I always read him as meaning that contexts are realized through the use of
available forms - not that action takes place "in" a context.-- Nicely put
Kevin, but hard to always keep in mind. Darned hard to keep straight
despite out best intentions.
m
On 8/21/06, O'Connor, Kevin <kevin.oconnor@rochester.edu> wrote:
>
> Mike-
> I also see the tension between the two senses of context in the phrasing
> Jim
> uses here (i.e., container vs relational) - a slip into a container view
> is
> maybe clearest where he writes: "any episode of human action must occur in
> a
> specific cultural, historical, and institutional context, and this
> influences how such action is carried out" (18). Despite this, though,
> I'm
> not able myself to understand Jim's work in any way other than as
> consistent
> with the view of context McDermott argues for. I think because Jim always
> insists so strongly that we focus analytic attention on the "irreducible
> tensions" in action (whether between individual and mediational means;
> reproducible and nonreproducible aspects of language in utterances; or the
> intersubjectivity/alterity tension he focuses on here), I always read him
> as
> meaning that contexts are realized through the use of available forms -
> not
> that action takes place "in" a context.
>
> At the end of the article Jim makes a point about the importance of
> developing methods that don't push researchers into ways of thinking that
> are inconsistent with developing theory - this is maybe where the
> difficulties that you mention in overcoming the slippage in views of
> context
> have to be overcome, since its so difficult to do with the terministic
> screens we have available (judging by the great lengths Ray, or you, have
> had to go to in even putting the alternative notions into language).
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/19/06 4:22 PM, "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Re Wertsch and context for a moment. p. 18. He is talking about two
> senses
> > in which communication is social (I think we could
> > sub "human experience" for communication, but he is heading to
> Rommetveit
> > and Lotman, so communication is just fine). He
> > contrasts "two or more people carrying out a process" or the
> > "interactional" ""level"" with "the broad sociocultural context within
> > which it [the two person interaction] occurs."
> >
> > We ALL talk this way using the term context at times. But a few lines
> later
> > the term "sociocultural setting" has been substituted. So
> > setting and context are taken as synonymous? And we ALL make such
> > substitutions which often seem harmless and perhaps
> > inescapable (social situation of
> development/environment/situation). But
> > the way we make such substitutions worries me.
> >
> > Most generally, I worry that we conflate interweaving, relational
> notions of
> > contexts for container notions (I will try to get some
> > relevant McDermott materials out about this in the next couple of days
> if
> > people wish to pursue the issue).
> > I worry that we do not detect the slippage in our own thinking. What is
> a
> > "larger sociocultural context" if not some unit of human life that is
> made
> > up of. constituted by, many threads of people interacting? Is the
> Acropolis
> > a place of worship, a tourist attraction, or a fort to be blown apart if
> > your enemies are occupying it and you want them dead? (As it was a
> couple of
> > hundred years ago). Etc.
> >
> > All of this of course relates to the issue of intersubjectivity in Jim's
> > paper. But that is for a later time, if....
> > mike
> >
> > On 8/19/06, Bremme Don <dbremme@whittier.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Regarding context and self, "inside"/"outside" I've found the
> following
> >> provocative. (I got into this as a result of its listing a previous
> xMCA
> >> thread, by the way, so this is merely re-presenting, in re: Mike's
> question
> >> quoted here):
> >>
> >> Dorothy Holland, William Lachiotte Jr., Debra Skinner, and Carole Cain
> >> I<<dentity and Agency in Cultural Worlds.>> Cambridge, MA: Harvard
> >> University Press, 1998
> >>
> >> Apologies of this is tangential to the Wertsch currently under
> discussion.
> >>
> >> Don
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Tony Whitson
> >> Sent: Sat 8/19/2006 12:05 PM
> >> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu; mcole@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> Subject: [xmca] Wertsch, context,deja vu: RE: LSV-& Dialogical Self --
> >> context (withunrelated bonus non-irony irony)
> >>
> >> Mike, your concern about "context" reminded me of a previous thread, in
> >> which you asked:
> >>
> >>> If the personality is the highest form of sociality, the unit of
> >>> analysis for understanding the "whole person," what does it mean to
> >>> talk about relationships BETWEEN the personality
> >>> and its social context? Is context outside and personality inside?
> >> Really?
> >>
> >> My response is below (In fact, I'm sending this message as a response
> in
> >> the
> >> earlier thread, not the new one). I am almost finished with the Wertsch
> >> chapter, and there's a whole lot worth discussing in that short
> chapter.
> >> If
> >> I can work it in around my course preparation, thesis-reading, etc., I
> >> will
> >> be joining in this weekend; partly by extending my comments from the
> >> earlier
> >> thread.
> >>
> >> First, I have to break to get some lunch.
> >> Here's where the "bonus irony" comes in:
> >>
> >> I am taking a camera with me so I can stop on my way to the grocery
> store
> >> to
> >> photograph the sign in front of the local Assemblies of God church that
> >> (still, I hope) says, "It's hard to stumble when you're on your knees!"
> >>
> >> At first I thought that was ironic, since it could be read in a whole
> >> different spirit than intended.
> >>
> >> Then I realized the only ironic thing is that it's NOT ironic: My
> >> "different
> >> meaning" is in fact not really different from the one intended.
> >>
> >> What do you think? (& consider this instance in terms of Wertsch &
> Lotman,
> >> around pp. 24-26 in the chapter).
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Tony Whitson [mailto:twhitson@UDel.Edu <twhitson@UDel.Edu>]
> >> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 11:11 AM
> >> To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> Cc: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> Subject: Re: LSV-& Dialogical Self -- context
> >>
> >> Mike, There is sometimes a perplexing resistance to recognizing the
> kind
> >> of question you are raising.
> >>
> >> For example, when Derrida says "Il n'y a pas d'hors-texte",
> >> there are many who perversely repudiate him as saying that there is no
> >> reality outside of verbal texts. In fact he has insisted that it would
> be
> >> better to translate his claim as "there is no 'con-text'" (rather than
> >> "there is no reality outside of texts"). As you are asking, Derrida is
> >> contending that the reality we're dealing with is an
> >> interwoven textile/textuality such that an analytical separation
> between
> >> an "inside" and "outside" rends apart the structured interweaving that
> we
> >> need to see if we want to understand what we are looking at.
> >>
> >> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Mike Cole wrote:
> >>
> >>> Odd what sparks discussion here.
> >>>
> >>> I have also been reading Valsiner and will go back to it through this
> >> lens.
> >>>
> >>> I found the following statement odd.
> >>> The two [Stern-individualism and Vygosk] are brought together in
> >>> Valsiner's theory, which highlights the sign-constructing and
> >>> sign-using nature of all distinctively human psychological processes.
> >>> Arguing that the individualistic and the cultural traditions differ
> >>> largely in emphasis, Valsiner unites them by focusing on the intricate
> >>> relations between personality and its social context, and their
> >>> interplay in personality development.
> >>>
> >>> If the personality is the highest form of sociality, the unit of
> >>> analysis for understanding the "whole person," what does it mean to
> >>> talk about relationships BETWEEN the personality
> >>> and its social context? Is context outside and personality inside?
> >> Really?
> >>>
> >>> mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:38:27 +0100, George <researcher@safe-mail.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> Dear Phil,
> >>>>
> >>>> I do not have Engeström's et al. book. Would you happen to have an
> >>>> electronic copy of Davydov's article? or know a link - although I
> >>>> searched an could not find anything?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 13, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Phil Chappell wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Davydov's essay: Davydov, V.V. (1999) The content and unsolved
> >>>>> problems of activity theory, in Engestrom, Y, Miettinen, R and
> >>>>> Punamaki, R-L "Perspectives on Activity Theory" Cambridge University
> >>>>> Press
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> George
> >>>> (Hansjoerg von Brevern)
> >>>>
> >>>> -------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Research in e-Learning Objects, e-Learning meta data standards,
> >>>> didactical activity, Systemic-Structural Activity Theory, and
> >>>> Socio-cultural Theory
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Tony Whitson
> >> UD School of Education
> >> NEWARK DE 19716
> >>
> >> twhitson@udel.edu
> >> _______________________________
> >>
> >> "those who fail to reread
> >> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
> >> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 05 2006 - 08:14:31 PDT