Absolutely agreed! But I think the type of communication that
goes on in
most schools (at least the ones I've been in) between teachers and
students is way different to the type of social communication being
advocated by the Golden Key schools. I think part of the problem
is that
obshchenie is probably ineffable as well as untranslatable!
Thanks,
Helen
----- Original Message -----
From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:24 am
Subject: Re: [xmca] Communication/social relations/obshenie
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
obuchenie without obshchenie is a little difficult to imagine,
helen.> communication devoid of affect seems to offer a similar
set of
problems.
Again, in every case of "definition" we have (a largely
unexplicated,> because you can never say everything about
anything) a large,
pre-supposed set of theoretical assumptions about the
processes being
defined.
What makes discussion of these cases always (potentially) useful
is that different ways of defining/interpreting provide
glimpses of
thetheoretical field which provides the lens through which we
and our
interlocutors are interpreting/delimiting the processes of
(potentially!)common interest.
mike
(PS-- My spelling and typing are no better in transliterated
Russian than in
English) :-((
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Helen Grimmett <
helen.grimmett@education.monash.edu.au> wrote:
A group from my university attended the Vygotsky/Golden Key Summer
School earlier in the year and returned home all talking
about the
importance of obshchenie (this is the spelling we have been
using
-
funny that it is a cross between Mike and Katrina's). While
they
said> that Elena Kravtsova translated it as 'social
communication'
she also
made it clear that this was not really an adequate
translation for
capturing the true expansive meaning of the word.
In reference to my earlier message, pasted below, I'm
wondering
whether> it is actually 'obshchenie' that is the unique
property of
'obuchenie'> (teaching/learning)? - i.e. it is all about the
special social/emotional
relationships between and among teachers and learners in the joint
activity of obuchenie that make the difference.
Perhaps some Russian speakers can help further?
Thanks,
Helen.
Earlier message: Helen wrote....
I am currently attempting to use obuchenie as a central
concept in my PhD research, arguing that perhaps using a
'new'
word with
teachers makes it easier for them to think about teaching
and
learning> in a new way (as a conjoint practice that both
teachers
and learners
engage in together).
I have argued that it is difficult to assign new
conceptualisations to
existing terms we have traditionally conceptualised in
different
ways> and that perhaps using teaching/learning still provides
an
image of
simply bringing together the two contradictory practices of
teaching and
learning (as understood in their old way) rather than
helping
teachers> think about it in a new way as a dialectical unity
which
has its own
unique properties (more than the sum of its parts).
I then go on in my proposal for confirmation of candidature
paper to
spend nearly 6000 words trying to explain what the unique
properties of
obuchenie are. In a nutshell I talk about the ZPD (although
taking a
holistic approach to development recognising the importance
of the
affective dimension alongside the more typical cognitive
approach);> > intersubjectivity and perezhivanie; authentic
meaning and motives
for> participating in the activity; and recognising that all
of
this occurs
within a particular cultural-historical context that both
determines and
is determined by the interactions of the participants.
I would be interested to hear what others think are the
unique
qualities> of obuchenie and why/whether translations as even
teaching/learning or
teaching-learning may be inadequate for generating new
understandings> amongst teachers.
----- Original Message -----
From: Katarina Rodina <katja@student.uv.uio.no>
Date: Monday, November 23, 2009 4:30 am
Subject: Re: [xmca] Communication/social relations/obshenie
To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
The problem with terminology is a tricky one. The
understanding of
terminology in Russian Psychology as "communication", "social
interaction"and "Obchenie" is far from being straightforward.
I've tried to investigate the problem of
communication
(obchenie) in
Vygotsky's, Leontiev's and so-called neo-Vygotskian
research (see
belowRodina (2006)) .
The problem of communication as a social relation (rus.
obchenie,> > > German"Verkehr") is highlighted in the works of
A.N. Leontiev,
Zaporozhets and
M. Lisina, i.e. the concept of early ontogeny of communication
(obchenie)as a communicative activity (not speech activity
as an
object of study as
in psycholinguistics). Lisina's theory of early emotional
communication/obchenia as a Leading Acitivity has much in
common with
Trevarthen's concept of early inter-subjective
communication and
socio-emotional development in early ontogeny. Bodrova & Leong
(1996: 51)
could also be mentioned as a contemporary variant of
Elkonin's and
Lisina's psychological concept of early emotional
communication/obcheniawith Tronick`s (1989) "interactional
synchrony".> >
Lisina's understanding of communication/obchenia as a
psychological> > category was based on Vygotsky's cultural-
historical theory of
developmentof HMF and Leontiev's activity theory (see for
example> > > Lisina, M. (1985)
Child-Adults-Peers: Patterns of Communication. Progress
Publishers;> > Karpov,Y.(2005). The Neo-Vygotskian Approach to
Child Development.
Cambridge University Press; Bodrova, E. & Leong, B.(1996).
Tools of
theMind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education.
Prentice-Hall,
Inc., pp. 50-55; Rodina, K. (2006).The Neo-Vygotskian
Approach to
EarlyCommunication: A Cultural-Historical and Activity based
Concept of
Ontogeny. Nordic Psychology,Vol.58, No.4, 331-354).
Katarina
On Sat, November 21, 2009 17:22, mike cole wrote:
" Since communication is the precise measure of the
possibility of
social
organization, of good understanding among men (sic), relations
that are
beyond its range are not truly social..
GH Cooley, 1894.
for Cooley, like Pierce, "mind is made concrete in culture."
---------------
Cooley's first book: The theory of transportation. No
accident that.
mike
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
Katarina A. Rodina
Research Fellow (PhD)/Logoped,MNLL
Department of Special Needs Education,
University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1140 Blindern,
NO-0318 Oslo, Norway
Phone: +47 41 108 408/Fax: +47 22 85 80 21
E-mail: katarina.rodina@isp.uio.no
http://staffdirectory.uv.uio.no/singleview/v1/index.php?user=katja> > >