[Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic motivation?
Ed Wall
ewall@umich.edu
Wed Aug 6 04:57:39 PDT 2014
Peter
I was the one who made the incorrect inference (although I questioned myself at the time) re the apprenticeship of observation. In any case, I would be interested in reading a pdf that complicates the notion.
I was not assigned After Virtue, but read it thoroughly on my own and found it quite insightful and the argument reasonably pointed. Was your label of meandering a criticism of style or content? In any case, what seemed blunt and extraneous?
Ed Wall
On Aug 6, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
> I read After Virtue in grad school, assigned by Philip Jackson (and it was Lortie, not Jackson, who made the apprenticeship of observation a common term among teacher educators--someone posted earlier on this question. In case anyone's interested, I've got a forthcoming study of apprenticeship of observation that complicates Lortie's conclusions based on interviews from a different era, and would be happy to send the pdf to anyone who's interested).
>
> Anyhow, on MacIntyre: I remember discussing at the time that the book seemed like a rough draft that really would have benefitted from a thorough revision to cut out the meandering and make a more pointed argument.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 8:55 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic motivation?
>
> Relevant references to MacIntyre's "After Virtue" are on pp. 7-8 of "Collaborative Projects. An Interdisciplinary Study," which I know you have a copy of, Greg. He uses the expressions "internal reward" and "external reward."
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Greg Thompson wrote:
>> And one more thing Andy (I realize given the hour down-under, you are
>> probably slumbering - hopefully not dogmatically...), could you sell
>> us on why we should look at MacIntyre on extrinsic and intrinsic
>> motivation.
>> Your suggestion that Cristina read MacIntyre on extrinsic and
>> intrinsic motivation was less than convincing to me if only b.c. I
>> know nothing about it!
>> -greg
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Greg Thompson
>> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Andy,
>> I'm a bit baffled by your response to Cristina. It seems fair
>> enough to try to recover Descartes as not necessarily a bad guy.
>> But I didn't take that to be Cristina's point.
>> It seems to me that she was arguing against Cartesian dualism - a
>> particular way in which we Westerners (and we aren't the only ones
>> who do this) divide up the world into various kinds binaries -
>> subject/object, mind/body, nature/culture, emotion/reason, and so on.
>> Are you advocating that these should be the governing categories
>> of the human sciences?
>> If so, then "real human language" will work just fine.
>> If not, then the "real human language" called English will pose
>> some significant problems for imagining things other than they are.
>> Confused.
>> -greg
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Cristina,
>> There is far too much in your message to deal with on an email
>> list. What I usually do in such cases is simply pick a bit I
>> think I can respond to and ignore the rest. OK?
>>
>> I think *real human languages* - as opposed to made up
>> languages like Esperanto or the kind of mixture of neologs,
>> hyphenated words and other gobbydegook fashionable in some
>> academic circles - can be underestimated. Sure, one must use
>> specialised jargon sometimes, to communicate to a specialised
>> collaborator in a shared discipline, but generally that is
>> because the jargon has itself a long track record. Don't try
>> and make up words and concepts, at least, take a year or two
>> about it if you have to.
>>
>> Secondly, Descartes was no fool. He was the person that first
>> treated consciousness as an object of science, and the many of
>> those belonging to the dualist tradition he was part of wound
>> up being burnt at the stake for suggesting that the world was
>> not necessarily identical to how it seemed. So I'd say, better
>> to suffer association with Descartes than make up words and
>> expressions. The Fascist campaign launched against him in the
>> 1930s was not meant to help us. He deserves respect.
>>
>> For example, my development is not the same the development
>> some project makes. And no amount of playing with words can
>> eliminate that without degenerating into nonsense. I must
>> correct something I said which was wrong in my earlier post
>> though. I said that the relation between projects was the
>> crucial thing in personality development. Not completely true.
>> As Jean Lave has shown so well, the relation between a person
>> and a project they are committed to is equally important,
>> their role, so to speak. Take these two together.
>>
>> Motives instead of motivation is good. More definite. But I
>> don't agree at all that Leontyev resolves this problem. For a
>> start his dichotomy between 'objective' motives, i.e., those
>> endorsed by the hegemonic power in the given social formation,
>> and 'subjective', usually unacknowledged, motives, is in my
>> view a product of the times he lived in, and not useful for
>> us. The question is: how does the person form a *concept* of
>> the object? It is the object-concept which is the crucial
>> thing in talking abut motives. Over and above the relation
>> between the worker's project of providing for his family (or
>> whatever) and the employer's project of expanding the
>> proportion of the social labour subsumed under his/her
>> capital. The relation between these two projects doubtless
>> seems to the boss to be the difference between the worker's
>> subjective, secret, self-interest, and his own "objective"
>> motive. But his point of view is not necessarily ours.
>>
>> Have a read of Alasdair MacIntyre on extrinsic and intrinsic
>> motives, too.
>>
>> That's more than enough.
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>
>>
>> Maria Cristina Migliore wrote:
>>
>> Greg and Andy,
>>
>> Thank you for your comments.
>>
>>
>> Greg, I absolutely agree with you about the difficulties
>> of overcoming our
>> western language and thoughts, so influenced by the
>> Cartesian dualism.
>> Andy, I hope to be able to show a bit how I connect
>> activities in what
>> follow.
>>
>>
>> About my attempts to overcome a dualistic language: I tend
>> to prefer to
>> talk about a) single development (as suggest by Cole and
>> Wertsh) instead of
>> individual and activity (or context or project)
>> development; b) dimensions
>> of a phenomenon instead of levels of a phenomenon
>> (micro-meso-macro); c)
>> motives instead of motivation.
>>
>>
>> However it happens that I need to swing between ‘my’ new
>> language and the
>> ‘standard’ one, because I am living in a still Cartesian
>> world and I need
>> to be understood by people (and even myself!) who are (am)
>> made of this
>> Cartesian world.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of Anthropology
>> 882 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> Brigham Young University
>> Provo, UT 84602
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of Anthropology
>> 882 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> Brigham Young University
>> Provo, UT 84602
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list