[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] The family tree of CHAT
Hi this discussion reminds me of one this community had back in 2001 under the heading "different flavors of CHAT"
I haven't had time to go over all the posts there but I did find the spot in the archives to look for those interested in looking--I remember it to be a good read.
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2001_03.dir/
-Noel
On Nov 8, 2012, at 6:10 PM, Jenna McWilliams wrote:
> 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
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca