[Xmca-l] Re: "The political" and "power" in learning

[mike cole]

I fully agree, Dana. Several interconnected issues that Miguel is raising
are of central concern to xmca.

Miguel--

I think that the notion of decolonializing pedagogy relates in pretty
direct way with Maisha Winn's ideas of  African Diaspora Participatory
Literacy. She writes about that in the next issue of MCA. I also like the
idea of autobiographical accounts of one's own positionality with respect
to the events that have shaped your scholarship. There is an interesting
article by a group of South African pedagogs that illustrates again, what
seems like, a similar idea of locating one's academic work within the
context of one's political engagements. And then we are gifted with Paul's
article in a journal devoted to the centrality of class in a journal
entitled *African and Black Diaspora. *

Synchronic a-causality or Zeitgeist?
mike



On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Walker, Dana <Dana.Walker@unco.edu> wrote:

> Hi Miguel,
>
> I would be very interested in continuing this thread on "the political"
> and "power" in learning. My participation will be slow, as I will be at
> the LRA conference in Florida and then finals and so on, but will follow
> with interest. I have changed thread title in anticipation of pursuing
> this exploration.
>
> Does Ferguson (or Oakland, or New York, or Hong Kong, or Cairo) matter in
> considerations of 'the political' and 'power' in learning (and teaching)?
>
> Dana
>
> On 11/28/14 5:07 PM, "Zavala, Miguel" <mizavala@exchange.fullerton.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Dana,
> >
> >I believe there are several ways to go with an analysis of "the political"
> >or "power" in learning.  First, is to search for its
> >articulation/theorization in existing studies (whether conceptual or
> >empirical) within the learning sciences more generally. Who has attempted
> >this work? Also, In the general absence of studies theorizing "the
> >political" or "power" in learning (which I gather is an accurate depiction
> >of the field), one might pursue the ways in which "context" is narrowly
> >framed in distinct frames/theories of learning.  In what ways does/can
> >CHAT enable the analysis of "the political" and "power" in learning?
> >
> >Now, due to time constraints, this project may take time; perhaps there is
> >a smaller group that would like to continue with this thread/exploration
> >of "the political" or "power" in learning. I place questions of politics
> >and power in quotation marks because they need to be unpacked, like many
> >concepts.
> >
> >I believe there is another route one can take, and that is to begin with
> >our own political biographies, how we view the world and its
> >transformation. In a sense, we all have our biographies of coming to CHAT.
> >How is CHAT a tool in our practical work (as educators,
> >action-researchers, community organizers, etc.)?  Because processes are
> >relational, I imagine that our own biographies, positionalities, and
> >standpoints (which function more like collective consciousness and
> >practices, borrowing here from the work of Sandra Harding) are not only
> >inflected in our appropriations of CHAT but are interwoven; they shift
> >from "external" to "internal" processes of of both research and praxis
> >(informed by our politics).  I recognize there are many points being made
> >here and "dangers", especially when one views learning as a-political or
> >mechanistic, but I take that risk.
> >
> >Attached is a chapter outlining my political philosophy. It was published
> >as part of a text that asked contributors to name our "pedagogic creeds"
> >(á la Dewey).
> >
> >-Miguel
> >
> >
> >On 11/27/14 8:12 AM, "Walker, Dana" <Dana.Walker@unco.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>Gracias Miguel, and Mike and Larry for responding and for moving forward
> >>this thread of thought begun by Annalisa.
> >>
> >>Miguel, I remember now (based on a conference presentation of yours years
> >>ago) that your pedagogical and theoretical work involving migrant
> >>students
> >>at UCLA addressed questions of power, subjectivity, and embodied selves
> >>in
> >>boundary crossing processes in ways that other CHAT theorists (e.g.,
> >>Tuomi-Grohn & Engestrom, 2003; Grossen & Zittoun, 2012) do not.  I wonder
> >>if this is a place where we could begin exploring the question of power
> >>in
> >>relation to learning and development? Is there an article of yours that
> >>you might suggest on this subject?
> >>
> >>Dana
> >>
> >>
> >>On 11/27/14 12:02 AM, "Zavala, Miguel" <mizavala@exchange.fullerton.edu>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Gracias Annalisa and Dana.
> >>>
> >>>Questions of power have always been central to my work and I am a new
> >>>member of this list (and community) and don't have a broader context as
> >>>to
> >>>why it was created and whether it is by design meant to grow in its own
> >>>way over time, etc. What I have noticed though is a tendency to focus on
> >>>conceptual clarity (of the work of Vygotsky and Cultural Historical
> >>>Activity Theory and prior, such as Marx). So, I am learning anew in this
> >>>space, taking notes, re-reading.  In many ways it reminds me of the CHAT
> >>>reading group many of us at UCLA visualized but never materialized
> >>>formally, except that our reading and writing the world with Vygotsky's
> >>>ideas (and others) did materialize in the beautiful pedagogical work we
> >>>did with migrant students at that time...
> >>>
> >>>I hope the question of how we use, expand, enrich, re-envision, and
> >>>carry
> >>>forward the ideas of Vygotsky (and how these intersect with or
> >>>interweave
> >>>with power) are considered in an open and non-controlled way.  By
> >>>"non-controlled" I mean the parallel tendency in particular
> >>>circles/communities to challenge work that grows out of particular ideas
> >>>and if those ideas do not adhere to some party-line (or experts on said
> >>>theory don't agree on it) then such work should not define itself as
> >>>"Vygotskian", "CHAT-based", or "Socio-Cultural," etc. My own motivation
> >>>to
> >>>chime in and contribute would increase if we followed this strand, that
> >>>looks at power and how it is integral to (not a 'factor' or 'external'
> >>>context) learningŠ Although the reading group orientation is still
> >>>useful.
> >>>
> >>>Warmly,
> >>>
> >>>Miguel Zavala
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 11/26/14 10:38 PM, "Walker, Dana" <Dana.Walker@unco.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Before we leave this topic, I would like to suggest that we pause to
> >>>>consider Annalisa's question:
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm curious how others have been inspired by Vygotsky and
> >>>>sociocultural theory, and even other manifestations of his ideas, such
> >>>>as
> >>>>CHAT, etc and how people are using these approaches in their work. What
> >>>>is
> >>>>that like for you? And to be more specific, what is that like for women
> >>>>and
> >>>>people of color? I'm also interested in thinking-out-loud with others
> >>>>about
> >>>>Vygotskian concepts that are not easy to understand; to employ in real
> >>>>time
> >>>>dialogue and social interaction to leap over zopeds together. Isn't
> >>>>that
> >>>>what a listserv is for? Or am I being too idealistic?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>For many years I have wondered why the participants on this list so
> >>>>seldom
> >>>>talk from contextualized positions, specifically positioning the self
> >>>>in
> >>>>relation to others and to power relations shaped by race, class,
> >>>>gender,
> >>>>and so on.  I am myself very aware of power relations being played out
> >>>>through the discursive positioning of people in this space, which is
> >>>>why
> >>>>I
> >>>>choose not to speak. I am wondering if any of the subscribers to this
> >>>>list
> >>>>are interested such questions, including the one framed by Annalisa
> >>>>above?
> >>>>Kris Gutierrez is the only one I know of in CHAT/sociocultural theory
> >>>>who
> >>>>deals with these issues, for example in her article "Developing a
> >>>>Sociocritical Literacy in the Third Space"(2008). But I'm sure there
> >>>>are
> >>>>others.
> >>>>
> >>>>Dana
> >>>>
> >>>>On 11/26/14 10:49 PM, "Carol Macdonald" <carolmacdon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Hi
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There have been some off list postings about this phenomenon. None of
> >>>>>it
> >>>>>complimentary.  This cannot be sorted out in one move.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I propose that we move onto a different thread -  topic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Mike, would you like to start us off on something new?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Carol
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On 27 November 2014 at 02:49, Martin John Packer
> >>>>><mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Andy, if you're going to retire, then retire. But don't aim one or
> >>>>>>two
> >>>>>> more underhand blows behind the feint of retiring.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Nov 26, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > Well this bloke will retire again at this point. I thought for a
> >>>>>>brief
> >>>>>> moment there, I thought we had a breakthrough. Certainly, Huw's
> >>>>>>"real
> >>>>>> illusion" is perfectly apt to my mind (it's an expression Marx
> >>>>>>uses),
> >>>>>>or
> >>>>>> in  Eric Fromm's words, an illusion with "survival value." Martin
> >>>>>>says
> >>>>>> "Consciousness is an objective process that *sometimes* can *give
> >>>>>>rise
> >>>>>>to*
> >>>>>> illusions." As Vygotsky says "For him psychology is partly
> >>>>>>phenomenology."
> >>>>>> > Andy
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>-
> >>>>>>-
> >>>>>>-
> >>>>>> > *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > Bruce Robinson wrote:
> >>>>>> >> Henry,
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> Your wife's question leads to another: who speaks for the silent
> >>>>>> majority, many of whom, like me, must be getting fed up with what
> >>>>>>David
> >>>>>>K
> >>>>>> calls a "rather blokish struggle for power over particular words'?
> >>>>>>[Not
> >>>>>> Richard Nixon :)]
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> Bruce R
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> PS: You may also note that I have not changed the subject heading
> >>>>>>of
> >>>>>> this message so that it bears no relation to the content. Something
> >>>>>>else I
> >>>>>> find irritating...
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> On 26/11/2014 17:16, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
> >>>>>> >>> Sister Analisa,
> >>>>>> >>> Thank you for responding! I was just talking to my wife (getting
> >>>>>> personal!) about the chat. She asked me, "How does anyone get to
> >>>>>> participate in the (XMCA) chat if only a few people take part?" I
> >>>>>>wondered
> >>>>>> in my email below if too much was expected of written communication
> >>>>>>in
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>> XMCA chat. With 800 people potentially taking turns, well...what is
> >>>>>>even
> >>>>>> possible logistically? Mike Cole has talked about this, and, I
> >>>>>>think,
> >>>>>>has
> >>>>>> some suggestions on how to deal with the bottlenecking. But even
> >>>>>>small
> >>>>>> scale communication can be daunting. I watched, with my wife, a
> >>>>>>Richard
> >>>>>> Linklater movie last night, "Before Midnight". Two people, face to
> >>>>>>face, in
> >>>>>> a totally committed relationship, smart people, good people, trying
> >>>>>>so
> >>>>>>hard
> >>>>>> to get it right. Always a work in progress. But it's worth it. The
> >>>>>> alternative is despair. I am sure of this: This chat, which seems to
> >>>>>>get
> >>>>>> bogged down in abstractions, pure thinking in the mud, is really
> >>>>>> consequential beyond the sensitivities of academics. I said we
> >>>>>> >> va
> >>>>>> >>>  lue Vygotsky's "heroism", but that's too macho. I should have
> >>>>>>said
> >>>>>> courage.
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>> >>> The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis is a powerful idea, often
> >>>>>>called
> >>>>>> the Whorf/Sapir hypothesis. Google it. Really. See what you think.
> >>>>>>One
> >>>>>> gauge of the power of an idea is if it has found its way into
> >>>>>>popular
> >>>>>> discourse. I just this morning heard an NPR radio program (thanks
> >>>>>>again
> >>>>>>to
> >>>>>> my wife, who was listening when she heard something she thought I
> >>>>>>would
> >>>>>>be
> >>>>>> interested in) that dealt with the Whorf/Sapir hypothesis in its
> >>>>>>strong
> >>>>>>and
> >>>>>> weak form.
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>> >>> Henry
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>> >>>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:11 PM, Annalisa Aguilar
> >>>>>><annalisa@unm.edu>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> Dear Henry,
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> Thank you for your reply.
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> I don't think being personal (or even personable) requires
> >>>>>>being
> >>>>>> heated. Does this have to do with my comment of warmth as a sign of
> >>>>>>welcome?
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> To speak about culture non-personally is not something I am
> >>>>>>adept
> >>>>>>at
> >>>>>> doing. We are always speaking from where we stand, the culture that
> >>>>>>we
> >>>>>>are
> >>>>>> in or from, what-have-you.
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> Respectfully, I do not know what "linguistic relativity
> >>>>>>hypothesis"
> >>>>>> is. So please be patient with me while I connect this academic idea
> >>>>>>you
> >>>>>> have offered to this conversation so that I can relate that to my
> >>>>>>personal
> >>>>>> experience speaking on this thread, though clearly I'm not speaking
> >>>>>> literally right now, but it is speech from me, not a sock puppet
> >>>>>>with
> >>>>>>my
> >>>>>> voice thrown from the position of objective reality.
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> You are talking about speaking two languages. But it seems we
> >>>>>>are
> >>>>>>all
> >>>>>> speaking English on this list. So I'm a bit lost right there what
> >>>>>>you
> >>>>>>are
> >>>>>> trying to say to me.
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> Then, you speak of metalinguistics and how it represents
> >>>>>>different
> >>>>>> worldviews, if you don't mind me swapping your use of "perspective"
> >>>>>>for
> >>>>>> worldview. There is a lot of time clearing muckups to get it right.
> >>>>>>I'm
> >>>>>>not
> >>>>>> sure that it ever gets right though, which troubles me. I have found
> >>>>>>that
> >>>>>> many people who have different worldviews communicate by "talking
> >>>>>>to,"
> >>>>>> rather than "talking at." I feel, for example, you and I are talking
> >>>>>>to
> >>>>>>one
> >>>>>> another, despite our likely different POVs.
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> I don't know what the "perish and dapple of Andy" means when
> >>>>>>you
> >>>>>>say
> >>>>>> that. From what I can tell he's trying to define something for
> >>>>>>himself
> >>>>>> asking for the help of others. That's fine and I'm learning that
> >>>>>> definitions are very bas-relief for him. I think my interests are a
> >>>>>>little
> >>>>>> different. So I'd prefer to orient to my interests, if that is OK.
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> Speaking of metalinguistics, rather than debate over
> >>>>>>definitions,
> >>>>>>I'm
> >>>>>> more interested in speaking to the very different people who are on
> >>>>>>this
> >>>>>> list. The rumor is there are 800 folks out there. Where are you? :)
> >>>>>>To
> >>>>>> reference a highly academic quote from the Wizard of Oz:
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> "Come out, come out wherever you are, and meet the young lady
> >>>>>>who
> >>>>>> fell from the star!"
> >>>>>> >>>> --Glinda, the Good Witch from the North (waves magic wand)
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> I'm curious how others have been inspired by Vygotsky and
> >>>>>> sociocultural theory, and even other manifestations of his ideas,
> >>>>>>such
> >>>>>>as
> >>>>>> CHAT, etc and how people are using these approaches in their work.
> >>>>>>What
> >>>>>>is
> >>>>>> that like for you? And to be more specific, what is that like for
> >>>>>>women
> >>>>>>and
> >>>>>> people of color? I'm also interested in thinking-out-loud with
> >>>>>>others
> >>>>>>about
> >>>>>> Vygotskian concepts that are not easy to understand; to employ in
> >>>>>>real
> >>>>>>time
> >>>>>> dialogue and social interaction to leap over zopeds together. Isn't
> >>>>>>that
> >>>>>> what a listserv is for? Or am I being too idealistic?
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> I have tried to speak in an open, easy, and immediate manner,
> >>>>>>to
> >>>>>> allow others to engage. But I fear that engagement is never going to
> >>>>>>happen
> >>>>>> because all that persists are conversations about definitions, or
> >>>>>>whether
> >>>>>> nothing can come from nothing, and voila! subsequent debates ensue.
> >>>>>>Or
> >>>>>> someone will say, "We already discussed this 20 years ago!" Which
> >>>>>>means
> >>>>>>I
> >>>>>> missed the party, I suppose. Unfortunately, if I disagree with a
> >>>>>>position
> >>>>>> because I interpret differently, then I'm told to go read something
> >>>>>>without
> >>>>>> really a clear explanation why I'm supposed to go read something.
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> I don't really agree with the approach of "read this," as an
> >>>>>>academic
> >>>>>> argument. Anyone is free to use it, and I have myself, but because I
> >>>>>>know
> >>>>>> how obtuse that can be, I couch it with my reasons why I think it
> >>>>>>would
> >>>>>>be
> >>>>>> a good read for that person, and what I think there is learn from
> >>>>>>reading.
> >>>>>> I think the "read this" approach, when it is offered with the tone
> >>>>>>of
> >>>>>>"now
> >>>>>> go eat your vegetables!" fails in the making of speech between
> >>>>>>people.
> >>>>>>All
> >>>>>> it does is shut things down.
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> If the reading truly is relevant, it seems far more productive
> >>>>>>in
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>> moment of speech to cue a person what to look for, to supply a
> >>>>>>context,
> >>>>>> especially when referencing an entire book, for example, or the link
> >>>>>>to
> >>>>>>an
> >>>>>> entire website full of texts.
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> Your assessment in the physicality of language is something
> >>>>>>with
> >>>>>> which I am completely in agreement. Especially since we all seem to
> >>>>>>agree
> >>>>>> with the material aspects of language. So the question at hand is a
> >>>>>>matter
> >>>>>> of form. Form has an aesthetic but also has a purpose. Are we
> >>>>>>throwing
> >>>>>> ropes or throwing boulders? If throwing boulders, where does that
> >>>>>>need
> >>>>>>to
> >>>>>> throw boulders come from? If throwing ropes, then at least
> >>>>>>connections
> >>>>>>are
> >>>>>> being made for those who might not be very clear about ideas and who
> >>>>>>may
> >>>>>> require a helping hand.
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> Then there's the old, but handy, elliptical comment, something
> >>>>>>like a
> >>>>>> boomerang... meant to be subtle or ironic at the expense of someone
> >>>>>>who
> >>>>>>may
> >>>>>> not understand.
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> At this point, I'd to emphasize that being ignorant is not
> >>>>>>being
> >>>>>> stupid, but it seems someone who is ignorant is frequently treated
> >>>>>>as
> >>>>>> stupid (um, on this list). This "phenomenon" has made me reflect
> >>>>>>upon
> >>>>>>how
> >>>>>> little time is spent upon the nature of ignorance in education and
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>> dynamics of ignorance in speaking. Every one of us is ignorant about
> >>>>>>most
> >>>>>> things in the world. And yet being ignorant is seen as an
> >>>>>>embarrassment, a
> >>>>>> deficiency, a lapse in character. I vehemently disagree with this
> >>>>>>reception
> >>>>>> to ignorance. Even Einstein said something like, "The more I know,
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>more
> >>>>>> I see how much I don't know." Such an aggressive position toward
> >>>>>>ignorance
> >>>>>> is nothing but hurtful, even arrogant. Arrogance is a blister, a
> >>>>>>defense
> >>>>>> mechanism from previous hurt. A person who is honest about one's own
> >>>>>> ignorance is a very strong person and is showing a willingness to
> >>>>>>learn
> >>>>>> something. I think all teachers will agree that a person who knows
> >>>>>>one
> >>>>>> doesn't know is an easier student to teach tha
> >>>>>> >> n
> >>>>>> >>>   one who doesn't know one doesn't know.
> >>>>>> >>>> Iconicity is something I can hang my hat on. I see it is
> >>>>>>related
> >>>>>>to
> >>>>>> pointing. What I like about pointing is that it is a gesture, which
> >>>>>>implies
> >>>>>> movement, in the way the word is also movement. I hope I have made
> >>>>>> sufficient personal connections to your concepts without the heat.
> >>>>>>Thank
> >>>>>> you for offering them to me.
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> Annalisa
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--
> >>>>>Carol A  Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
> >>>>>Developmental psycholinguist
> >>>>>Academic, Researcher,  and Editor
> >>>>>Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>


-- 
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.