[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Honestly....



Hi Eric and Andy,

I have always been uncomfortable with the notion of innate characteristics, particularly Freud's "death" instinct and Chomsky's innate linguistic structures. Currently, the strong presence of evolutionary theory of various strands brings us back to questions of species-specific skills and their survival values. Tomasello whose work I respect greatly has been publishing lately about human forms of cooperation or "shared intentionality." He is very persuasive relying on research in his lab comparing children and chimpanzees on various tasks.(see for example, Why We Cooperate?)He continues to emphasize how cooperation is culturally shaped and mediated. I think we are confronting an important issue.
Vera
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [xmca] Honestly....


Eric, I think it quite possible to hold at the same time different positions on intersubjectivity and on the question of innate/acquired. There is no doubt that there are social animals whose sociality is innate and who can therefore acquire new skills socially. But I believe CHAT is a current of thought which holds that becoming human is possible only through interaction with other people using culturally acquired artefacts (i.e., intersubjectivity plus artefacts), but even the tendency to engage in interaction is acquired only because other human beings around the child "summon" the child to interaction. There is no innate drive to sociality in human beings. A. I. Meshcheryakov's book is definitive on this question I believe.

Does that answer your question, Eric? I wasn't sure I got your meaning exactly.

Andy

ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
....didn't realize equating Piaget with intersubjectivity would create a conflaguration of misunderstanding.

Am I incorrect in my understanding of intersubjectivity? I believe it to be based on innate abilities rather than appropriated skills. Perhaps Bahktin did not write on this, I must admit I am shallow in my understanding of Bahktin.

Initially in my study of LSV and the CHAT tradition I was a person who prioritized innate abilities but as I have studied and practiced teaching I have come to realize that being human IS developed via interactions and attachments. Biological genetics must play into it but I have a hard time believing that intersubjectivity is biological in nature.

Am I talking in circles or drowing in misunderstanding?

eric
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden
An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity: http://www.brill.nl/scss


_______________________________________________
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