6:53 PM >>From Francine: Good Morning Annalisa, I enjoyed reading your commentary. The Vygotsky quote you are looking for is on the second page of "Thought and Word" (p.211 in Thought and Language 1986). There the Kozulin translation is unit of analysis, just after Vygotsky describes how hydrogen and oxygen create a water droplet with properties different from the two flammable gases (combined in every molecule of water). Vygotsky then elaborates that in a water droplet the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This can be understood as the synthesis of a thesis and antithesis in a dialectic, referring back to Vygotsky's earlier argument for the use of dialectic in the The Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology (1926-1927). It can also be understood as a type of synergy - my husband Larry and I first introduced Synergistic Psychology in a publication in 1988 and have been advancing it as a theory ever since. Please note: "Thought and Word" begins with the analogy of a 'word' as being like water droplet and ends with an analogy with a water droplet. In the final paragraph - consciousness being reflected in a word just as sunlight is reflected off every drop of water, as well as the ocean. If you prefer using the terminology unit for analysis to describe what has been translated as unit of analysis, my guess is most people will still use the term unit of analysis. I don't think this is incorrect. We could look at the Russian text (if anyone has a copy) - the preposition is probably 'v' in Russian usually translated as 'of'. (Would anyone care to argue that it is better translated as 'for' ?) And yes, it is time to examine the applicability of the concept of activity as the unit for analysis versus Vygotsky's use of a 'word'. But what does this do to CHAT? Does CHAT as a theory offer two frameworks (the Cultural Historical Theory of Vygotsky and the Activity Theory of Leontiev) or one unifying framework? Just asking . . . ________________________________ From: Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:05 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] Typo!! I did not mean UFO but UFA! The UFO was an unidentified flying object from my keyboard. Please excuse! Annalisa ________________________________ From: Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:02 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] Hi Francine (and venerable others), In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from Zeus. "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" Yes, what is in a word? I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for understanding what he was trying to understand. There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if you press me I can look for it. I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very important distinction in our discussions. For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the specific to the general. I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why combined are not flammable. Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot be there. Right? So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes sense to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the specific to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* [specific] connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) [general]. If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the child and consciousness of the child. It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too simplistic in my explanation about it. Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I don't wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only unit worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a lot of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. I am not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. But I think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of the engine problem in need of repair. My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study for the purpose of analysis. For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant operates). But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets really complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, the guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of the activity? However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development of mind. He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in AT is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in what one wishes to study. I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. What do you think about that? Kind regards, Annalisa >>From Francine: If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and Nikolai as Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation Thought and Language, p. 88 and p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in Volume 3 of The Collected Works , 1997). The word is a unit that is a synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph he chose to finalize his legacy in 1934. If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's own words). Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the 'word' as unit of analysis? ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. Henry and venerable others, I might add that Imagination is something like a self-imposed zone of proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to act upon that which is imagined. Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the *only* unit for analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that hard-wired about activity as the unit for analysis? That it depends upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit for analysis? For example, how does one use activity as the unit for analysis if one is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their notes? their lyrics? How might that work? Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201217/4ed22439/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Dec 17 13:20:45 2020 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:20:45 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I guess it's more like a graphic novel than a comic book. But we have comic books like this in Korea--mostly for teaching science to middle school kids (e.g. the "Why?" series that Nature and Science have written about). They have the additional benefit of keeping our kids away from pornographic and violent "Manga" and "Anime" imported from Japan. When I first came to Korea there was an import ban, but now they are everywhere. Yes, it's a lot of work! And yes, there's a publisher, but only in Korean. When it's all done it will be Volume 13 in this series: ??? (aladin.co.kr) Dr. Yongho Kim has already done most of the actual Vygotsky text, and we're about half done with the illustrations. So I need to get going on the introduction. The intro I sent you was my first attempt, which I had to give up on for the reasons you point out--if you look in the file you will see that I only got as far as Part III Proposition 3, and that was only because I just summarized the first two chapters. I think the God problem was handled pretty well by Einstein on his deathbed: "I believe in the God of Spinoza who is revealed in the regular pattern of things...". Perhaps we take "play" a little too seriously over here in Korea. Jonathan Tudge wrote a marvelous book about three-year-olds all around the world and he found that Korean three-year-olds get more play time than any others in his study, and he included two American families. But he also found that playtime in Korea tends to have a certain element of studying, mostly learning the Hangeul alphabet. The usual take on this--often repeated by Koreans themselves--is that Koreans don't really know how to have fun. I guess I prefer Spinoza's take: learning IS fun: i.e. pleasure isn't CAUSED by a transition to a higher level of psychological and physiological functioning--it IS the transition itself. David Kellogg Sangmyung University , New Article with Song Seon-mi in Early Years: Un-naming names: Using Vygotsky?s language games and Halliday?s grammar to study how children learn how names are made and unmade Some free e-prints available at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/2C9HCKGJEYNVEKUGHYKV/full?target=10.1080*09575146.2020.1853682__;Lw!!Mih3wA!U9kbUWQPuuvsNsFXv-GTa94th3oybqdHRZ-fSaHF6ebBe9P7oeijEJTPPRsVfAJu6aPDRQ$ New book forthcoming in 2021: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David Kellogg On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 3:19 AM Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Hi David, > > I'm sure that Henry will forward the comic book intro to Holbrook as they > are in frequent contact, at least on Zoom. > > At first when I opened it, I thought , gee there's a lot of words here for > a comic book. But then I saw you said it was an introduction. But then do > comic books, as a genre, ever have introductions? > > My former classmate Courtney Angermeier is probably the first person to > ever do a comic book on Vygotsky. I never was able to see it completed but > I think she finished it. It was a project she undertook in Vera's > Creativity seminar. Or maybe it was the Vygotsky seminar. I can't remember, > it was over ten years ago now. > > I'm not sure if you were propositioning (pun intended) me to play with > Spinoza's propositions. > > I'd be game to do that on the list and others can join in as they wish. It > might be an interesting community project. You can introduce them and lead, > and if I can, I will be your second fiddle, your interlocutor. > > Then, if it's worth its weight in pixels, we can collect this material, > edit it and make a book of it. In honor of the XMCA list. > > Do you think we could find a publisher? > > Given that there are so many Spinoza propositions, this might end up being > a multi-volume project. > > Concerning structure: > > In the Part 1, "Concerning God," there are 8 definitions, 7 axioms and 36 > propositions and 1 appendix alone (and don't forget the appendix) and of > course each proposition has a proof that follows. > > I would hope that it wouldn't put the hair on fire of the humanists on > this list to talk of God, but I guess they could just observe the insanity > as a flying-spaghetti-monster thought experiment. I am not averse to their > participation, as long as it is only as high as a rigorous respectful > debate, and not as low as ad hominums. > > The other subsequent parts are: > > Part 2. "On the Nature and Origin of the Mind": 7 definitions, 5 axioms, > and 49 propositions > > Part 3. "On the Origin and Nature of the Emotions": 3 definitions, 59 > propositions, 47 definitions (of the emotions) and one section of a general > definition of the emotions. > > Part 4. "Of Human Bondage or The Strength of the Emotions": A preface, 8 > definitions, 1 axiom, 73 propositions and an appendix with 32 points > > Part 5. "Of the Power of the Understanding, or of Human Freedom": A > preface, 2 axioms, 42 propositions. > > Running totals of the 5 Parts: > > - 2 prefaces > - 173 definitions > - 15 axioms > - 259 propositions > - 2 appendices (1 with 32 points). > > > That's a total 554 sundry units that make up the entire work. > > Are you sure that's what you want to do? It would take over a year, even > if we covered 1 part per day. > > It's a massive undertaking. > > Let me know your thoughts? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of David Kellogg > *Sent:* Sunday, December 13, 2020 4:39 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical > Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > > * [EXTERNAL]* > Annalisa: > > This toy is really for you, although maybe it wasn't originally. > > I started an introduction to our new comic book about Vygotsky's theory of > emotions, and as you will see it got out of hand. > > My idea was to write about ONE proposition from the Ethics every day. If > you are game, I am game! > > dk > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > , > > New Article with Song Seon-mi in Early Years: > > Un-naming names: Using Vygotsky?s language games and Halliday?s grammar to > study how children learn how names are made and unmade > > Some free e-prints available at: > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/2C9HCKGJEYNVEKUGHYKV/full?target=10.1080*09575146.2020.1853682__;Lw!!Mih3wA!U9kbUWQPuuvsNsFXv-GTa94th3oybqdHRZ-fSaHF6ebBe9P7oeijEJTPPRsVfAJu6aPDRQ$ > > > New book forthcoming in 2021: > > L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works, Vol. II: The Problem of Age. > Translated with Prefatory Notes and Outlines by Nikolai Veresov and David > Kellogg > > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:55 AM Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > > Francine, > > Huw had mentioned Andy said this about Vygotskian units, perhaps Andy > would be interested in responding. > > I am also trying to invite Holbrook to wade in, but Henry and I don't seem > to be having much luck. > > Something was uttered about not being any fun. > > I do think that the element of play is missing from the ambience of this > list that would be delightful to see reborn. > > Anyone have any toys? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Larry Smolucha > *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2020 4:01 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical > Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > > * [EXTERNAL]* > >From Francine: > > Huw, You mention that Vygotsky used different units of analysis - can > you give some examples? > > Vygotsky was very clear that the 'word' is the unit of analysis for > consciousness in the sense of self-awareness (not in the sense of waking > consciousness versus an unconscious state like Stage 4 Delta Sleep or > coma). > What other unit of analysis did Vygotsky use? Vygotsky did > discuss object substitutions during pretend play such as using a stick as > if it was a horse, but he saw that as a transitional activity toward > abstract thinking - *naming* and *renaming* objects, activities, and even > internalized thoughts and images. > Then there is sign language with words but not > vocalizations, but still the 'word' remains the unit of analysis (once > again *naming*). > > Just wondering . . . > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2020 2:19 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical > Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Hi Francine, Huw and of course, venerable others, > > Bypassing the opportunity to ignite the naming debate that Huw might be > inadvertently inviting, and acknowledging that I have not watched the video > in question, I am convinced there must be a way to differentiate any old > unit of analysis from the unit selected for analysis. I maintain this is > key to understanding Vygotsky's work. Keystone might be a better metaphor. > Without this understanding, I contend that the arch of the theory > collapses. I would be open to hearing from others on this if my affirmation > should be disabused. > > This has to do with intentionality and how a study is designed; how a > study will generalize, its validity, etc. This is a particularly hairy > endeavor when dealing with psychology studies of Vygotky's time, or > cognitive science studies, as we might know such studies today. > > I think a beautiful example of this choosing of units is Edwin Hutchin's > Cognition in the Wild (1995) which is a study of navigation, as a cultural > practice. The unit for analysis in his undertaking (even if he himself > might say "unit of analysis") is the plot fix. Everything is tied together > with that unit. That can be witnessed from reading the book, as all the > chapters deal with a different aspect of the cultural practice of maritime > navigation, but they all tie together with the unit of the plot fix. I have > said it sometime ago I think the book is a masterpiece, and I still feel > this way. > > I maintain that by using the phrase "unit for analysis" a researcher is > signaling her conscious intention to choose the unit as connecting the > specific to the general. This is an approach that Vygotsky recognizes as > the only way to study development of the mind in a child, since children > cannot communicate effectively what is going on in their minds or why, and > certainly dissecting children to learn what is happening in their brains is > an untenable method to legitimately study child development, and would only > offer us biological data on brain development really, and that's making an > assumption that minds are actually located in brains (they are not). At the > same time, trying to avoid the pitfalls of the reflexologists (such as > Pavlov) isn't it the case that LSV's assertion that the study of behavior, > as is the practice of behaviorism, which reflexology anticipates, will not > explain with precision the development of mind in the child. Behavior is > too imprecise a unit to indicate thoughts of the subject. > > But then what I have worried about with activity theory, is whether it > just a refabrication of behaviorism? I do not mean to be flip about that or > to disparage AT, because I am not conversant in its approaches. I freely > admit that. > > It's just I must disagree with connecting activity as a means of > identifying awareness in an individual. Expertise can be measured by > behavior, but consciousness? I'm not so sure. > > What is the indication of a meditating swami's awareness? If the swami is > simply sitting, doing nothing? Nothing can be revealed. But if the swami > teaches, the words the swami uses will indicate the level of conscious > awareness the swami possesses. > > The word offers more precision. But again, it depends upon the objective > of the inquiry. > > Thank you, Francine for locating the molecule quote, and I am remiss that > I may have recalled the metaphor clumsily. You have corrected me and in so > doing I am feeling the pull to read *The Crisis* again to refresh my > memory. > > To Huw's credit it is true that some linguists might be chauvinistic > toward their "medium", but that doesn't seem to jibe as a weakness for LSV, > indeed he is promoting a very flexible approach. > > Also, while I'm not going to be the thought police of whether researchers > use the right prepositions, OF or FOR, what I am supporting is the usage of > UNITS FOR ANALYSIS as a means to distinguish intentionality, given the > problems rife in translation. It would not be incorrect to say UNIT OF > ANALYSIS, but it would be less precise. > > Furthermore, truly, I would have to defer to Holbrook here and I hope if > he is out there, he might jump in. He is the one who put the notion in my > head and explained its importance to me. I readily admit that that was some > years ago and the mists of time could have obstructed my own ability to > substantiate for you it as he did for me. > > This is to say that even if OF is a correct translation from the Russian, > I did not argue that OF is a wrong translation of the Russian proposition > used, but rather that FOR is a better translation of the word-meaning. If I > gave that impression, that was my mistake. > > I would also suggest that the focus of discussion is not about word vs > activity. That would a false dichotomy. It is about the units chosen for > the purposes of analysis. That stance opens up many possibilities. > > I am a little agnostic about CHAT being the umbrella term that includes > all the varieties of the theory. Though, honestly it doesn't sit > comfortably for me, but that's why I might be a heretic and reference > Vygotsky's theory as sociocultural theory. But I also recognize, others may > feel the same way about that term, as I might feel about CHAT, for the same > reason that it leaves something out. That is why I don't feel it's accurate > to say it is two frameworks because there could be others in the future, > and this would cause the acronym, CHAT, to break. > > So, the debate as framed, to me, would be: Under what conditions is the > word the best unit for analysis, under what conditions is activity the best > unit for analysis, and...(and this is an important concatenation) are there > other possible units that could be better suited? > > This allows the theory to flex with advancing understanding in cognitive > science (my umbrella term to include all the disciplines as referenced in > Howard Gardener's diagram in *The Mind?s New Science: A History of the > Cognitive Revolution(1987); *these being anthropology, artificial > intelligence (comp sci), linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, and > psychology*)*. New units could be revealed as appropriate, which should > be a welcomed innovation! > > Vygotsky is in my mind the first bona fide cognitive scientist, even > though computer science was not even an embryo during his lifetime. He > would have been amazed by the ways that computers are being used to model > neural activity, and other forms of simulation, as well as how computers > are learning language. Just imagine what he might do with a smart phone. > > WOW. > > This is why LSV's insights are so tremendous, because he includes a space > for developments of the future. > > We stand on the shoulders of a beloved, gentle giant. > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of > Huw Lloyd > Fri 12/11/2020 5:24 AM > Francine, for clarification, I have considered CHAT to be an umbrella > category, e.g. where the T may stand for Theories. Hence what Nikolai > specifically focuses upon are Leontyev's AT, Vygotsky's CHT, and ?Yrj? > Engestr?m's AT. > > Re units, various people (Andy comes to mind) have noted that LSV employed > numerous units of analysis. On that basis my inference is that you are > questioning the relation between activity-as-consciousness with > word-meaning-as-consciousness (in the cognitive sense). If that is the > case, then simply some practical thinking around manifestations of > awareness and thinking reveals that word meanings are not the only vehicle > for such awareness. This seems harder for linguists to recognise and > recollect because this seems to be their principal medium. > > Best, > Huw > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of > Larry Smolucha > Wed 12/9/2020 6:53 PM > > >>From Francine: > > Good Morning Annalisa, > I enjoyed reading your commentary. > > The Vygotsky quote you are looking for is on the second page of "Thought > and Word" (p.211 in *Thought and Language* 1986). There the Kozulin > translation is *unit of analysis*, just after Vygotsky describes how > hydrogen and oxygen create a water droplet with properties different from > the two flammable gases (combined in every molecule of water). Vygotsky > then elaborates that in a water droplet the whole is greater than the sum > of the parts. This can be understood as the *synthesis of a thesis and > antithesis* in a dialectic, referring back to Vygotsky's earlier argument > for the use of dialectic in the* The Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology* > (1926-1927). It can also be understood as a type of synergy - my husband > Larry and I first introduced *Synergistic Psychology* in a publication in > 1988 and have been advancing it as a theory ever since. > > Please note: "Thought and Word" *begins* with the analogy of a 'word' as > being like water droplet and *ends* with an analogy with a water droplet. > In the final paragraph - consciousness being reflected in a word just as > sunlight is reflected off every drop of water, as well as the ocean. > > If you prefer using the terminology *unit for analysis* to describe what > has been translated as *unit of analysis*, > my guess is *most people will still use the term unit of analysis*. I > don't think this is incorrect. We could look at the Russian text (if anyone > has a copy) - the preposition is probably 'v' in Russian usually translated > as 'of'. (Would anyone care to argue that it is better translated as 'for' > ?) > > And yes, it is time to examine the applicability of the concept of > activity as the unit for analysis versus Vygotsky's use of a 'word'. But > what does this do to CHAT? Does CHAT as a theory offer two frameworks (the > Cultural Historical Theory of Vygotsky *and* the Activity Theory of > Leontiev) or one unifying framework? Just asking . . . > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:05 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical > Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Typo!! I did not mean UFO but UFA! The UFO was an unidentified flying > object from my keyboard. Please excuse! > > Annalisa > ------------------------------ > *From:* Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:02 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical > Activity Theory [was Re: CHT vs. CHAT] > > Hi Francine (and venerable others), > > In a sense this is raising the specter of naming that is vociferously > debated about the theories springing from Vygotsky's mind like Athena from > Zeus. > > "You say A Theory, I say Athena, let's call the whole thing off!" > > > Yes, what is in a word? > > I do not disagree with you about Vygostky's use of the word for > understanding what he was trying to understand. > > There is a great paper by Holbrook Mahn (UNM) that discusses word-meaning > and that the very critical difference is the difference between "unit OF > analysis" and "unit FOR analysis". I don't have it at my fingertips but if > you press me I can look for it. > > I think th ways in which analytical units are referred is a very important > distinction in our discussions. > > For now and for brevity of typing I'll write UOA vs UFA respectively. > > UOA can be anything, which means the unit employed is not necessarily > connected to the specific to the general. It can mask an unintended bias. > The UFO is more precise because it is specifically a unit that connects to > the specific and the general, and by its very existence connects the > specific to the general. > > I reference the discussion of the water molecule metaphor (not the light > on the water, but one about oxygen and hydrogen, do you know the one I > mean?), but I cannot recall where in his work I saw him use it. I thought > it was in Ch 6 Scientific Concepts in Childhood, but I could not locate it. > Maybe others can remember. But it was something like if one can understand > the behavior of the water molecule (the unit) one can understand the > behavior of oceans (general), but the water molecule can also help to > understand the nature of hydrogen and oxygen (the specific), and why > combined are not flammable. > > Call out to the peanut gallery: Did I get that right? > > Based upon the quote you shared, "Consciousness is reflected in the word > like sunlight in a drop of water", in reference to my distinctions between > UOA and UFA, if the inquiry is to understand consciousness, Vygotsky shows > us one must employ the word as the UFA because the word crowns the > manifestation of meaning in the mind. If the child does not utter the word, > the meaning can't be there, or rather the awareness of the meaning cannot > be there. Right? > > So to understand the development of higher mental functions it makes sense > to use the word as the UFA, because the word, as a unit, ties the specific > to the general. In this sense I presume it would be *meaning* [specific] > connected to *the word* connected to *awareness* (consciousness) [general]. > > If one can study the use of the word in the child, one can therefore > understand both directions of the specific to the general, meaning for the > child and consciousness of the child. > > It is quite beautiful and elegant. Though perhaps I have been too > simplistic in my explanation about it. > > Without meaning to fire up any longstanding controversies (really, I don't > wish to do that), my sense is that Leontiev contended that the only unit > worth its salt to employ was activity and only activity, which makes a lot > of sense in Stalinist Russia. This is not to say that it is not valid. I am > not saying that at all. It is a worthy approach to lead an inquiry. But I > think it is too much to say it is the ONLY unit for analysis. > > If I am a mechanic, I would want a box of tools not just one. If I am > working on a car, in one instance I might need a wrench, in another a > crowbar and in yet another a screwdriver. What decides the best tool is > what indicates and connects the expertise of the mechanic to the context of > the engine problem in need of repair. > > My understanding is that Vygotsky would not be so rigid about tools for > the job, and would say that the unit *for* analysis depends upon that which > we wish to study. Therefore, the unit must be carefully chosen. Is it that > very unit that the researcher believes is the best unit to direct a study *for > the purpose of analysis. * > > For example, in studying a restaurant and how it works, the best unit for > analysis would be the order ticket, how it is created and travels > (conceptually) from menu to the table to the kitchen to the table(as > ordered food) and back again to the table (as a bill). The order connects > the specific (this table and its guests) to the general (how a restaurant > operates). > > But if one were to look at activity, how a restaurant operates gets really > complicated, because we have to look at the roles of so many people, the > guest, the hostess, the waiter, the busboy, the kitchen help, and even > perhaps the guitarist setting the mood music. But what connects all this > activity? What do we learn about the restaurant by an extensive analysis of > the activity? > > However, if the inquiry has to do with how waiters give good service > versus bad service, or perhaps understanding expert waiters vs novice ones, > the order as th unit for analysis tells us very little, and in that case an > analysis of the waiter's activity would be most prominent as the unit for > analysis with a secondary understanding how the waiter's activities are > connected to all the other activities in the restaurant and how they > influence the waiter's activity would be easily revealed. > > What you say about Vygotsky's writings was so wonderfully expressed. I > confer about the archeological approach necessary when reading his texts. I > also agree that it's easy to decontextualize him, and this is the peculiar > standing challenge of studying his theoretical thinking about development > of mind. > > He can be much like a sphynx, or perhaps what is left behind to us in his > writings is as cryptic, a Rosetta Stone? > > But to reply to your question whether or not the concept of activity in AT > is compatible with the word as a unit of analysis? First I would say, a > unit *for* analysis must be a conscious choice, and if activity can be held > as a legitimate unit, based upon what one wishes to study, it can be highly > appropriate, but it need not supplant the legitimacy of using the word as > the unit *for* analysis, if the word is an appropriate unit to employ in > what one wishes to study. > > I have sensed the controversy among the community has to do with a > dogmatic approach that units for analysis can only activity. If I am > perceiving that controversy correctly, I would disagree with that position. > I don't believe Vygotsky was that dogmatic about units either, but that he > preferred to use the word for the ways in which thought could be studied > through speech and language (obviously, right, just based upon the title of > his book...). It has to do with one's particular object of inquiry. > > With that in mind, it's folly to say the word is better than activity or > vice versa. They are not the same, but different ways to analyze an object > of inquiry and the choice also has to do a lot with context, something that > is very slippery to contain, or perhaps I should say, generalize. > > What do you think about that? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > > > > > >>From Francine: > > If I may retitle the thread that began with the interviews with Huw and > Nikolai as* Cultural-Historical Theory vs Cultural-Historical Activity > Theory*. > > Vygotsky's unit of analysis is the 'word'. This is clearly stated in "The > Genetic Roots of Thinking and Speech" (1928) and in the concluding > paragraphs in "Thought and Word" (Vygotsky's last words from his death bed > in 1934) [in Kozulin's 1986 translation *Thought and Language*, p. 88 and > p. 256 respectively]. In the very last paragraph on > p. 256, Vygotsky stated "Consciousness is reflected in the word like > sunlight in a drop of water" an analogy that he used earlier in" The > Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology " from 1926/1927 ( p. 288 in > Volume 3 of *The Collected Works* , 1997). The word is a unit that is a > synthesis of thinking and speech. Note: the consistency in Vygotsky's > writings from 1926 through the very last paragraph *he chose* to finalize > his legacy in 1934. > > If one wishes to understand Vygotsky's thinking, all we have are his > writings. As a neo-Vygotskian no one is bound by what Vygotsky wrote. > Reading the actual texts is like archeaology. There has been a trend in > Vygotskian studies to deconstruct his texts as if one Vygotsky paper had no > connection to another (not seeing the forest for the trees). I see a > coherent theoretical 'structure' in Vygotsky's writings - the new paper > that my husband Larry and I have in press lays this out (using Vygotsky's > own words). > > Is the concept of 'activity' in Activity Theory really compatible with the > 'word' as unit of analysis? > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:27 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Interviews with Huw L. and Nikolai V. > > Henry and venerable others, > > I might add that *Imagination* is something like a self-imposed zone of > proximal development, which then becomes concrete if there is motivation to > act upon that which is imagined. > > Am I correct to say that those who adhere to CHAT see that activity is the > *only* unit *for* analysis, but that Vygotsky did not agree to be that > hard-wired about activity as the unit *for* analysis? That it depends > upon the problem one wishes to study. And so perhaps the difference between > CHATters and Vygotskians is this understanding of the unit *for* analysis? > > For example, how does one use activity as the unit *for* analysis if one > is studying imagination? Or language? or culture? > > If one were to study national anthems, would the *only* way to study them > be to examine the activities associated with them? In terms of where they > are sung or by whom they are sung? Or could one do an analysis of their > notes? their lyrics? > > How might that work? > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201218/914a88bf/attachment.html From scullyru@gwu.edu Sat Dec 19 11:55:34 2020 From: scullyru@gwu.edu (Ellen Scully-Russ) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:55:34 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Reminder: Call for Nominations! Cultural-Historical SIG Awards (Due date: 12/20): Graduate Student Award_Early Career Award_Lifetime Contribution Award In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Lois, First, thank you for your generous gift of the Handbook of Cultural Psychology and your very thoughtful note. I choked up when I read it to my husband. I spent time reviewing the book this morning, I love it and will refer to it often. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and generosity! I am so happy for you - your study is a very sensitive and significant piece of work and I am confident that it will make an important contribution to our veteran community - and to HOL. It was my great pleasure to accompany you on your doctoral journey. I want to let you know that I intend to nominate you for the Graduate Student Award of the AERA Cultural Historical Research SIG (more below). You should look out for a request for a 1000 word abstract from the award committee and, hopefully a 5000 word paper if you make it to the final round. A version of the paper we submitted for the AERA conference should be sufficient. Wishing you and your family a wonderful holiday season and a very healthy 2021! Best Ellen On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 3:49 AM Antti Rajala wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > > > On behalf of the AERA Cultural-Historical Research SIG (CH SIG), we are > asking your advice to nominate candidates for the 2021 Cultural-Historical > Research SIG Awards. These awards recognize our members? scholarly > contributions to research grounded in cultural-historical, sociocultural > and activity theoretic approaches in the following three categories: > > 1. Graduate Student Award > 2. Early Career Award > 3. Lifetime Contribution Award > > Please see the attached Call for Nominations for more descriptions about > each award, including details about the nomination process. The Call is > also available below. > > > > Importantly, *all *required nomination materials must be submitted to the > 2021 Award Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, antti.rajala@oulu.fi by *December > 20, 2020. *The committee will make its selection by January 20, 2021. Nominators > must be members of the CH SIG. > > > > Please email general questions regarding the awards to the 2021 Award > Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, antti.rajala@oulu.fi. > > > > Thank you and best regards, > > > > AERA Cultural-Historical Award Committee and SIG > > > > *Graduate Student Award of AERA Cultural-Historical Research SIG* > > > > The Graduate Student Award recognizes an outstanding work of original and > independent research produced by a graduate student, either as doctoral > research or pre-doctoral research. > > > > Please note the following conditions of the call: > > > > *Eligibility Criteria: *Nominees must be enrolled in a university > doctoral program. > > > *Nomination Process and Timeline: *The nominator must be a member of the > CH SIG and must submit a brief statement justifying the nomination, along > with electronic contact information for the nominee. Upon receipt of the > nomination, the Chair of the Awards Committee will request an abstract from > the nominee. The nominee should submit an abstract of 1000 words or fewer > of the work to be considered. Depending on the number of nominations, a > sub-set of 3 nominees may be asked to submit a paper of no more than 5000 > words that will be submitted for the committee?s final selection. > > > > *The nominations should be sent by email to theAward Committee Chair, > Antti Rajala, **antti.rajala@oulu.fi* > > > > *The deadline for the nominations is December 20, 2020. *The committee > will make its selection by January 20, 2021. > > > *Composition of the Awards Committee: *The SIG Chair has appointed the > three members of the Awards Committee.The committee is chaired by Dr. > Antti Rajala (University of Oulu, Finland). The other members are Dr. > Zitlali Morales (University of Illinois Chicago, USA) and Dr. Aria Razfar > (University of Illinois Chicago, USA). > > > > *Selection Criteria: *The awardee will have created an outstanding work > of original and independent research as either as doctoral research or > pre-doctoral research. > > > > The winner will be given a plaque with an inscription to be presented at > the SIG business meeting at theAERA annual meeting and invited to make a > presentation at a SIG-sponsored session of the annual meeting. > > > > Announcement of the Awardee will be made through email to SIG members, on > the SIG Facebook page, and at the SIG business meeting at the AERA annual > meeting. > > > > Contact Person for the Award: 2021 Award Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, > antti.rajala@oulu.fi > > > *Early Career Award of AERA Cultural-Historical Research SIG* > > The Early Career Award acknowledges the contribution of one person, or > co-authors, who have contributed a piece of work, for example, a book > chapter, a research article or a monograph, that 1) moves the field of CHAT > research or theory in a particularly interesting direction, 2) elaborates a > concept or set of concepts in a particularly helpful way, or 3) provides > links across research and practice that prove foundational. This award > should be given to individuals who are at least 3 years past completion of > the doctoral degree. > > > > Please note the following conditions of the call: > > > > *Eligibility Criteria: *This award should be given to individuals who are > at least three years past completion of the doctoral degree. > > > *Nomination Process and Timeline: *The candidate must be nominated by a > member of the SIG and seconded by another member. The nominator (and/or > seconder) should submit a copy of the piece of work to be considered along > with a statement justifying the nomination. > > > > *The nominations should be sent by email to theAward Committee Chair, > Antti Rajala, **antti.rajala@oulu.fi* > > > > *The deadline for the nominations is December 20, 2020. *The committee > will make its selection by January 20, 2021. > > > *Composition of the Awards Committee: *The SIG Chair has appointed the > three members of the Awards Committee.The committee is chaired by Dr. > Antti Rajala (University of Oulu, Finland). The other members are Dr. > Zitlali Morales (University of Illinois Chicago, USA) andDr. Aria Razfar > (University of Illinois Chicago, USA). > > > > *Selection Criteria: *Awardee should have contributed a piece of work > such as a book chapter, research article or monograph, that moves CHAT > research or theory in a particularly interesting direction, elaborates a > concept or set of concepts in a particularly helpful way, and/or provides > links across research and practice that prove foundational. > > > > The winner will be given a plaque with an inscription to be presented at > the SIG business meeting at theAERA annual meeting and invited to make a > presentation at a SIG-sponsored session of the annual meeting. > > > > Announcement of the Awardee will be made through email to SIG members, on > the SIG Facebook page, and at the SIG business meeting at the AERA annual > meeting. > > > > Contact Person for the Award: 2021 Award Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, > antti.rajala@oulu.fi > > > *Lifetime Contribution Award of AERA Cultural Historical Research SIG* > > > The Lifetime Contribution to Cultural-Historical Research Award > acknowledges the contribution of one person, over the course of his/her > career, to the Cultural-Historical Research field as reflected in > foundational books, series of publications, lectures, conference > presentations, grants, speeches, and important engagement with the field > broadly speaking including outreach and service. > > > > Please note the following conditions of the call: > > > > *Eligibility Criteria: *Anyone who fits the above definition. > > > *Nomination Process and Timeline: *The candidate must be nominated by a > member of the SIG. > > Nomination packets should include a letter of nomination and a copy of the > candidate?s CV. All nominations should be submitted electronically. > > > > *The nominations should be sent by email to theAward Committee Chair, > Antti Rajala, **antti.rajala@oulu.fi* > > > > *The deadline for the nominations is December 20, 2020. *The committee > will make its selection by January 20, 2021. > > > *Composition of the Awards Committee: *The SIG Chair has appointed the > three members of the Awards Committee. The committee is chaired by Dr. > Antti Rajala (University of Oulu, Finland). The other members are Dr. > Zitlali Morales (University of Illinois Chicago, USA) and Dr. Aria Razfar > (University of Illinois Chicago, USA). > > > > *Selection Criteria:*The career body of work of a nominee will be > evaluated according to its impact as measured by volume and influence of > foundational books, series of publications, lectures, conference > presentations, grants, speeches, and important engagement with the field > broadly speaking including outreach and service, and impact on educational > practice. > > > > A plaque with an inscription will be awarded. The winner will give an > invited talk in the SIG?s annual meeting program at the following year?s > AERA meeting. > > > > Announcement of the Awardee will be made through email to SIG members, on > the SIG Facebook page, and at the SIG business meeting at the AERA annual > meeting. > > > > Contact Person for the Award: 2021 Award Committee Chair, Antti Rajala, > antti.rajala@oulu.fi > > > -- Ellen Scully-Russ, Ed.D. Department Chair Director, Executive Leadership Doctoral Program Associate Professor Human and Organizational Learning The George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development 44983 Knoll Square, Suite 147 Ashburn, VA 20147 Doctoral Programs: *https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://gsehd.gwu.edu/elp__;!!Mih3wA!XzD8DtYqm6CHEa46GQoOT-pb133S2AuB7hmR9qbygf2Kv2jVC6XajbuZ30MIRn0olrRI7g$ * https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gsehd.gwu.edu/programs/doctorate-human-and-organizational-learning__;!!Mih3wA!XzD8DtYqm6CHEa46GQoOT-pb133S2AuB7hmR9qbygf2Kv2jVC6XajbuZ30MIRn3seWrgLw$ Masters Program: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gsehd.gwu.edu/programs/masters-organizational-leadership-and-learning__;!!Mih3wA!XzD8DtYqm6CHEa46GQoOT-pb133S2AuB7hmR9qbygf2Kv2jVC6XajbuZ30MIRn13p23FwQ$ Apply Now*: **https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gw.force.com/TX_SiteLogin?startURL=*2FTargetX_Portal__PB__;JQ!!Mih3wA!XzD8DtYqm6CHEa46GQoOT-pb133S2AuB7hmR9qbygf2Kv2jVC6XajbuZ30MIRn02Uo5Iqg$ * Chair, Public Affairs Committee, American Association of Adult and Continuing Education Editorial Board Member,* Adult Learning, European Journal of Training and Development, Journal of Transformative Education* Linkedin: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/escullyruss__;!!Mih3wA!XzD8DtYqm6CHEa46GQoOT-pb133S2AuB7hmR9qbygf2Kv2jVC6XajbuZ30MIRn3nlHVv1Q$ ************************************************************************************ Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes. -- William James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201219/072b6504/attachment.html From M.Chesterman@mmu.ac.uk Wed Dec 23 09:22:21 2020 From: M.Chesterman@mmu.ac.uk (Mick Chesterman) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:22:21 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Welcome to the "xmca-l" mailing list - an introduction from Mick In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1608744142280.13655@mmu.ac.uk> Hi there, I?ve just joined the list and wanted to quickly introduce myself. I?m Mick Chesterman. I?m working and doing a PhD part-time at Manchester Met UK, in the ESRI (education) there. Before that I was involved in activist/community work often doing web/media training. Indymedia (for anyone that recalls) was a big part of that time. I still run a related free software documentation project https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://flossmanuals.net__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUh6PFLWnQ$ I?ve signed up to the xmca list as I?m starting to lock down the framework and methodology I?ll use for my PhD thesis. I?m becoming aware of the need to prioritise beyond ?something around design experiments and CHAT? to pick key concepts to elaborate. So I?m here to pick up info that will help me do that work, perhaps ask questions if I get stuck, to keep an ear out for suitable conferences or development opportunities and possibly find future research partners. My research has evolved pretty organically from working with Home Education families, responding to their requests (for Educational Game Making), meeting my research interests and providing opportunities for students (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://edlab.org.uk__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUiU6q2UYQ$ ). My colleagues in ESRI tell me I have an aptitude in messy pedagogies. It?s true that my research strives to emulate the kind of chaotic learning that I saw happening in media activist spaces/projects in the different context of family game making. I?m aware that there is quite a lot of similar, international research in the area of project/informal learning from a socio-cultural perspective and I?ve been enjoying reading that. I am also concerned that mainstream computing education seems to struggle to adopt cultural approaches I?m starting to share early fruits of my research. A really significant factor in my game coding activity is the use of game design patterns to help overcome tensions inherent in remixing and adding to the code of a platform game to make it your own. Familiar game patterns are used by participants for initial engagement, navigating learning, and as a way of promoting a craft approach to coding (as opposed to learning from first principles by leading more abstract Computational Thinking concepts). So help to find other studies addressing design patterns or craft-based approaches to novice creative coding explored in a socio-cultural perspective would be really appreciated. It would be great to not duplicate existing work. I know some similar work has been done using Agent Sheets (Scalable Game Design) but not from a perspective of drawing on funds of knowledge or creating a third space/ playworld ( both a part of my learning design). Also many studies in this field use constructionism as a framework. While some literature is interesting in exploring abstract and concrete approaches to coding, it seems quite limited in other ways compared to socio-cultural approaches. It strikes me more as a set of design principles than a theoretical framework as such. For those interested in the technology and supporting documents, I?m happy to share resources. I?ve been using phaser as a text/ javascript framework - https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.flossmanuals.net/phaser-game-making-in-glitch/_full/https:/*en.flossmanuals.net/phaser-game-making-in-glitch/_full/__;Lw!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUgZ57_gbw$ This year I?ve adopted MakeCode Arcade (block-based) which is really promising. My current learning design is probably best represented at this page - https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mickfuzz.github.io/makecode-platformer-101/methods__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUgdAXZkIw$ I?d be really interested to share more detail with individuals who do similar work. Also if anyone or group was interested or had capacity to do joint work in this area, I would love to chat. Many Thanks Mick Chesterman Mr Mick Chesterman | Tutor | Childhood, Youth and Education Studies | Manchester Metropolitan University m.chesterman@mmu.ac.uk | Phone +44(0)161 247 2085 | Pronouns He / Him Working Days | Monday - Thursday EdLab Project - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://edlab.org.uk__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUiU6q2UYQ$ ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of xmca-l-request@mailman.ucsd.edu Sent: 23 December 2020 16:26 To: Mick Chesterman Subject: Welcome to the "xmca-l" mailing list Welcome to the XMCA mailing list. If you have difficulties posting to the list, other technical qquestions, or wish to change your subscription, please send email to xmca-l-owner@mailman.ucsd.edu To post to this list, send your email to: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu General information about the mailing list is at: https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its website https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUh-M1WPjw$ " From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Dec 31 15:05:59 2020 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 23:05:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Welcome to the "xmca-l" mailing list - an introduction from Mick In-Reply-To: <1608744142280.13655@mmu.ac.uk> References: <1608744142280.13655@mmu.ac.uk> Message-ID: Hi Mick To try and simplify things for you, I would suggest you do some work on explicating important factors within your theme of interest (which seems to be about "craft" vs "conceptual" forms of learning) and then seeing how that relates to CHAT conceived as an umbrella grouping of approaches. I would suggest that the distinctions you label do not comprise a simple dichotomy. Although I know a good amount about the things you are referencing, it may be that these understandings are not appropriate for completing your formal studies. Because trying to do a good job on developmental studies (which could be described as the deeper, psychological parts of CHAT or conceived separately as CHT/AT) and, as a consequence, finding out about some of the deeper parts of the rabbit hole may not fit with the expectations set for your formal study, or indeed meet with staff knowledge in your setting. If you simply want to learn more about CHAT/CHT/AT etc then there are numerous resources available. Happy new year. Huw On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 17:24, Mick Chesterman wrote: > > Hi there, > > I?ve just joined the list and wanted to quickly introduce myself. I?m Mick > Chesterman. I?m working and doing a PhD part-time at Manchester Met UK, in > the ESRI (education) there. Before that I was involved in > activist/community work often doing web/media training. Indymedia (for > anyone that recalls) was a big part of that time. I still run a related > free software documentation project > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://flossmanuals.net__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUh6PFLWnQ$ > > I?ve signed up to the xmca list as I?m starting to lock down the framework > and methodology I?ll use for my PhD thesis. I?m becoming aware of the need > to prioritise beyond ?something around design experiments and CHAT? to pick > key concepts to elaborate. So I?m here to pick up info that will help me do > that work, perhaps ask questions if I get stuck, to keep an ear out for > suitable conferences or development opportunities and possibly find future > research partners. > > My research has evolved pretty organically from working with Home > Education families, responding to their requests (for Educational Game > Making), meeting my research interests and providing opportunities for > students ( > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://edlab.org.uk__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUiU6q2UYQ$ > ). My colleagues in ESRI tell me I have an aptitude in messy pedagogies. > It?s true that my research strives to emulate the kind of chaotic learning > that I saw happening in media activist spaces/projects in the different > context of family game making. I?m aware that there is quite a lot of > similar, international research in the area of project/informal learning > from a socio-cultural perspective and I?ve been enjoying reading that. I am > also concerned that mainstream computing education seems to struggle to > adopt cultural approaches > > I?m starting to share early fruits of my research. A really significant > factor in my game coding activity is the use of game design patterns to > help overcome tensions inherent in remixing and adding to the code of a > platform game to make it your own. Familiar game patterns are used by > participants for initial engagement, navigating learning, and as a way of > promoting a craft approach to coding (as opposed to learning from first > principles by leading more abstract Computational Thinking concepts). > > So help to find other studies addressing design patterns or craft-based > approaches to novice creative coding explored in a socio-cultural > perspective would be really appreciated. It would be great to not duplicate > existing work. > > I know some similar work has been done using Agent Sheets (Scalable Game > Design) but not from a perspective of drawing on funds of knowledge or > creating a third space/ playworld ( both a part of my learning design). > Also many studies in this field use constructionism as a framework. While > some literature is interesting in exploring abstract and concrete > approaches to coding, it seems quite limited in other ways compared to > socio-cultural approaches. It strikes me more as a set of design principles > than a theoretical framework as such. > > For those interested in the technology and supporting documents, I?m happy > to share resources. > I?ve been using phaser as a text/ javascript framework - > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.flossmanuals.net/phaser-game-making-in-glitch/_full/https:/*en.flossmanuals.net/phaser-game-making-in-glitch/_full/__;Lw!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUgZ57_gbw$ > This year I?ve adopted MakeCode Arcade (block-based) which is really > promising. My current learning design is probably best represented at this > page - > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mickfuzz.github.io/makecode-platformer-101/methods__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUgdAXZkIw$ > > I?d be really interested to share more detail with individuals who do > similar work. Also if anyone or group was interested or had capacity to do > joint work in this area, I would love to chat. > > Many Thanks > Mick Chesterman > > > Mr Mick Chesterman | Tutor | Childhood, Youth and Education Studies | > Manchester Metropolitan University > > m.chesterman@mmu.ac.uk | Phone +44(0)161 247 2085 | Pronouns He / Him > Working Days | Monday - Thursday > EdLab Project - > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://edlab.org.uk__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUiU6q2UYQ$ > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of xmca-l-request@mailman.ucsd.edu < > xmca-l-request@mailman.ucsd.edu> > Sent: 23 December 2020 16:26 > To: Mick Chesterman > Subject: Welcome to the "xmca-l" mailing list > > Welcome to the XMCA mailing list. > > If you have difficulties posting to the list, other technical > qquestions, or wish to change your subscription, please send email to > xmca-l-owner@mailman.ucsd.edu > > To post to this list, send your email to: > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > General information about the mailing list is at: > > https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l > > > "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read > the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its > website > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUh-M1WPjw$ > " > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201231/d2e9c001/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Thu Dec 31 19:15:41 2020 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 19:15:41 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Welcome to the "xmca-l" mailing list - an introduction from Mick In-Reply-To: References: <1608744142280.13655@mmu.ac.uk> Message-ID: <08268422-DE7E-48B2-9262-5882C69A1267@gmail.com> Mick, you are at Manchester Metropolitan, right? Did you ever cross paths with Colin Barker? He died just a year ago or so ? great loss. He convened a wonderful small annual conference on Marxism and Social Movements that you might have enjoyed a lot. You can look up his work on Academia. He wrote some very coherent papers about CHAT ? or AT, I think he would have called it. I?d be happy to talk with you about CHAT as it comes through his work if you?re interested. Helena Worthen (retired, Univerisity of Illinois Labor Educaiton Program). Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com helenaworthen.wordpress.com check your registration at vote.gov > On Dec 31, 2020, at 3:05 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Hi Mick > > To try and simplify things for you, I would suggest you do some work on explicating important factors within your theme of interest (which seems to be about "craft" vs "conceptual" forms of learning) and then seeing how that relates to CHAT conceived as an umbrella grouping of approaches. I would suggest that the distinctions you label do not comprise a simple dichotomy. > > Although I know a good amount about the things you are referencing, it may be that these understandings are not appropriate for completing your formal studies. Because trying to do a good job on developmental studies (which could be described as the deeper, psychological parts of CHAT or conceived separately as CHT/AT) and, as a consequence, finding out about some of the deeper parts of the rabbit hole may not fit with the expectations set for your formal study, or indeed meet with staff knowledge in your setting. > > If you simply want to learn more about CHAT/CHT/AT etc then there are numerous resources available. > > Happy new year. > > Huw > > > On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 17:24, Mick Chesterman > wrote: > > Hi there, > > I?ve just joined the list and wanted to quickly introduce myself. I?m Mick Chesterman. I?m working and doing a PhD part-time at Manchester Met UK, in the ESRI (education) there. Before that I was involved in activist/community work often doing web/media training. Indymedia (for anyone that recalls) was a big part of that time. I still run a related free software documentation project https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://flossmanuals.net__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUh6PFLWnQ$ > > I?ve signed up to the xmca list as I?m starting to lock down the framework and methodology I?ll use for my PhD thesis. I?m becoming aware of the need to prioritise beyond ?something around design experiments and CHAT? to pick key concepts to elaborate. So I?m here to pick up info that will help me do that work, perhaps ask questions if I get stuck, to keep an ear out for suitable conferences or development opportunities and possibly find future research partners. > > My research has evolved pretty organically from working with Home Education families, responding to their requests (for Educational Game Making), meeting my research interests and providing opportunities for students (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://edlab.org.uk__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUiU6q2UYQ$ ). My colleagues in ESRI tell me I have an aptitude in messy pedagogies. It?s true that my research strives to emulate the kind of chaotic learning that I saw happening in media activist spaces/projects in the different context of family game making. I?m aware that there is quite a lot of similar, international research in the area of project/informal learning from a socio-cultural perspective and I?ve been enjoying reading that. I am also concerned that mainstream computing education seems to struggle to adopt cultural approaches > > I?m starting to share early fruits of my research. A really significant factor in my game coding activity is the use of game design patterns to help overcome tensions inherent in remixing and adding to the code of a platform game to make it your own. Familiar game patterns are used by participants for initial engagement, navigating learning, and as a way of promoting a craft approach to coding (as opposed to learning from first principles by leading more abstract Computational Thinking concepts). > > So help to find other studies addressing design patterns or craft-based approaches to novice creative coding explored in a socio-cultural perspective would be really appreciated. It would be great to not duplicate existing work. > > I know some similar work has been done using Agent Sheets (Scalable Game Design) but not from a perspective of drawing on funds of knowledge or creating a third space/ playworld ( both a part of my learning design). Also many studies in this field use constructionism as a framework. While some literature is interesting in exploring abstract and concrete approaches to coding, it seems quite limited in other ways compared to socio-cultural approaches. It strikes me more as a set of design principles than a theoretical framework as such. > > For those interested in the technology and supporting documents, I?m happy to share resources. > I?ve been using phaser as a text/ javascript framework - https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.flossmanuals.net/phaser-game-making-in-glitch/_full/https:/*en.flossmanuals.net/phaser-game-making-in-glitch/_full/__;Lw!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUgZ57_gbw$ > This year I?ve adopted MakeCode Arcade (block-based) which is really promising. My current learning design is probably best represented at this page - > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mickfuzz.github.io/makecode-platformer-101/methods__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUgdAXZkIw$ > > I?d be really interested to share more detail with individuals who do similar work. Also if anyone or group was interested or had capacity to do joint work in this area, I would love to chat. > > Many Thanks > Mick Chesterman > > > Mr Mick Chesterman | Tutor | Childhood, Youth and Education Studies | Manchester Metropolitan University > > m.chesterman@mmu.ac.uk | Phone +44(0)161 247 2085 | Pronouns He / Him > Working Days | Monday - Thursday > EdLab Project - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://edlab.org.uk__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUiU6q2UYQ$ > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of xmca-l-request@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Sent: 23 December 2020 16:26 > To: Mick Chesterman > Subject: Welcome to the "xmca-l" mailing list > > Welcome to the XMCA mailing list. > > If you have difficulties posting to the list, other technical > qquestions, or wish to change your subscription, please send email to > xmca-l-owner@mailman.ucsd.edu > > To post to this list, send your email to: > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > General information about the mailing list is at: > > https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l > > > "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its website https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer__;!!Mih3wA!RMQWWH8R95meDhmGcZWbHjZZi-qp2F_7we2v-HFtUhD9ZsU0kH89S6RleelCyUh-M1WPjw$ " > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20201231/3670a889/attachment.html