[Xmca-l] Re: Could Life Be [exploring hope]

[Larry Purss]

I am attaching a 2nd chapter from Andy's edited book "Collaborative
Projects"
This Chapter 2 by Vianna, Hougaard, and Stetsenko. [The Dialectics of
Collective and Individual Transformation: Transformative Activist Research
in a Collaborative Learning Community Project].  As I read the Morten
Nissen article and this article I am reminded of our exploration of "third
space" theory and "hybrid spaces".  This article uses the notion of
"collectividual spaces" which I propose is another instance of creating
"third spaces".

https://www.academia.edu/8208504/The_dialectics_of_collective_and_individual_transformation_Transformative_activist_research_in_a_collaborative_Learning_community_project._By_Vianna_E._Hougaard_N._and_Stetsenko_A._2014_._In_A._Blunden_ed._Collaborative_Projects_pp._59-87_._Leiden_the_Netherlands_Brille_Publishers

I want to invite others to read page 62 which is describing  aspects of
Stetsenko's concept of TAS [Transformative Activist Stance]. This article
is suggesting TAS is an "expansion" of the "broadly interpreted" Marxist
and Vygotskian positions [dispositions??]
The intentional expansion of these dispositions  is expressed within this
articles "re-fashioning" the Marxist and Vygotskian positions to more
centrally focus on "synergies of individual AND collective subjectivity and
agency"

The central premise is that people come to know themselves and their world
and ultimately come to "be human" *in and through* [not in addition to] the
collectividualist processes transforming their world "in view of" their
goals and purposes.

Furthermore, TAS also is "expanding" Marxist and Vygotskian dispositions by
*explicitly* integrating Bahktin's *approach* [in its focus on *postuplenie
- transformative historical *and ideological Becoming through activist
contributions to *historically unfolding *practices]

TAS becomes instantiated in specific projects.  This approach enacts
"scenes" or "spaces" [third hybrid collectividualist spaces] AS [as if] a
radically new *ontology and epistemology* that "unites" being, knowing, and
doing as *aspects* of one unified process of human development.
I am suggesting this radically new "scene" or "space" that "unfolds" can be
envisioned [using the meta-phor] as "third space" which developmentally
"comes into being" and this process offers "hope" as the "third space" of
"could be ..." becoming "real" or actual.  Meta-phor not as "mere" ornament
to the "real" but more radically meta-phor as "real" and the image of
"third spaces"

I am pointing to this "expansion" as possibly "returning to" including
"inner form" within TAS and "third spaces" and other meta-phorically imaged
reality.

Larry

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> I overlooked the invitation to read and discuss Morten Nissen's article
> which was sent recently. [I attached again]
>
> I am going to reference page 97 - 98 to once again return to the notion of
> meaning and sense.
> Morten refers to Drier drawing on social phenomenology [Schultz, Husserl,
> Heidegger]. Drier highlights spatio-temporality [here and now] AS A
> REACTION to the obvious alternative -structural-functional "versions" of
> Marxist social theory that have become part of the cultural-historical
> tradition.  This structuralist "approach" derives "social units" from the
> "standard" intentional structure "as given" in a functional division of
> labour.  The unit of an activity would be "defined" from within a notion of
> the "object" or "object-motive".
> Collectives in question are defined in an either/or version. In this
> article either the U-Turn is a therapy group with the object of cure OR the
> U-Turn is a film crew with the object of a music video.  [a
> structural-functional way of defining the "events".
>
> The "structure of practice" which Ilyenkov called the "objective form of
> subjective activity" is thus declared "identical" with [this is the key
> point] that subjective activity "itself" Subjectivity is reduced to the
> objective "meaning".
>
> The "con-version" of meaning [objective] into "sense" [inner form] is no
> longer problematic. With this form of "reasoning" [as reduction] we now are
> prejudiced to "see" that we can now "know" [with this approach] "directly"
> about "subjectivity".
>
> I hope I have been faithful to what Morten was intending to make clear.
> These are alternative versions [and visions].
> I would add they are enacting alternative "meta-phors" or images of the
> ideal but that is extending towards Zinchenko's notion of "inner form" and
> going beyond this paper.
>