I am also working on the role of play, as you know, and its role in
learning and development.
I find, however, that "PLAY" is a very heterogeneous and slippery
concept and that many people have many different definitions. Actually,
Brian Sutton-Smith even wrote a book on the rhetoric of play
(Sutton-Smith, 1997, The Ambiguity of Play) -a very useful and well
orienting pointer to the perils of misunderstandings about what is play,
anyway.
As I understand it (and always thought that Vygotsky understood it), is
that play is imagination in action (and imagination is internalized
play). -- That is a very broad definition, though, but allows for
looking at the whole specter of imaginative activities, both
interpersonal and intrapersonal as play-like activities which may become
tool like mediators in the ZPD.
Ana
Mike Cole wrote:
> When it comes to schooling, Paul, there IS cultural-historical
> evidence that
> is pretty
> thick. Their early history casts a long light beam on the conditions
> which
> give rise to them and the ways they get incorporated in social
> practice and
> the process of human evolution on earth. Whether or not wants to call
> this a
> zoped (upward or downward) is a reasonable question to pose. And on that
> point we can have a hey-day of chatter!!
>
> I would have though that Vivian Paley also provides alternative ways to
> think about schooling, but so far as I can tell, I am the lone
> stranger on
> XMCA who thinks so on the
> basis of the chapter of her book we discussed. I am still trying to
> come to
> gripts with
> zopeds in ontogeny at present, and in particular the potential role of
> play
> as part of the design principles needed to create such potentials.
> mike
>
> On 12/17/06, Paul Dillon <phd_crit_think@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> mike,
>>
>> Perhaps schools themselves are the problem. Montesorri (and perhaps the
>> schools that came out of Rudolf Steiner) seemed to work around a concept
>> more congenial to Vygotsky's notion of zopeds. And for this after
>> school
>> programs are much more congenial, no pressure from states imposing their
>> ideological constructions. Online education approaches this but the
>> problem
>> is retention since everyone has already been trained to demand structure
>> from the outside instead of following the instrinsic joy of learning.
>>
>> Paul Dillon
>>
>> *Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>* wrote:
>>
>> This nicely states my view of the fullest way to think about zopeds,
>> Aleksander:
>> it might be useful to consider concept like mutual asymmetrical
>> interaction
>> (or
>> reciprocal asymmetry or complementary asymmetry - and mutual development
>> in the zoped or both sides development) where both partners could be to
>> each other more developed partner.
>>
>> The great challenge is to arrange for such interactions in
>> institutionalized
>> school
>> settings, which is why I prefer work after school. And the problem
>> is, of
>> course,
>> much more general still.
>> mike
>> On 12/17/06, Aleksandar Baucal wrote:
>> >
>> > I share with Michael experience that teachers can learn a lot from
>> > students as well as parents from children (actualy I share this with
>> > students each time when we discuss Vygotsky's theory). Moreover, there
>> > is a anecdote that is shared among my colleagues about Math prof who
>> > tried to explain to students some topic, but he got impression that
>> they
>> > didn't understand. Than he explained them in another way, but again
>> they
>> > didn't understand. He didn't want to retreat and tried in third
>> way, and
>> > then he realized that actually he didn't understand this topic. I
>> > believe in the happy end of the anecdote, that is that prof finally
>> > understood the topic and after that he was able to help students to
>> > build their understanding :)
>> >
>> > This kind of examples seems to ask for more inclusive
>> interpretation of
>> > the zoped (that supposes asymmetric interaction where actual
>> pattern of
>> > activity of participant at the lower level is transformed through
>> joint
>> > activity with more developed participants who brings new cultural form
>> > of activity into the joint activity). Based on above examples it might
>> > be useful to consider concept like mutual asymmetrical interaction (or
>> > reciprocal asymmetry or complementary asymmetry - and mutual
>> development
>> > in the zoped or both sides development) where both partners could
>> be to
>> > each other more developed partner. For example, teacher who is more
>> > developed than student regarding to understanding of certain topic
>> from
>> > curriculum and student who is more developed that teacher regarding
>> > computer literacy and using Internet - they are searching internet
>> > together trying to build interpretation and understanding of certain
>> > natural phenomenon. It is not easy to imagine parallel example with
>> > parents and children especially in this time of fast social
>> changes. If
>> > parents and children would have just one sided asymmetric relations it
>> > would end up with confused children since tools they appropriate
>> through
>> > relationship with parents would misfit to social condition in which
>> they
>> > will be adults. Moreover, it seems that children serve as more
>> competent
>> > partner to parents when it comes to emerging forms of culture.
>> >
>> > Sasha
>> >
>> >
>> > Michael Glassman wrote:
>> > > I have been reading some of the discussion on Zoped and have been
>> > wondering more and more if Anselm Strauss' ideas on negotiated
>> ordering
>> > might have some important implications for the way some people view
>> the
>> > Zoped as a concept. Strauss suggested that the ordering in activity
>> - he
>> > did not really talk about development (he was Mead's student) - but
>> > concentrated more on the ongoing dynamic activity itself. What he
>> suggested
>> > was that the relationship between those who were in charge and knew
>> what
>> to
>> > do, and those who looked to those people in charge, was dynamic and
>> > dependent on the problems that were being faced. The hierarchy and
>> also
>> the
>> > allocation of resources (which I find interesting and possibly one of
>> the
>> > core issues) is predetermined. But in the process of the ongoing
>> activity,
>> > as the problems changed, the actual ordering within the community
>> changes to
>> > meet the problem at hand. One of his most interesting studies was
>> of an
>> > emergency room in San Francisco. While on paper and in allocation of
>> > resources doctors were the titula heads of the emergency room, when
>> crises
>> > occurred there was a reordering of roles, where the nurses became the
>> > defacto heads of the activity, and the doctors looked to the nurses
>> and
>> > understood this. I think one of the problems is that what happens is
>> that
>> > what happens in process is then not re-translated into understanding.
>> The
>> > doctors re-claim their roles as experts after the crisis and from
>> what I
>> can
>> > tell make little effort to share resources with the nurses.
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps negotiated ordering has important implications for the Zoped
>> as
>> > well (is such a concept applicable to Vygotsky? Well I continue to
>> believe
>> > that Vygotsky was reading Dewey in his early career and was influenced
>> by
>> > him - but of course even saying this gets a lot of people angry. And
>> Anselm
>> > Strauss was working from a base developed by Mead and Dewey). From
>> what
>> I
>> > have been reading, one of the things people are trying to explore is
>> this
>> > notion is that there is some sense of negotiated ordering in the Zoped
>> > where, when facing different problems, different members of a learning
>> > community take different positions in the learning/development
>> equation
>> (can
>> > we really differentiate learning from development and would we want
>> > to?). This maybe works especially well if we are looking at learning
>> from a
>> > dialectical perspective - because what needs to happen for learning to
>> occur
>> > is for something to make you question what you are thinking, to cloud
>> the
>> > issues that you were sure of. I think of Piaget and the early work he
>> did
>> > with his own children. Wasn't Piaget actually learning - in a
>> dialectical
>> > fashion - from his own children. I think of my relationship with my
>> own
>> > children and I know they did things that completely threw me for a
>> loop,
>> > completely made me re-think issues I thought were set in my mind. They
>> were
>> > creating a natural disturbance in my Zoped. But by admitting this I
>> have
>> to
>> > admit I learn from my three year old - not in a cute type way, but
>> in a
>> real
>> > way where I have to give up my mantle of expert in our relationship.
>> > >
>> > > Yet we have a great deal invested in this culture of the expert -
>> the
>> > idea that the expert teaches and the student learns. I hate to say
>> it -
>> > because I'd rather stay away from economic issues - but it is also a
>> part of
>> > our capitalist base and how we allocate resources. We pay experts more
>> > because they are experts, we hire them as consultants because they are
>> > experts, we let them act as gate keepers and decision makers because
>> they
>> > are experts. I wonder to what extent Vygotsky has been assimilated
>> in to
>> > this entire culture of experts?
>> > >
>> > > Michael
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > >
>> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Mike Cole
>> > > Sent: Sun 12/17/2006 10:47 AM
>> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Zopeds at the cultural historical level
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Andy-- When you write:
>> > > Hegel does not talk about "assisting" the
>> > > learning subject, but rather of subordinating them.
>> > >
>> > > I think you get near the heart of Yrjo's thought experiment in
>> > "development
>> > > as breaking away" and
>> > > socialization theories (which, heaven help us, are often the
>> implicit
>> > > theories behind talks concerning
>> > > zopeds). The adults in Yrjo's (Hoag's) story are seeking to "raise
>> > > up/normalize" the children by subordinating
>> > > them to a social order with lots of rules and strictures as the
>> means
>> to
>> > > their "development", e.g. growing up
>> > > to replicate that order. Breaking away is the only way UP as well as
>> > OUT.
>> > > But, of course, such subordination
>> > > is talked about as benevolent assistance.
>> > >
>> > > What makes it all very complicated even in the ontogentic case is
>> that
>> > > subordination and assistance are so
>> > > closely related to each other. The duality of structure? After all,
>> the
>> > core
>> > > of the method of dual stimulation,
>> > > in Vygotsky's words, is to "subordinate oneself to an external
>> stimulus"
>> > as
>> > > a means of achieving self control
>> > > "from the outside" in order to break free of local situational
>> > constraints.
>> > >
>> > > As problematic as this is at the ontogenetic, intergenerational
>> level,
>> > it
>> > > simply gets more so at the culturalhistorical
>> > > level.
>> > >
>> > > Might not institutions such as, for example, the National Academy of
>> > > Sciences, be a social instrument whereby certain
>> > > individuals are chosen to act as more knowledgable peers, who
>> society
>> > uses
>> > > as a means to its own self development?
>> > > Or, if one approves less secular social instrumentalities, the synod
>> of
>> > > bishops?
>> > >
>> > > Thoughts for a spinkly sunday morning where the sun is making its
>> > > reappearance after a too-brief visit of some rain.
>> > > mike
>> > >
>> > > On 12/17/06, Andy Blunden wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I don't know, Hegel was theorising modernity not multiculturalism.
>> But
>> > >> according to Hegel social learning is not a process of
>> imitation, or
>> > >> civilisation "rubbing off" on people, but of the production and use
>> of
>> > the
>> > >> artefacts of a society in the production of the needs of that
>> society
>> > >> according to its laws. True, Hegel does not talk about "assisting"
>> the
>> > >> learning subject, but rather of subordinating them.
>> > >> Andy
>> > >> At 06:07 PM 15/12/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Andy,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I totally agree with your extended analysis of Hegel. The problem
>> > is
>> > >>> that when we look at the reality of the relations that arise
>> between
>> > >>> conquered and conquerers the patterns of assimilation are really
>> quite
>> > >>> different. The conquered often "shuck and jive", move slowly,
>> > withdraw
>> > >>> into smaller and smaller universes where they preserve the core of
>> > their
>> > >>> identity prior to being conquered. Eric Wolf called this the "gods
>> > >>> beneath the altar". As I remember Benjamin's "Theses on Historical
>> > >>> Materialism", he pointed to this: histories are stopped but not
>> > >>> necessarily eliminated, these chronological frameworks within
>> which
>> > the
>> > >>> phylogenetic zopeds exist, but they are waiting to begin
>> > again. History
>> > >>> isn't unilinear, something Marx saw quite clearly in the
>> ethnological
>> > >>> studies he was undertaking at the end of his life. For Hegel,
>> history
>> > >>> was unilinear and Reason was the telos toward which everything
>> > cultural
>> > >>> and historical moved. Not so Marx.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Another important thing I remember about the hegelian master-slave
>> > >>> dialectic concerns the role of work in developing the universal
>> > essence
>> > >>> that later becomes the basis of the post-feudal civilizations.
>> Very
>> > >>> materialistic really.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The question I think about a lot, especially in light of the
>> "andean
>> > >>> cosmovision" movements, of which Evo Morales is a happy surfer, is
>> > >>> whether the elements that have been conserved can be developed
>> again
>> > >>>
>> > >> with
>> > >>
>> > >>> their own dynamic, that the "other" way of putting the pieces
>> together
>> > >>> can become a dynamic in it's own right. There is a very advanced
>> > >>> movement down here in that direction. Right now, the City of Villa
>> el
>> > >>> Salvador, originally a "squatter's settlement" to the south of
>> Lima
>> > >>> (something very comparable to El Alto's relationship with La
>> Paz in
>> > >>> Bolivia) is hosting a "Reawaken the Native Gods (wakas)" reunion,
>> > >>> inviting shamans from the highlands to Paracas (the third most
>> > important
>> > >>> ceremonial site at the time of the Conquest) for three days to
>> pray
>> > and
>> > >>> dance and revitalize those spiritual forces. A lot of people here
>> > move
>> > >>> in that direction which isn't a simple nationalism since it is
>> > >>> pan-Andean, refers to the non-European, to another ontology as one
>> > >>>
>> > >> friend
>> > >>
>> > >>> puts it.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Like I said, I don't think Hegel sheds much light on this
>> process or
>> > >>> how the conquered manage to preserve that sense of identity in
>> codes
>> > >>>
>> > >> that
>> > >>
>> > >>> resist rational penetration.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Paul
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Andy Blunden wrote:
>> > >>> Paul, I let my contribution to this thread drop, because I wasn't
>> > sure
>> > >>>
>> > >> how
>> > >>
>> > >>> much a compare-and-contrast of Hegel's master-servant and
>> Vygotsky's
>> > >>>
>> > >> ZOPED
>> > >>
>> > >>> was useful. But anyway ...
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The essence of the master-slave dialectic is this (IMO): the
>> master
>> > >>> incorporates the material energies of the servant into its own
>> system
>> > of
>> > >>> needs and their satisfaction, so that all the artefacts of the
>> > conquered
>> > >>> subject are destroyed as artefacts and their materiality (the
>> land,
>> > >>> products, etc and the bodies of the human individuals) is
>> re-organised
>> > as
>> > >>> part of the subjectivity of the coloniser (their meaning is
>> changed),
>> > by
>> > >>> virtue of the dominated people labouring under the direction of
>> the
>> > >>>
>> > >> master,
>> > >>
>> > >>> meeting the master's needs according to the methods of the master,
>> the
>> > >>> servant's lands and bodies being redefined as resources for
>> meeting
>> > the
>> > >>> needs of the master. The servant not only loses all control of
>> their
>> > own
>> > >>> activity, but are forced into activity which they neither
>> understand
>> > nor
>> > >>> see the need for. Thus the "unhappy consciousness." But as Paul
>> says,
>> > by
>> > >>> performing the activity defined by the coloniser's subjectivity,
>> they
>> > >>> become officienados in that activity, thus arises (development
>> and)
>> > >>> self-consciousness.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The servant's material activity mediates between the master's
>> needs
>> > >>> (consciousness) and their satisfaction in the form of culture; the
>> > >>>
>> > >> master's
>> > >>
>> > >>> culture and consciousness mediates between the slave's activity
>> and
>> > their
>> > >>> consciousness of that activity.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The shared core of this conception with Vygotsky's ZPD is that of
>> the
>> > >>> dominant culture, represented by a dominant subject, determines
>> both
>> > the
>> > >>> activity that the 'learner' must perform and the needs being
>> > fulfilled;
>> > >>> doing without understanding leads to understanding of doing,
>> > ultimately,
>> > >>> the non-subject becomes a free and equal member of the dominant
>> > activity
>> > >>>
>> > >> an
>> > >>
>> > >>> culture by learning to reproduce it by their own activity.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> For Hegel this is the dialectic by which *self-consciousness
>> emerges*;
>> > it
>> > >>> is the dialectic relating subjective consciousness and objective
>> > >>> consciousness.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I don't know if that help anything or not. I'm not sure.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Andy
>> > >>> At 01:45 PM 15/12/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> mike,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I've just gone back to read some xmca posts -- been computer
>> deprived
>> > >>>> for a bit and stuck to using internet cabinets in Lima for very
>> brief
>> > >>>> stuff. I had erased a lot of messages but found that I hadn't
>> read
>> > the
>> > >>>> one you originally posted, to which I'm now replying, probably
>> > >>>>
>> > >> postponing
>> > >>
>> > >>>> it until I could read more carefully. Then I went to the xmca
>> website
>> > >>>>
>> > >> to
>> > >>
>> > >>>> check the thrread in detail and found it had bifurcated, someone
>> > >>>>
>> > >> posted a
>> > >>
>> > >>>> reply, changing the subject name to something about more
>> competent
>> > >>>> peers. That thread grew a lot and I haven't read all those
>> messages
>> > so
>> > >>>> I'm not sure whether the original thread concerning
>> > >>>>
>> > >> cultural-historical
>> > >>
>> > >>>> zopeds continued there.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> The way you phrased the problem was quite clear and Andy's
>> response
>> > >>>> about conquest and colonization most interesting. resonating with
>> an
>> > >>>> earlier exchange around the book about native american
>> science. In
>> > the
>> > >>>> 1500s the conquering Europeans were arguably less culturally
>> advanced
>> > >>>>
>> > >> in
>> > >>
>> > >>>> many fields of human practices (engineering, mathematics,
>> astronomy,
>> > >>>> agriculture, institutional administration, just to mention a few)
>> > than
>> > >>>> the people they conquered. They really only had an advantage in
>> > >>>> weaponry. And there was absolutely no zoped functioning in either
>> > >>>> direction it seems, just a master-slave relation. For Hegel that
>> > >>>> relation turns into a pyrrhic victory followed by the
>> esse"Unhappy
>> > >>>> Consciousness" in which the dominated slave realizes its own
>> nce to
>> > be
>> > >>>> the negation of the Individual and the true universality of
>> > >>>>
>> > >> consciousness
>> > >>
>> > >>>> as something trans-individual. The slave realizes that s/he is
>> the
>> > >>>>
>> > >> truth
>> > >>
>> > >>>> of the Master. I always recall the scene from the movie Spartacus
>> > when
>> > >>>>
>> > >> the
>> > >>
>> > >>>> Roman general asks: Who is Spartacus? and one by one all of the
>> > >>>> rebelling slaves stand up and claim to Spartacus. Then they
>> are all
>> > >>>> crucified, of course. But that transition isn't an example of a
>> zoped
>> > >>>>
>> > >> so
>> > >>
>> > >>>> Hegel isn't much help here.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> The problem of more advanced cultural forms is certainly an
>> important
>> > >>>> one, but when I wrote the query concerning the historical
>> dimensions
>> > >>>>
>> > >> of
>> > >>
>> > >>>> the zoped, I wasn't really thinking about the problem in quite
>> the
>> > way
>> > >>>> you phrased it, that is I wasn't really thinking about more or
>> less
>> > >>>> advanced cultures as defined in terms of specific practices (I
>> don't
>> > >>>> think it would be possible to specify that one culture is
>> superior
>> to
>> > >>>> another in any absolute sense, but yes at the level of specific
>> > >>>> practices), I was really wondering about the transmission of
>> customs
>> > >>>>
>> > >> and
>> > >>
>> > >>>> habits that seems to occur without any conscious teaching
>> involved,
>> > >>>>
>> > >> but
>> > >>
>> > >>>> which is part of the package when a child is learning the basics,
>> > that
>> > >>>> historical dimension that moves at the backs of people, without
>> their
>> > >>>> knowledge or awareness. I don't see how we can doubt that this
>> goes
>> > >>>>
>> > >> on;
>> > >>
>> > >>>> e.g., learning racism implicitly in nursery rhymes, learning the
>> > >>>> individualism (looking out for good old number one first) also
>> seems
>> > >>>>
>> > >> to
>> > >>
>> > >>>> qualify as something that isn't so much taught as a specific
>> skill
>> > >>>> imparted by a more knowledgeable member of the group, but as a
>> > >>>>
>> > >> corrolary
>> > >>
>> > >>>> to learning itself within certain cultures, just as learning that
>> the
>> > >>>> family comes first is dominant in others. It's very clear to me
>> that
>> > >>>> there is a big gap between people's real morality and their ideal
>> one
>> > >>>>
>> > >> and
>> > >>
>> > >>>> that practicality (living in the world with the skills we've
>> learned)
>> > >>>>
>> > >> is
>> > >>
>> > >>>> usually the reason given to explain the difference between the
>> > >>>> two. Yeah, it'd be great to turn the other cheek but in
>> reality no
>> > one
>> > >>>> does because that's just not the way the world works.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> If such is the case, that these dimensions, primarily moral and
>> > >>>>
>> > >> ethical
>> > >>
>> > >>>> ones, are transmitted first in this kind of "blind" way , then
>> the
>> > >>>> modification of these levels must depend on something other than
>> the
>> > >>>>
>> > >> kind
>> > >>
>> > >>>> of direct teaching that characterizes a zoped.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Perhaps the examples given by Yrjo point in this direction more
>> than
>> > I
>> > >>>> realized and I'll have to go back and look at that: but as I
>> > remember,
>> > >>>> these "expansions" involved breaking out, destroying old
>> structures,
>> > >>>>
>> > >> and
>> > >>
>> > >>>> clearing a space for new ones. What bigger space than a raft
>> on the
>> > >>>> Mississippi River? The idea that a zoped is a conversation with a
>> > >>>>
>> > >> future
>> > >>
>> > >>>> seems very useful to me, the question of course: what is that
>> > >>>> future? Andy's statement that phylogenesis is about "pulling
>> oneself
>> > >>>>
>> > >> up
>> > >>
>> > >>>> by the bootstraps" enters here. But really, how is it possible to
>> > >>>>
>> > >> avoid
>> > >>
>> > >>>> teleology?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Lately I've been very much impressed what could be called
>> "historical
>> > >>>> traumas", events and processes extending over a period of time,
>> that
>> > >>>> leave what I can only describe metaphorically as topography
>> within
>> > >>>>
>> > >> which
>> > >>
>> > >>>> the rivers of consciousness/mind flow. This a result of living
>> again
>> > >>>>
>> > >> in
>> > >>
>> > >>>> the Andes where a suppressed past is constantly whispering
>> beneath
>> > the
>> > >>>> present day-to-day activities. There are major traumas: the
>> Conquest
>> > >>>>
>> > >> in
>> > >>
>> > >>>> the Americas , extirpation of idolatries=attempted destruction of
>>
>> === message truncated ===
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ana Marjanovic'-Shane,Ph.D.151 W. Tulpehocken St.
Philadelphia, PA 19144
Home office: (215) 843-2909
Mobile: (267) 334-2905
ana@zmajcenter.org <mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org>
http://www.speakeasy.org/~anamshane <http://www.speakeasy.org/%7Eanamshane>
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:19 PST