Re: [xmca] The family tree of CHAT

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Thanks Noel

SPEAK MEMORY!!
     --  v.v. nabokov

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Noel Enyedy <enyedy@gseis.ucla.edu> wrote:

> 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
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca