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

[Xmca-l] Re: The Learning Sciences in the era of U.S. Nationalism

I wonder if we sometimes fall in to a trap of thinking the system works that way that it works and we need to find ways around it.  The idea of critique has a number of meanings depending on how you use it; and maybe the most powerful is that you not only critique power structures, but you critique yourself and the part that you play in the power structure, not as an admonishment but as a chance to see a doorway into something new.  I am still struggling with these idea so I hope anybody who is reading will bear with me - in the earlier language of this list more than a little half-baked.  I am also struggling with the roles I sometimes play in these power structures, being accepting or even supportive of them when I recognize the difficulties that they present. 

I have for the past year or so been exploring the tied between the early computer/Internet culture and CIDOC, Ivan Illich's language school, ideas incubator down in Mexico in the early seventies.  There are a number of inter-relationships between CIDOC, (especially second order) cybernetics, the early computer pioneers, the anti-war movement and the commune movement.  I won't go in to all of them now, not least because I'm not sure I have a really good handle on them.  But I recently read something from Heinz von Foerster that describes much of the thinking,

"If I do not know I am blind, I am blind.  If I know I am blind, I see."

The purpose of a lot of what was going on with Illich, with his close friend Freire, with connections to those looking to create new ways of doing things in Latin America and in San Francisco/Menlo Park was creating a context where people know they were blind, that what was critically important was what they could not see (if anybody has the chance to read von Foerster's talk, "On constructing reality," it is a very interesting read).  

There was it seems to me a historical moment in which the denizens of the information revolution could choose between following activities that helped them understand they were blind, and not admitting the possibilities of blindness, because they how could you be an expert.  Our society, with a strong helping hand from academia decided in favor of the expert, and those who knew (perhaps we made a deal with the devil).  I say all this because in reading articles from the sixties and the seventies I begin to see among a number of important thinkers an openness to looking for what they could not see, often times with humor or genuine curiosity, that you do not see in much of the writing of today.  The choice of the power structure of academia was just that, a choice.  The reality we are dealing with now was constructed as a point of reference for political and socio-economic purposes.  And because it can be constructed, it can be reconstructed.  

I can hear Mike whispering, but what is the concrete to that.  Maybe we are at another turning point in history.  I think many students are ready to do the type of work that is more participatory, more immediate oriented in nature, but they do need publications.  We can try and change the structure of the university, but then we need to offer something in its place.  Or we can change the structure of acknowledgement.  Could we petition journals like Cognition and Instruction to devote half their journal to the types of articles that speak to blindness, not necessarily critiques but realizations of what people engaged in research are not seeing.  Being more accepting of participatory approaches to understanding the world around us.  I mean in the end the journals don't exist separately from us, they are us.  One day some researchers will come to one of those famous meet the editors sessions at major journals perhaps and like Martin Luther nail a list of demands to the door (figuratively of course).

Teaching is more difficult (although changing journals would be difficult enough)  because the idea of education as a business has become deeply ingrained.  The idea of schools creating students who can get jobs in industry rather than make a better society is deeply enmeshed in our system now (and if you argue with it they ask, "Oh, I agree, but don't students' need jobs).  Scarcity is used as a thunderous hammer to keep everybody in line - Illich was right about this I think.  And if you argue within the context of scarcity you have already lost (where is scarcity when we want a new fighter plane for our menagerie?}.  I wonder if perhaps we can change from within.  Rather than recruiting chairs and deans and even presidents that they are voted on by the faculty and serve for limited periods.  So that it becomes reflective of the people who actually live and think about these issues. This is how higher education administration is actually done in some other societies, why not here?  But universities won't let that happen, but aren't we the universities.  

So not critique in the sense of telling people they are wrong, but in terms of saying to people, think about what you're not seeing.

Like I said, half baked.  And far too long for a list like this, so I apologize for that.


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 12:28 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>; herasmonnersans@gmail.com
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Learning Sciences in the era of U.S. Nationalism

I would like to pick link Julian's comments below to Anna's school project in Argentina. Julian, in dialogue with Helena, wrote:

I think what the Cognition & Instruction authors were suggesting was that the Learning sciences could be more 'part of the solution' if they develop a progressive perspective/agenda for their LS research… e.g. Critiquing the 'what works' type of domination of the field. Im OK with that.

I will let the LS authors comment for themselves, but I worry about stopping the process at critique. (This argument, too, goes back to the 1930's and the struggle against fascism then, which I agree is totally relevant.).

The next step is to seek to seek to create alternatives based on the principles/values that you want to see realized and your analysis of where, in the current turbulent state of human history, such can actually be implemented as a condition for testing your ideas about worthy alternatives, e.g., the process of reflexive thinking.

With respect to the sort of effort that Ana's work exemplifies, if I were an active member of my fac- ulty, I would be seeking to provide strong links between the courses I taught and the community-based activities, ordinarily beyond the University's horizon in order to benefit my teaching and my research while providing critical resources for building as well as sources of self critique.

There is an official three-fold mission of the University of California upon which every faculty member is evaluated: teaching, research, and service. Activities which satisfy these three criteria while promoting democratic educational practices might also satisfy the strategies in the Critical Learning Science piece. This route does not eliminate the issue of power academic politics within the University which mitigate against research of this type, but it can be done. Or it could be done during the past half century. Whether or not it can be done in the current circumstances is under severe challenge.


PS- In

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Julian Williams < julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> Helena, yes that was it 'Pride'!
> The second part of the question you posed:
> I lazily used 'transposition' and its not Bourdieu's word: he argues 
> that every cultural field has a power structure that is to a large 
> degree homologous to THE FIELD OF POWER whose basis is largely that of 
> economic capital, albeit that there is some 'autonomous' structure of 
> cultural capital in the field that implies there is 'work' to be done 
> in transforming economic capital into cultural capital and vice versa 
> (you can't simply 'buy' the papacy or the presidential palace, but 
> money plus other capitals might do the trick). I wrote about this a 
> bit in a recent MCA paper (Choudry & Williams 2016?).
> In this view then the academic field(s) of power might be revealed as 
> being a 'transposed' (if you forgive my short-hand for Bourdieu's
> perspective) version of that of the Field of Power at large, which is 
> in turn transposed into the gender politics field that the women 
> marchers/LGBT activists are engaged in.
> The right kind of social analysis is supposed to help the gay pride 
> marchers to recognise that they are on the same side as the striking 
> miners; failures to get this right and make this visible is the main 
> reason why Trump and Co can win, and why Trumps may be even a 
> necessary risk for the ruling class to break up the resistance to 
> their domination in tough times (i.e. The Davos crowd would rather do 
> it the Clintons' way, but in hard times fascism may be needed to 
> culturally dispossess the already dispossessed so they can be crushed).
> Now I go to the first part of your question:
> I like the way you put it here - and it points to a weakness in 
> Bourdieu's reflexive sociology (he sees it as the job of the 
> sociologist-activist to raise consciousness; while Id say with Freire that it is all our jobs).
> It is true that even though I should be expected (as a well-paid and 
> comfortably middle-classed professional) to side with conservatism, I 
> find myself culturally disposed to side with the oppressed, e.g. 
> supporting Momentum and the Labour left.  The oppressed can have many 
> allies on this basis as well as those who actually are economically 
> and politically crushed.
> But then I am torn: there are many things that I 'have to do' to 
> maintain a position of power in the academic field that are downright 
> exploitative and oppressive. So in my academic work I may (at least 
> sometimes) be part of the problem rather than the solution. I think 
> what the Cognition & Instruction authors were suggesting was that the 
> Learning sciences could be more 'part of the solution' if they develop 
> a progressive perspective/agenda for their LS research… e.g. Critiquing the 'what works'
> type of domination of the field. Im OK with that.
> Hope this makes some sense and I didn't 'lose the momentum' of the thread.
> julian
> On 24/01/2017 04:29, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of 
> Helena Worthen" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of 
> helenaworthen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Julian, the movie you’re thinking of is Pride.
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_(2014_film)
> >
> >Are you suggesting stepping from looking at and studying identity 
> >groups to “coming out” as being a member of one, and then in full 
> >feather of one’s identity, relating to the stranger across the aisle?
> >
> >But could you please explain what this means: “…..whose cultural 
> >capital in his analysis is a transposition of the dominant economic, 
> >capitalist class.”  What does “transposition” mean here?
> >
> >Thanks —
> >
> >
> >Helena Worthen
> >helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >Berkeley, CA 94707
> >Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Jan 23, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Julian Williams 
> >><julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Helena and all
> >>
> >> The victories of the right in the US and Europe surely cannot be 
> >>explained  only by cultural identity issues, and not only by the 
> >>disaffection of the  workers with their traditional (-ly hopeless 
> >>social democratic) parties,  though these are important elements of 
> >>the situation that are making the  far right a possible option for 
> >>capital.
> >>
> >> Surely we have to look at the global failure of capitalism: the 
> >>reasons  are essentially economic. Our rulers seem ever more 
> >>desperate to manage a  rate of profit that will satisfy capital and 
> >>it seems a small portion of  them are prepared to back the far right 
> >>as an option on the political  field if necessary. Not yet a 
> >>significant minority of the Davos class,  because they still need to 
> >>be convinced that the traditional order cannot  be made to work, but 
> >>the Murdoch's and the UKIP/ Tory petit bourgeois  backbone are 
> >>nearly there already: Trump himself is pretty much there, as  is Le 
> >>Pen et al, ..
> >>
> >> Within this context, and more if/when another 2008 crash hits, the 
> >>fascist  strategy will grow more attractive as the rightist parties 
> >>attract more  disaffected workers, non-workers and petit bourgeois. 
> >>All the  cultural-ideological elements of fascism and nationalism 
> >>are there in the  Uk and France/Netherlands etc just as bad as in 
> >>Trumpland. (Hey Trump  didn't even get the majority vote - on any 
> >>democratic conception he has no  right to have been declared a 
> >>winnerŠ. Unless we can declare 'Remain' a  victory because its 48% 
> >>vote is represented in our parliament by a  majority of the 
> >>representatives?)
> >>
> >> What can 'we' do? Only to keep trying to clarify it, keep telling 
> >>it as it  is and might be. What part a conceptualisation of 
> >>perezhivanie has in this  I don't know - but it might be worth 
> >>re-reading 'The struggle against  fascism in Germany' again (not 
> >>being ironic). The lesson then/there was to  block with Social 
> >>Democracy and labour unions/parties while explaining its  failures, 
> >>helping their support to move left as well as showing there is  an 
> >>alternative to the alternative (here we have Corbyn and momentum; 
> >>the  US have Bernie and ?).
> >>
> >> But maybe this strategy is not enough? What else? I think there are  
> >>important interventions also in the cultural fields and so identity 
> >>is an  issue for capital. I wrote a bit about this from Bourdieu's 
> >>perspectiveŠ  what progressives in every field have in common is 
> >>that they resist the  dominant powers in their cultural  field - 
> >>whose cultural capital in his  analysis is a transposition of the 
> >>dominant economic, capitalist class.
> >> That¹s what LGBT, underprivileged groups, national/ethnic 
> >>minorities, etc  everywhere have in common, if we can be helped to 
> >>see itŠ like that film  of the gay rights activists from London who 
> >>marched to South Wales to  support the miners strikeŠ and the miners 
> >>who in returned joined a gay  rights march in LondonŠ what was that 
> >>called?
> >>
> >> Julian.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 23/01/2017 17:55, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of 
> >>Helena  Worthen" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of  
> >>helenaworthen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, yes. Good question: How?  I take it Francine is not asking 
> >>> this
> >>> ironically: she really wants us to figure out how.
> >>>
> >>> The challenge is to answer the question.
> >>>
> >>> I don¹t think any of us have a quick answer, but it certainly is a 
> >>> question that is within our collective knowledge to address.
> >>>
> >>> H
> >>>
> >>> Helena Worthen
> >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >>> Berkeley, CA 94707
> >>> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Jan 22, 2017, at 7:32 PM, Larry Smolucha 
> >>>> <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Message from Francine Smolucha:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The key to an analysis of the Trump movement is understanding the
> >>>>
> >>>> fundamental IRONIES that have rocked American politics.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The workers revolution has resulted in the
> >>>>
> >>>> workers/unions deserting the Left, the socialists, the Democratic 
> >>>>Party.
> >>>>
> >>>> Trump is a Capitalist regardless of whether he actually has a 
> >>>> Republican ideology.
> >>>>
> >>>> The workers' movement has been hijacked by a capitalist.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The other great IRONY is that Trump wants to make Russia a U.S. 
> >>>> ally (again).
> >>>>
> >>>> The Left, the socialists, the Democratic Party are the ones 
> >>>> demonizing Russia -
> >>>>
> >>>> what a reversal!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Since CHAT derives from Russian psychology (Leontiev and 
> >>>>Vygotsky) and  the backlash against Trump is also a backlash 
> >>>>against all things Russian
> >>>> -  this puts CHAT in a particularly awkward position. How can a 
> >>>>cultural  historical psychology that originated in Russia become 
> >>>>the leader in the  anti-Trump discourse? or lead an anti-Trump 
> >>>>educational movement? You  are even extolling a Russian concept 
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the XMCA needs to examine its own perezhivanie at this time.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu 
> >>>><xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 3:01 PM
> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> Cc: Mariane Hedegaard; Reijo Miettinen; Seth Chaiklin
> >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Learning Sciences in the era of U.S.
> >>>> Nationalism
> >>>>
> >>>> Helena et al --
> >>>>
> >>>> An important emphasis in the article for me was on the fact that 
> >>>> although the article focused on the American nationalist movement 
> >>>> that has just pulled of an alt-right coup, similar movements are 
> >>>> poised to take hold in a lot of places in Europe to join the many 
> >>>> already entrenched unsavory governments in other parts of the 
> >>>> world.
> >>>>
> >>>> The CRADLE center in Helsinki is under very concerted attack and 
> >>>> the right wing government appears, from this distance, to be 
> >>>> making great progress on destroying its legacy. The same process 
> >>>> has been in Denmark for some time, also with apparent success.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do our international colleagues who have already felt the 
> >>>> hot breath of right wing nationalism have to offer in terms of 
> >>>> strategies of resistence?
> >>>>
> >>>> Back to "what is to be done," that sombre question from an 
> >>>>earlier era.
> >>>> The
> >>>> answer last time did not produce what it promised.
> >>>>
> >>>> mike
> >>>>
> >>>> mike
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Helena Worthen 
> >>>> <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thank you, Alfredo - I gave it a read.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure, of course they¹re right. But I am very disappointed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was hoping that the following was only item #1 in a long list 
> >>>>> of "what the 2016 election made apparent":
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The 2016 election has made apparent the need for scholarship 
> >>>>>that  explicitly defends and furthers the rights and well-being 
> >>>>>of people of  color, immigrants, Muslims, women, people who are 
> >>>>>differently abled,  LGBTQ  communities, and the earth. These are 
> >>>>>stances that have been limited,  at  least explicitly, in the 
> >>>>>Learning Sciences.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But the call for inclusion was not just #1, it seems to be the 
> >>>>> whole thing.  In other words, it¹s all about identity ‹plus the 
> >>>>> earth, of course.
> >>>>> While inclusion is necessary, it¹s not even a start. Yes, 
> >>>>> research, teaching, publishing, promotion, conferences ‹ 
> >>>>> everything associated with teaching and learning has to include 
> >>>>> everyone as equals (see Andy¹s
> >>>>> book)
> >>>>> in one way or another ‹ but then what? What are they (we) 
> >>>>> supposed to do?
> >>>>> Where does the pretty language touch the ground?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was listening to a broadcast of the Women¹s March in DC on 
> >>>>>Saturday  morning, and Kamala Harris, who was the California 
> >>>>>State Attorney  General  and is now a junior Senator from CA, was 
> >>>>>addressing the rally. She  said,  ³People always ask me to talk 
> >>>>>about women¹s issues. I say, ŒOh, I¹m SO  glad  you¹re interested 
> >>>>>in economics!! Let¹s talk about economics.²  And she  ran  
> >>>>>through a whole set of parallel back-and-forths, always pulling  
> >>>>>identity  questions back to wages, jobs, earning, supporting your 
> >>>>>family, etc  etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Much as we need to wipe away any barriers to the Learning 
> >>>>>Sciences (and  the professions and institutions dedicated to 
> >>>>>them) due to identity,  until  the Learning Sciences start taking 
> >>>>>a look at the place where most  people  spend most of their lives 
> >>>>>‹ not school, I mean ‹ but work, they will be  engaging in a soft 
> >>>>>conversation at the edge of the real issue. It¹s a  pleasant 
> >>>>>conversation but it doesn¹t put a hand on the levers that  
> >>>>>translate skill and knowledge into rent and groceries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> H
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Helena Worthen
> >>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707
> >>>>> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jan 22, 2017, at 11:38 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil 
> >>>>>><a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here it is,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://cognitionandinstruction.com/engagements-the-learning-
> >>>>> sciences-in-a-new-era-of-u-s-nationalism/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alfredo
> >>>>>> ________________________________________
> >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu 
> >>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>> on behalf of Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> Sent: 22 January 2017 20:24
> >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Learning Sciences in the era of U.S.
> >>>>> Nationalism
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Someone please re-send the link to this article?  I think I¹m 
> >>>>>>going to
> >>>>> want to read it and respond to Mike¹s question.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks ‹ H
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Helena Worthen
> >>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707
> >>>>>> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Jan 22, 2017, at 12:25 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil 
> >>>>>>> <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mike,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> thanks a lot for sharing this article. You and Michael, who 
> >>>>>>>have and
> >>>>> know more history, have spoken in terms of reminiscences. I have 
> >>>>>lived  and  know less, and the article feels like fresh air. 
> >>>>>During my PhD, I  begun to  increasingly feel that I had to due 
> >>>>>something to act and respond to the  increasing ecological and 
> >>>>>humanitarian globe crises. But how could I do  anything if I had 
> >>>>>children and a PhD to finalise?? What could I do that  would also 
> >>>>>be doing my job as researcher in a department of education?
> >>>>> It
> >>>>> was very difficult to find anything, partly because almost every  
> >>>>>academic  quest would focus on learning, but so little on social 
> >>>>>development.
> >>>>>How
> >>>>> many scientific articles are dedicated to socio-political 
> >>>>>questions in  the  most cited educational journals? I felt very 
> >>>>>powerless.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To be able to address these questions within my expertise, is 
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>> challenge partly because contrary to Dewey's hope, educational  
> >>>>>research has  only marginally focused on these questions, and yet 
> >>>>>they may be  exactly the  question that matter to education. What 
> >>>>>are we educating for? Indeed,  what  is education for? I think we 
> >>>>>face a serious problem when someone (like  myself), being an 
> >>>>>educational researchers/scholar, still has to  scratch her  head 
> >>>>>wondering <<how can I make my profession matter to social change  
> >>>>>and  development?>> Vygotsky would be shocked!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Alfredo
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu 
> >>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>> Sent: 19 January 2017 04:51
> >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Learning Sciences in the era of U.S.
> >>>>> Nationalism
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes Michael,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It feels like the world of the later 1930's about the time I 
> >>>>>>> was born as that period came down to me through the prism of a 
> >>>>>>> family of "premature anti fascists."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For a great re-creation of those times see the highly 
> >>>>>>> ambivalent film by Frank Capra, "meet John Doe." It has 
> >>>>>>> American big capital interconnected with fascism combined with 
> >>>>>>> populist collectivism in a manner that
> >>>>> points at
> >>>>>>> the media (as then experienced) as the bad guys in disguise. 
> >>>>>>> Happy
> >>>>> Ending,
> >>>>>>> Beethoven Ode to Joy and all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's come round again, nastier this time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mike
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:20 PM Glassman, Michael 
> >>>>>>> <glassman.13@osu.edu>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Mike
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It was so interesting to read this note after reading the 
> >>>>>>>>Cognition  and  Instruction essay.  All the way through it I 
> >>>>>>>>kept thinking we have  been  here before.  It reminded me of 
> >>>>>>>>the scholars, especially those who  had  escaped from Germany, 
> >>>>>>>>trying to make sense of what had happened to
> >>>>> their
> >>>>>>>> society during World War II.  The foremost in my mind was Lewin.
> >>>>> Except I
> >>>>>>>> wonder if he would say the process of transformative action 
> >>>>>>>> starts not
> >>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> emergence of quasi-needs, but our willingness and abilities 
> >>>>>>>>to step
> >>>>> back
> >>>>>>>> from our quasi-needs and the ways that they drive us, often 
> >>>>>>>> to dysfunctional behaviors that it ultimately destructive to 
> >>>>>>>> both our
> >>>>> society
> >>>>>>>> and to us as individuals.  How hard this is to do, we have to 
> >>>>>>>> keep
> >>>>> going
> >>>>>>>> back again and again.  The quasi-needs, tribalism, 
> >>>>>>>> acceptance,
> >>>>> standing are
> >>>>>>>> always there.  It is how they shape us that is critical.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Michael
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> >>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 8:31 PM
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity 
> >>>>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] The Learning Sciences in the era of U.S.
> >>>>>>>> Nationalism
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In following  the perezhivanie thread I encountered the note 
> >>>>>>>> I
> >>>>> re-membered.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And interestingly mis-remembered. A translation into my focus 
> >>>>>>>> on mediational means. He places the starting point of the 
> >>>>>>>> process of transformative action at the emergence of 
> >>>>>>>> quasi-needs (from Kurt
> >>>>> Lewin).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That seems correct to me. The new mediational means emerge 
> >>>>>>>> under environmental presses. Ever functionalist ego need a 
> >>>>>>>> goal(!). (The
> >>>>> problem
> >>>>>>>> with functionalism) In David's words,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Perhaps the place we should look for "exaptations" that can 
> >>>>>>>> save both
> >>>>> our
> >>>>>>>> personalities and our environment is not in our evolved 
> >>>>>>>> needs, but in
> >>>>> yet
> >>>>>>>> to be designed quasi-needs. Artificial organs, after all, 
> >>>>>>>> always
> >>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>>> new and ever more artificial functions, like chess and language.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This point seems worth keeping in mind as we look at where 
> >>>>>>>> this group
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> critical scholars who work within the Learning Sciences 
> >>>>>>>>disciplinary  framework would like to lead us.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >