Re: Gredler & Shields vs. Gutierrez & Lemke

From: Oudeyis (
Date: Fri Apr 23 2004 - 16:24:02 PDT

No real synthesis, just a provisional state of accomodation (until the
negation is negated by its negation etc. etc. etc.). Check EVI (1960)
Dialectics of Abstract & Concrete, Chapter 5 - The Method of Ascent from the
Abstract to the Concrete in Marx's Capital, Contradiction as the Condition
of Development of Science and
Contradiction as a Principle of Development of Theory .

Lastly, dialectics can be as crude or as fine as the focus of research.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Barowy" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 9:11 PM
Subject: Gredler & Shields vs. Gutierrez & Lemke

> I've rarely been able to read only one text at a time, unless it was
> non-academic as fiction, biography, etc... So this late, late response to
> Kris' article is one in which i have printed and online texts surrounding
> and I'm doing this intertextual thing, actually trying to read between the
> texts.
> The texts are of two genre's, book and research article, and this makes a
> difference because Jay Lemke's *Talking Science*, being a book, is less
> limited by space, and as a bound unit goes into more detail than Kris
> Gutierrez' *Script, counterscript...*. This is not a criticism of
> although it is a curiously coincidental and proportion reflection of the
> length of their respective posts to xmca! Both authors focus on speech
> "effective classroom practice" (Kris, p 467) -- and most importantly note
> the roles of BOTH teachers and students in making this practice happen.
> note the enduring patterns of interaction, called 'activity structures"
> and 'scripts' (Kris). Both see the struggle between established cultural
> practice, "reading the Los Angeles Times every morning" (Kris); "talking
> science" (Jay), with their accompanied semiotic systems, and the personal
> social semiotics of the students. Both authors invoke heteroglossia in
> describing these differences, and both advocate breaking durable patterns
> interaction i.e. "making trouble" (Jay, p210), creating a "disruptive
> of underlife" (kris, p467).
> Neither Kris nor Jay address the "zone of proximal development", which
> features highly in the article by Gredler & Shields. Both Jay and Kris
> effectively draw upon units of analysis that extend beyond the individual,
> and which, if we are to believe the books "Thought and Language" (TL) and
> "Mind in Society" (MS) would make theoretical connections between the zone
> proximal development and heteroglossia or perhaps more generally
> Yet, Gredler &Shields, who reference neither TL nor MS (substantively)
> 'Vygotsky did not include the assistance of another in his definition of
> ZPD' (p. 22), and so they, it would seem, would preclude constructive
> integration of the the work of Bakhtin and Vygotsky (as well as Dewey and
> Vygotsky). Their paper is strangly reminiscent of the "dominant script"
> Kris writes about, adapted here to refer to the competitive and exclusive
> literary actions one finds in high profile journals as the educational
> researcher. Most noteworthy is the form of the title which constructs
> as ignorant (Silencing those without cultural knowledge?), the monologic
> exclusion of all other relevant works to the attack on Glassman's paper,
> MS, TL, etc., pulling from selected quotes to bolster claims without
> consideration of the greater theoretical context in which the quote rests
> (for example not once were the transformations from interpsychological to
> intrapsychological discussed, which might have brought in the role of
> adults/others in the zoped).
> Mind you, this is not so much a criticism of Gredler & Shields and their
> article as much as it is of the genre in which they write. Although, when
> look at Gredler's listed publications, she has established a track-record
> locating and attacking "misperceptions". Even higher educational academics
> fall into enacting the patterns of cultural practice, and it takes a bit
> trouble making and disruption to break out of the status quo. I think
> Glassman does some creative breaking out and this could be why Gredler &
> Shields attack, arguably acting to sustain the staus quo. Glassman makes
> inferences, agreed, that are not as close to the words of Vygotsky as
> & Shields would like. Glassman's work seems to be more abductive --
> at the comparison and contrasts in a plausible manner between Vygosky and
> Dewey. It is a form of constructive integration, an attempt to form a
> space" between Deweyan and Vygotskian scholars.
> Victor has posted on the Glassman-Gredler & Shields debate as a
> process, and at one level I can agree. Yet, there has to be something of
> finer texture in social change than just the synthesis of opposing poles.
> bb

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 01 2004 - 01:00:07 PDT