Thank you Eugene!
You know it's so easy to learn from an old Marxist (Elkonin) that some
concept (role-play) is an historical product, and then in the very next
minute forget to reflect on the work that history has done since, in
producing one's own times!!
Just one question about Gee's idea: What is meant by the "emerging
three-fold identities in a player during video games"? I am totally
intrigued and cannot guess!
Andy
At 12:22 PM 24/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Andy and everybody
>
>
>
>Andy, let me add my 0.2 cents to your discussion. It is a bit arrogant for
>me to contribute since role-taking play is not my area, so sorry if my
>naïve comments offend somebody who specializes in this area&
>
>
>
>I think that in time of Vygotsky, Elkonin (senior), Mead, and Honneth,
>role-taking plays were predominately childrens activities in Western
>cultures and thus were seen as developmental(see Elkonins notion of
>leading activitiesassociated with ontogenesis). The closest adult activity
>to role-taking plays that was legitimate and recognizable by the (high?)
>society was literature writing (theater performance, unless fully
>improvisational, was too scripted) which has never involved mass
>participation of general adult public. Currently, with explosion of
>computer and video games, the situation is rapidly changing. Role-taking
>plays become legitimate (widespread) adult activities in Western societies
>(I do not know history enough to claim that in past role-taking games had
>been also legitimate adult activities recognized by the society but I
>suspect that role-taking plays were always with adults in some forms of
>fantasies that were not recognized by the society).
>
>
>
>I think that the recent book by Jim Gee
>
>Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and
>literacy (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
>
>
>
>is the first sign that this change is recognized by the academia. I found
>that Jims analysis of emerging three-fold identities in a player during
>video games is somewhat similar to Bakhtins analysis of relationship
>between author and his/her character (in Bakhtins earlier writing see his
>book Art and answerability). I think that non-developmental perspectives
>can provide us with more insights about the nature of role-taking plays.
>
>
>
>What do you think?
>
>
>
>Eugene
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 2:34 AM
>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Subject: Mead, Honneth and role-taking play
>
>
>
>Can I pick the collective brain again for my work on Mead and Honneth,
>this time about what I think is a wrong conception of role-taking play?
>
>Vygotsky and Elkonin give us a wonderful description of the development of
>play from baby-'playing'-baby up to setting the world record for the 100
>metres. Mead/Honneth talks about a two-stage genesis of play from
>role-taking to competitive games.Leaving aside the poverty of this
>two-stage reduction of such a complex process, I challenge their
>description of role-taking play. And I'm wondering if those of you with
>real concrete knowledge of the subject can prove me right or wrong.
>
>According to Honneth's appropriation of Mead, in role-taking play children
>imitate the actions of their partner in play. For Mead this substantiates
>his idea of the emergence of self-consciousness in terms of an
>object-position 'me', in which the subject-to-be's perceptions of their
>own vocalisations are associated with that of their 'partners' and they
>pretty literally see a mirror image of themselves in the reaction of the
>others, which actually, according to Mead/Honneth, constitute the
>objective self-image called 'me'. For Honneth, this construction
>substantiates his idea of a stage in the development of 'recognition' in
>which people learn that they are people with just the same rights as
>everyone else. (Competitive games are supposed to be the stage in which
>people learn about their own uniqueness.)
>
>I think this is all wrong. In role-taking play, even in its embryonic
>stage, children do not imitate the role of their partner, which after all
>could be not a person but an artefact! They play a complementary role.
>Their first experiences are as part of sets in which every player plays a
>different, complementary role. Personally, I think rights develop in the
>same way too as a matter of fact. "Equality" only comes later. And
>furthermore, the 'me' concept is slightly wrong too, as the subject-to-be
>associates its own sensor-motor actions with the audio-visual perceptions
>of the reactions of others, and conversely, but this is not an A=A
>relation, but rather a complementary, equal-but-opposite relation.
>
>What do people think?
>
>Andy
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST