[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] The family tree of CHAT
Ok, I need everyone to SLOW DOWN. Remember that there are youngsters in the room here!
I've been trying hard to follow this thread, as it's germane to things I've been reading over the last few months--I just took my qualifying exams, and my reading list included several CHAT items (including Mike's Cultural Psychology, some LSV, and Kaptelinin and Nardi's interesting primer). I would like to hear more about how folks conceive a poststructural frame(ing) of sociocultural theory and, in particular, of CHAT. I wouldn't even know how to begin to craft a more specific question than that, although I will continue to follow this thread with great interest, delighted confusion, and confused delight.
~~
Jenna McWilliams
Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
~
http://www.jennamcwilliams.com
http://twitter.com/jennamcjenna
~
jenmcwil@indiana.edu
jennamcjenna@gmail.com
On Nov 8, 2012, at 8:39 PM, Robert Lake wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> The title of your posting reminded me of this interesting genealogical
> chart that Andy created in 2009.
>
> http://ethicalpolitics.org/chat/Genealogy-CHAT.htm
>
> Robert Lake
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:28 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Andy's response to Nektarios's characterization of CHAT set off a
>> discussion that seems too
>> important to passover. So I am seeking to rename it in the spirit that I
>> think underlies David Ki's approach inquiring about the intellectual goal
>> of the sociocultural enterprise.
>>
>> The extra context for the way David formed his questions socio-cultural
>> theory helped a lot
>> as did the additional questions & comments from interlocuters. I started
>> another thread with the
>> intent in giving a name to the topic under discussion that others may wish
>> to change. I'll put David's
>> text into this message and seek to answer briefly in-situ. I hope it is
>> helpful. If so, we can go into
>> more detail, if not, someone can put us on the right path.
>> ------------
>> David:
>>
>> Furthermore, Vygotsky and his contemporaries offered their theories as
>> scientific explanations of learning and development.
>> So, somewhere in the intervening decades the scientific aspirations that
>> cultural-historical theorists held for their theories seems to have eroded.
>> My question asks after this change:
>>
>> *I believe we should be cautious in our interpretations of what it meant
>> for Vygotsky and his contemporaries (I assume you include luria, leontiev
>> assuming we are talking about the specifically*
>> *Vygotskian thread), to "offer their theories as scientific explanations."*
>> *
>> *
>> *Its not that I do not believe that there was a time in his career when he
>> had visions of solving the crisis in psychology theoretically. In the
>> context of his time he HAD to claim it as a scientific theory of he was an
>> even deader man walking even sooner. Jim Wertsch argues was an ambivalent
>> figure in this regard.*
>> *
>> *
>> *In any event, SO MUCH has happened in this regard, between the 1920's and
>> now that there are likely to be a lot of competing stories out there. And
>> Anton is busy unraveling further uncertainties about who wrote what when
>> and why for an entire history. *
>> *
>> *--Have cultural-historical psychologists, overall, abandoned scientific
>> aspirations for their theories?
>> I have sometimes argued, never in print up to now, that if there were such
>> a thing as an integrative theory that combined phylogenetic, cultural
>> historical, ontogenetic, and microgenetic scales of time/process would be
>> the metapsychology. But I also thought that any attempt to formulate such a
>> meta-theory the ring bearer would end up in a lot of turf squabbling in bad
>> will. Better to spend one's time with a discipline which might seriously
>> tackle the problem, Communication for example. :-)
>> --Have some abandoned those aspirations, but other maintain them?
>> Not sure who maintained them in the first place, in practice so cannot
>> judge. It there have been changed views over generations, as there have, do
>> they involve such aspirations? Hard to say.
>> --Are cultural-historical psychologists ambivalent about this issue, unsure
>> of how to frame their aspirations?
>> I have not been able to make much progress since the mid 1990's when I
>> adopted my own, odd, version of my interpretation of "romantic science."
>> Its the last chapter of Cultural Psychology, so people who
>> want to see text can read on Amazon unless someone has circulated a pdf I
>> do not know about.
>> There I argue for a theory/practice methodological "solution" the crisis in
>> psychology.
>> --In a poststructural frame, are the aspirations of cultural-historical
>> theory indexed to particular discourses, in some of which theories are
>> clearly scientific, in others, clearly not?
>> I have to confess that I am too uncertain about what you mean by a
>> post-structural change to be of help here. I woke up this morning worrying
>> that I was caught between the two David's arguing Polanyi and modern
>> philosophy of
>> science.
>>
>> My own thinking in this regard leads along the lines of engagement in
>> valued social issues/goods, including moral goods. I think that in somewhat
>> different languages this this is what you and Andy are both gesturing
>> toward.
>> The fact that Andy got me going back again and more deeply to the
>> wellsprings of this mode of thought to Goethe
>> has been essential in this regard.
>>
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> If any of the above is helpful, we could pick up from there. But if I have
>> misinterpreted, back us up to what you think that the germ cell of this
>> mode of understanding and inquiry are. I am not sure what we can resolve,
>> but we might learn a lot and perhaps even resolve some issues of current
>> uncertainty.
>>
>> mike
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Robert Lake Ed.D.
> *Associate Professor
> Social Foundations of Education
> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
> Georgia Southern University
> P. O. Box 8144
> Phone: (912) 478-0355
> Fax: (912) 478-5382
> Statesboro, GA 30460
>
> *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
> midwife.*
> *-*John Dewey.
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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