[Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
Rolf Steier
rolfsteier@gmail.com
Mon Jul 20 06:13:40 PDT 2015
I think that a particular institution or government system could
potentially be a boundary object depending on how the concept is applied.
Star describes three criteria: 1) interpretive flexibility 2) material/
organizational structure and 3) scale/ granularity in which the concept is
useful.
She argues that boundary objects are typically most useful at the
organizational level - so I would say that one would have to justify the
utility of applying the concept to a particular institution, as opposed to,
say, an object within an institution.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> Phew!
> So would it be correct to describe the government institutions and
> political system are "boundary objects"?
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> On 20/07/2015 9:42 PM, Rolf Steier wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy -
>> Good catch! I believe that is a typo and should read "despite a LACK of
>> consensus". Thank you for pointing that out.
>>
>>
>> I also wanted to follow up on a suggestion that Greg made in the other
>> thread suggesting we look at David McNeill's work. I had only been familiar
>> with his earlier work on gesture, but after doing a bit of reading over the
>> weekend, I found his concept of 'unexpected metaphors' potentially useful
>> in dealing with some of my questions.(
>> http://mcneilllab.uchicago.edu/pdfs/unexpected_metaphors.pdf )
>>
>> Here is a relevant quote describing unexpected metaphors as a form of
>> gesture:
>>
>> /The logic is that unexpected metaphors arise from the
>> need to create images when the culture does not have
>> them readily at hand. These images join linguistic
>> content as growth points and differentiate what
>> Vygotsky (1987) called psychological predicates, or
>> points of contrast in the immediate ongoing context of
>> speaking. Unexpected metaphors, precisely because they
>> are outside the conventions of language and culture,
>> can capture abstractions in novel ways and provide the
>> fluidity of thought and language that is the essence
>> of ongoing discourse./
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:
>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Rolf, what did you mean by "the achievement of
>> cooperation despite consensus"?
>> p. 131,
>>
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>> On 17/07/2015 8:45 AM, Rolf Steier wrote:
>>
>> Are we allowed to ask questions about our paper as
>> well? I hope so!
>>
>> For a little context -in our paper, we identified
>> particular kinds of
>> episodes in which participants from different
>> disciplines seek coherence
>> and continuity of shared representations through
>> bodily action. These
>> actions include gesture, movement and physical
>> performance linking the
>> present material artifacts to objects of design.
>> Most of these episodes
>> seem to involve some form of improvisation,
>> resourcefulness or creativity,
>> and I'm not fully sure how to characterize these
>> aspects of the
>> interactions. In most cases, the participants seem
>> to be searching for the
>> best words or material representation to convey a
>> particular intention -
>> when this becomes problematic or limiting - they
>> almost fall back on what
>> is available - these improvised bodily
>> performances - as a way of
>> maintaining continuity, and of inviting
>> co-participants into a shared and
>> imagined space. These bodily actions don't seem to
>> begin the proposals, but
>> are in a sense *discovered* by the participants.
>>
>>
>> I think there is something really fascinating
>> about this kind of creativity
>> and resourcefulness in interaction that could be
>> explored more deeply - and
>> that I'm having trouble articulating. Maybe some
>> of you have some thoughts
>> on this? Alfredo - I know we've talked about this
>> a bit before so maybe you
>> can add a little clarity to my question.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:37 PM, HENRY SHONERD
>> <hshonerd@gmail.com <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Alfredo,
>> Thank you very much for the sketch of your
>> roots. I taught English in
>> Puigcerda and Barcelona for 5 years back in
>> the early 70s, just before
>> Franco died. (He died the day I boarded the
>> plane back to the U.S.) Place
>> and language are interesting, especially where
>> language varieties meet.
>> Boundaries. I know mostly from my familiarity
>> with the music of Catalunya
>> and Mallorca that the speech communities in
>> each of those places treasure
>> their unique languages (Catalan and
>> Mallorquin), yet see a commonality
>> vis-a-vis their separateness from Castilian
>> Spanish, the national language
>> of Spain from 1492 on. I see a parallel
>> between your work on boundary
>> objects, where individual persons collaborate
>> to create spaces, AND
>> boundary objects “negotiated” by groups of
>> people who live in real spaces.
>> I am thinking, among other things, of
>> indigeneity, a big topic here in New
>> Mexico, with so many Native Americans.
>> Assymetries of power. Bullying.
>> Testing and curriculum become instruments of
>> war by other means. I hope my
>> tone does not distract from, nor diminish, the
>> optimism created by this
>> thread. Yet I think that optimism is so
>> precious because of the ground (the
>> world) of the dialog.
>> Henry
>>
>>
>> On Jul 16, 2015, at 12:13 PM, Alfredo
>> Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Well, you could say that I am partly
>> Catalan. I grew up in the province
>>
>> of Valencia, where Catalan language is
>> official language together with
>> Castilian Spanish. Although Valencia (the
>> county) and Catalonia are
>> different regional counties, Catalan is spoken
>> in Catalonia, Valencia, and
>> the Balear Islands. Some call the three
>> together as the Catalan Countries.
>> I don't like borders, but I respect and enjoy
>> cultural diversity.
>>
>> Standardized testing, and the whole
>> assumptions behind it, are an issue
>>
>> also in Spain and in Catalonia; but education
>> has been so battered during
>> the last years of right-wing government that I
>> the debate have been more
>> about means and access than about contents and
>> aims. Which in some sense
>> may be good because it moves the debates away
>> from performance. But I have
>> been living outside of Spain for eight years
>> now, so I am not the best to
>> update you on this either.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Alfredo
>> ________________________________________
>> From:
>> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>
>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
>> behalf of
>> HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>
>> Sent: 16 July 2015 19:54
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of
>> Boundary Objects
>>
>> Alfredo,
>> Yes, you have answered my question very
>> nicely! I especially appreciate
>>
>> that you were willing to wrestle with my
>> question, despite your lack of
>> familiarity with the issues here in the U.S.
>> Am I wrong, or are you
>> Catalan? In which case your experience in
>> Catalunya would take you to a
>> different place in critiquing schooling there,
>> though not necessarily
>> unconnected to yours and Rolf’s work on
>> boundary objects. I just met for
>> the second day in a row with a friend who is
>> the liaison between our public
>> school district and a children’s science
>> museum called Explora. I feel like
>> I’m swimming in this thread, talk about a
>> mixed metaphor!
>>
>> Henry
>>
>>
>> On Jul 16, 2015, at 12:18 AM, Alfredo
>> Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I am sorry, Henry, but I am not very
>> familiar with high-stakes
>>
>> standardized testing (as different to
>> standardized testing in general) or
>> with common core (which I quickly read is an
>> issue in US). But I would say
>> that, if (school) curricula were to be
>> consistent with the view of
>> education as the practice of creating
>> conditions for certain attitudes and
>> dispositions to emerge--which is what I was
>> suggesting in the paragraph you
>> copy--curricula would not be so much about
>> standardized contents, but about
>> human sensitivities and relations. So, I would
>> say, no, standardized
>> testing is not in principle in line with what
>> I was trying to say.
>>
>> I was trying to make a distinction
>> between trying to design someone's
>>
>> particular experience, and trying to design
>> conditions for the development
>> of attitudes and orientations. The first is
>> likely impossible. The second
>> seems to make more sense.
>>
>> One may of course wonder whether those
>> attitudes and orientations can
>>
>> be considered general, and then form part of
>> standardize measures instead
>> of the traditional "contents and skills". But
>> measuring assumes some
>> quantitative increment in a particular aspect
>> as the result of learning.
>> Growth and development, however, are about
>> qualitative change. So, as soon
>> as you start measuring you would be missing
>> growth and development. So,
>> again, no. I would not say that high-stakes
>> standardized testing is in line
>> with what I was trying to say.
>>
>> I hope I have answered your question,
>> Alfredo
>> ________________________________________
>> From:
>> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=
>> iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>
>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
>> behalf of
>> HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>
>> Sent: 16 July 2015 07:48
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of
>> Boundary Objects
>>
>> Alfredo, you say:
>>
>> "However, we cannot aim at determining
>> any particular
>>
>> situation/experience. The same may be said
>> about EDUCATION. We cannot
>> intend to communicate the curriculum and make
>> it the content of the
>> students' experience in the way we intend. But
>> we can try to create the
>> conditions for certain attitudes and
>> dispositions to emerge."
>>
>> Would you say that high-stakes
>> standardized testing is in line with
>>
>> your construal of curriculum design? How about
>> common core?
>>
>> Henry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 5:29 PM,
>> Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the
>> clarifications. I see now why it
>> may be said that
>>
>> designers can aim at designing for constrains
>> but not for affordances. I
>> see that this way of talking is part of a
>> designers' way to get things
>> done, and that it may indeed be an effective
>> way to design for
>> place-making, as in the example that Michael
>> gives of MOMA. Indeed, much of
>> what we report in our study is about designers
>> talking about how spatial
>> features might afford some experiences in the
>> museum while constraining
>> others.
>>
>> I must admit, however, that I
>> still consider the distinction
>>
>> problematic from an analytical perspective
>> whenever our object of study is
>> experience, situated action, or design as
>> situated practice. A more correct
>> way to talk is that affordances and constrains
>> are the positive and
>> negative sides/interpretations of a single
>> unitary category. As an actual
>> and concrete phenomenon, walking into a musuem
>> implies both affordances and
>> constrains at the same time, whether intended
>> or not. Which makes me wonder
>> whether other terminology, such as Ingold's
>> notion of "correspondence,"
>> might be more appropriated when we talk about
>> how materials and actions
>> become entangled into particular trajectories.
>>
>> In any case, and as Rolf
>> emphasizes, what the designers in
>> our study
>>
>> indeed do is to IMAGINE ways of being in the
>> museum. Imagination versus
>> prediction may be an interesting topic
>> emerging here for further inquiry
>> into design work.
>>
>> Another important (and related)
>> issue that I think is emerging here
>>
>> has to do with the level of generality at
>> which design intentions can be
>> expected to work (just as Bateson argued with
>> regard to prediction). At the
>> level of generic social processes, and given a
>> particular
>> cultural-historical background, we as
>> designers may try to make some
>> generic situations more likely to occur than
>> others (facilitating that more
>> or less people end up together in a given
>> place). However, we cannot aim at
>> determining any particular
>> situation/experience. The same may be said about
>> EDUCATION. We cannot intend to communicate the
>> curriculum and make it the
>> content of the students' experience in the way
>> we intend. But we can try to
>> create the conditions for certain attitudes
>> and dispositions to emerge.
>>
>> Alfredo
>> ________________________________________
>> From:
>> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=
>> iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>
>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
>> behalf of
>> Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu
>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>>
>>
>> Sent: 15 July 2015 23:30
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The
>> Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>
>> Hi Alfredo,
>>
>> I think Rolf may have addressed
>> the question of the differences
>>
>> between affordances and constraints in his
>> post. The way he described the
>> designers as possibly setting up the corner
>> with Pollock at MOMA. It was a
>> long time ago so I'm not sure if this is the
>> way it was or the way I
>> remember it, but let's just believe this is
>> the way it was. The painting,
>> I think there were three were set up in a
>> corner off a main corridor. The
>> lighting was dark, which if you have ever been
>> to MOMA is different, in
>> many other parts of the museum there is a good
>> deal of natural light (there
>> was this great fountain, I wonder if it is
>> still there). The paintings
>> were on tripods rather than hung on the walls
>> and they were surrounded on
>> three sides by walls. All of these I think
>> would be considered restraints
>> - pushing me in to the works rather than
>> stepping back away. It was
>> impossible for more than two or three people
>> to view the paintings at one
>> time and movement was limited, so there were
>> fewer chances for social
>> interactions (you were not going to pick up
>> anybody looking at Jackson
>> Pollock). The atmosphere was brooding, making
>> it more likely that viewers
>> would move towards internal reflection. All
>> of these were constraints that
>> canalized perspectives and feelings viewing
>> the paintings. You really had
>> only two choices, you moved in to the
>> paintings or you moved on, which I
>> had done every previous time coming upon them.
>>
>> The painting itself though became
>> an affordances, an object at the
>>
>> nexus of my journey through the museum, where
>> I was in my life, and my
>> abilities to perceive the painitings. This
>> was something that could not be
>> designed I think because nobody could think
>> that moment was going to
>> happen. So then what is a perceived
>> affordance. Way back when there was
>> also a Manet room. It was a round room with
>> different variations of his
>> water lilies in a circle. Almost the exact
>> opposite in constraints it was
>> large, airy, a lot of natural light. If you
>> were looking to brood you went
>> somewhere else. In the middle of the room was
>> a wooden structure (not an
>> obvious bench), but you realized as random
>> colors dissolved into water
>> lilies that you wanted to sit down. You
>> naturally moved to the center of
>> the room and sat (wondering if a guard would
>> come and tell you it was
>> actually an important piece of art and you
>> should get off). The designer
>> anticipates a desire to soak in the room, to
>> almost get dizzy in the
>> lights, and included in the design the piece
>> of wood that will have the
>> perceived affordance for sitting, changing
>> your concept of time and space.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=
>> osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> [mailto:
>>
>> xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>] On Behalf
>> Of Alfredo
>>
>> Jornet Gil
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:01 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The
>> Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>
>> Thanks Michael,
>>
>> I think we are saying the same
>> things, indeed, or at least more or
>>
>> less. I am quite certain that Bateson referred
>> to energy, and that he used
>> the mentioned examples (or similar ones) to
>> show how the energy that moves
>> the pig is not a direct transfer of energy
>> from the kick, whereas in the
>> case of the billiard balls, the movement of
>> one ball is caused by the
>> energy that the kicking ball brings. I might
>> be wrong in the context within
>> which Bateson was discussing the example, and
>> I see that your account is in
>> that regard is more accurate. But the point is
>> the same: you can not intend
>> the outcomes of a system by addressing only
>> its parts as if they were
>> connected directly, in a linear causal
>> fashion; as if the whole was the sum
>> of its parts. I do see a link with Vygotsky's
>> rejection of S-R and his
>> inclusion of a third element that transforms
>> the whole system.
>>
>> But I totally agree with your
>> comments on design intentions as they
>>
>> relate to ecology, and I, as I know also Rolf
>> does, also like very much the
>> notion of ecology to address these issues.
>>
>> If I read you correctly, and
>> citing Don Norman (whose work I
>> ignore),
>>
>> you suggest the possibility that the relations
>> between design intentions
>> and actual experience could be thought of in
>> terms of different levels?
>> That one thing is to design for what is
>> general, but that we cannot design
>> for the particular. Is that right? If so, I
>> think that Bateson had a
>> similar argument on prediction, does not him?
>> That we can predict on
>> general levels (e.g. population), but not at
>> the level of the particular
>> (e.g., individual). I haven't gone that way,
>> but seems a promising road to
>> consider this jumps between levels of
>> generality or scales.
>>
>> Finally, I am not sure if I get
>> what you mean when you say that we can
>>
>> design for constrains but not for affordances.
>> I still see that the one
>> presupposes the other; you can separate them
>> in talk, but, to me, in actual
>> experience, a constrain is an affordance and
>> vice-versa. I don't see how
>> the road has any inherent constrain that could
>> not be an affordance at the
>> same time. Of course, if you take the
>> normative stance that roads are for
>> cars driving through them, you may be right.
>> But if we think of roads as
>> asphalt on the ground, as yet more ground only
>> of a different shape,
>> texture, and color, how is that a constrain
>> but not an affordance? Or an
>> affordance but not a constrain? Of course,
>> culture constrains once you are
>> within the road and you are driving. But then,
>> the constrain is not in the
>> road, as you seem to suggest, but in the
>> journey; in the journeyman that
>> carries some cultural way of orienting and
>> affectively relating to its
>> environment so that particular constrains are
>> taken for granted despite the
>> possibility of being otherwise. But I might
>> not have thought it well/long
>> enough and of course I might be wrong. I would
>> like to understand your
>> position here better.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Alfredo
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From:
>> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=
>> iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>
>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
>> behalf of
>> Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu
>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>>
>>
>> Sent: 15 July 2015 20:32
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The
>> Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>
>> Hi Alfredo,
>>
>> I have been reading Bateson
>> through a cybernetics lens lately
>> (Bateson
>>
>> along with Lewin and his wife Margaret Mead
>> were part of the original Sears
>> conferences) and I'm not sure that's right or
>> I am victim to the "when you
>> have a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
>> but....
>>
>> I think Bateson was arguing with
>> those looking to apply the more
>>
>> physical/mathematical origins of cybernetics
>> to human or really (pace the
>> pig story) and system that moves beyond simple
>> physical feedback loops. I
>> think his larger point is that everything has
>> a response within the larger
>> feedback system that exists but we cannot go -
>> what Bateson refers to as
>> MIND. Attempts to create and control feedback
>> loops, to try and design a
>> system for specific types of feedback is a
>> dangerous proposition.
>>
>> This I think is the reason that
>> affordances really can't be designed
>>
>> into an ecology, only a recognition of the
>> context in which actions are
>> taking place (and I say this having no idea
>> what Gibson's relationship to
>> cybernetics was). Taking Larry's example of
>> the girl it is perhaps also
>> likely that the girl could have taken the
>> fixing of hair as a criticism, an
>> attack, and it might have destroyed her
>> confidence. Both make sense in
>> terms of feedback loops, but only ad hoc. So
>> if a designer does in some
>> way design that experience into the action,
>> even without meaning they are
>> taking a large chance, because they do not
>> know the trajectory it will
>> take. We simply need objects that are part of
>> our journey, part of the
>> larger context but not designed for purpose,
>> for feedback. There is no
>> assumption about trajectory.
>>
>> I think Don Norman sort of muddied
>> the waters on this, but in an
>>
>> interesting way. That we can assume people
>> are going to want to do certain
>> things in a very general environment - when you
>> enter a dark room you want
>> light, so it is possible to design objects
>> that meet that need that we are
>> more likely to find in the moment that we need
>> them. But I think that is
>> very different from the idea of specifically
>> guiding feedback loops that
>> even take generalized experience in a certain
>> direction. I am thinking
>> about Dewey, and he makes a similar argument
>> to Bateson with his concept of
>> transactions. Although he does seem to think
>> that it is possible to create
>> a larger field of action so we can see at
>> least local interrelationships.
>> But his idea of experience is also very much
>> one of discovery based on
>> needs at the immediate moment - social
>> relations act as a vehicle for these
>> discoveriesn(Dewey of course was writing
>> before Gibson and for most of his
>> life before cybernetics. I also wonder what
>> he thought of cybernetics).
>>
>> I think I disagree with you,
>> constraints are not about the
>> journey but
>>
>> about the road. If you build a road on the
>> side of the river you are
>> constrained because no matter what, you cannot
>> turn right. Your direction
>> has already been partially determined by the
>> designer of the road. But the
>> mistake we make is in thinking that also
>> controls the trajectory of the
>> individual's journey. The effect of designers
>> on trajectories of action is
>> important, but limited.
>>
>> The primary place that designers
>> have influence on affordances it
>>
>> seems to me is by being able to create a
>> unique context for an individual's
>> and a group's that limit possible trajectories
>> on an individual's journey.
>> But we should never mistake those constraints
>> for affordances. I think
>> Bateson might argue it is hubris to do so.
>> Perhaps this is what you are
>> saying Alfredo.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=
>> ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>
>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%2Bmglassman>=
>> ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>] On
>> Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015
>> 12:38 PM
>> To: Rolf Steier; eXtended Mind,
>> Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The
>> Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>
>> I'd like to follow up on Michael's
>> post by asking a question: Are not
>>
>> affordances presupposed by constraints and are
>> not constraints presupposed
>> by affordances? If so, I would wonder whether
>> it makes sense to ask whether
>> museums should be designed for affordances and
>> constraints.
>>
>> What I think is clear from the
>> anecdote that you bring about the
>>
>> Jackson Pollock corner is that whatever
>> EXPERIENCE emerges from being
>> somewhere (i.e. being someone at some time in
>> some place) cannot be
>> INTENDED. And I think this applies both to
>> designers and users, to those
>> who set things up for you to experience and to
>> you, who could not foresee
>> what your experience was going to turn you
>> into before you go through it.
>>
>> I think that the big issue that
>> you bring on the table (to continue
>>
>> with Larry's metaphor) has to do with a
>> difference between physical
>> relations and social relations, and the idea
>> of MEDIATION. Gregory Bateson
>> noticed that the relations that are the
>> subject matter in physics are not
>> the same as those that are the subject matter
>> in communication. He noticed
>> that physical relations (relations that are
>> the object of study of physics)
>> transfer energy in direct manners: a billiard
>> ball hits another ball and we
>> can anticipate the exact speed and direction
>> that the second ball will take
>> based on the energy that is in the system ball
>> + ball + someone hitting. In
>> living beings, the things are different.
>> Bateson explained, if we kick a
>> pig's ass (I think he used this somehow
>> bizarre example) the reaction of
>> the pig is not accounted for by the energy
>> that is contained in the kick,
>> at least not in a direct manner. The energy
>> that moves the pig is from a
>> different source. Before Bateson, it was
>> Vygotsky and his notion of
>> mediation who would most clearly state that
>> social relations are not
>> direct, but mediated.
>>
>> So, how can design go about this?
>> If we, along with Dewey and
>>
>> Vygotsky, consider experience to be a unity of
>> person and environment, and
>> we assume as well that this is a social (not
>> just individual) category, and
>> that how a situation is experienced is also
>> refracted through the social
>> relations within which we engage, the most
>> designers can do is to foster
>> social relations go on, giving afordances to
>> prcesses of signification,
>> without intending to embed meanings. It is
>> about affordances/constraints,
>> but not about how to interpret something, but
>> about going about
>> interpreting. I think.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Alfredo
>> ________________________________________
>> From:
>> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=
>> iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>
>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
>> behalf of
>> Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu
>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>>
>>
>> Sent: 15 July 2015 18:04
>> To: Rolf Steier; eXtended Mind,
>> Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The
>> Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>
>> So after reading the article and
>> the e-mail discussion I'm beginning
>>
>> to think there is a really big issue here that
>> I am trying to grapple with,
>> especially in terms of boundary objects (which
>> I admittedly do not
>> understand very well). And it relates to the
>> metaphor of the table (both
>> as discussed by Larry and Ingold as
>> interpreted by Rolf). It is this, in
>> the museum should the place be set up as
>> affordances, perceived
>> affordances, or constraints? It seems the
>> museum in the study has
>> potential affordances for the users. The
>> cultural historical moment
>> (unable to think of any other word) of the
>> museum sets the context, meaning
>> those walking through the museum are going to
>> be restricted by the
>> historical and cultural boundaries leading up
>> to the art work, along with
>> the expectations and needs of the individuals
>> moving through the museum,
>> but they will come across objects/artifacts
>> that they think meets the needs
>> of their particular journeys. The posing
>> becomes both an internalization
>> and externalization of the thinking (or are
>> they one continuum at this
>> point?) in which they both make sense of the
>> object in terms of their own
>> meaning and needs and also try and communicate
>> what they found, leaving a
>> potential trails for others.
>>
>> An example that has stayed with me
>> for years. Living in New York I
>>
>> used to go to the Museum of Modern Art on a
>> semi-regular basis (in large
>> part to try and meet women, always
>> unsuccessful). I would often visit the
>> Jackson Pollock corner. I would look and it
>> would always be meaningful to
>> me and I would move one quickly. Once, soon
>> after graduating college and
>> unemployed and about as frustrated as I'd ever
>> been I viewed the same
>> paintings. At that moment Pollock made sense
>> to me, a deep emotional punch
>> - the paintings became objects that could
>> bridge my rage, sadness and fear
>> to the next moment in my life. There is no
>> way a designer could have
>> planned this affordance. It was based on the
>> movement not just through the
>> museum but my life. I think back to what my
>> gestures, or even posing might
>> have been at that moment. A slumping in to
>> myself, an internalization
>> perhaps of a socially sanctioned symbol of
>> rage. But perhaps a posture
>> also that said stay away. The place I created
>> in that moment was one that
>> included me and whatever demons Jackson
>> Pollock fought with.
>>
>> Or should museums should be
>> designed for what Don Norman
>> refers to as
>>
>> perceived affordances? The table that is set
>> up can be one of perceived
>> affordances. What I grab for the spoon
>> because its shape makes sense in my
>> need/desire to eat cereal. The focus goes
>> from cultural history setting a
>> general context - Jackson Pollock is a
>> sanctioned way to bridge emotions,
>> to actually setting the trajectory of the
>> act. I sit at a table, I want to
>> eat cereal, I must follow sanctioned rule
>> systems, I know what I need at
>> that moment and look for objects that fit my
>> needs. Is the room in the
>> article about perceived affordances. Should
>> the museum be designed for
>> perceived affordances. A person coming upon
>> an object may be thinking this
>> because of what it means in our society to be
>> walking through a museum.
>> The object offers an opportunity to make
>> communicative gestures, such as
>> recreating the posture of The Thinker the
>> authors refer to. I have seen
>> many shows, movies where this happens, from
>> movies from the 1940s to the
>> Rugrats. This is the cultural cue of what we
>> do with art objects in a
>> museum, we gesture to both understand and
>> communicate.
>>
>> Or should museums be designed as
>> constraints. In the Metropolitan
>>
>> Museum of Art (sorry for the New York centric
>> places but that's where I
>> spent most of my museum life) the rooms are
>> set up very, very carefully, so
>> that in many ways the objects (at least are
>> meant to I think) to constrain
>> your thinking, so that you are responding to a
>> certain period or school of
>> art, understanding how it all fits together. The
>> table metaphor fits here
>> as well I think. Does the table constrain our
>> actions, limiting to certain
>> types of behavior (use only certain types of
>> forks for certain types of
>> food).
>>
>> Okay, too much I know.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=
>> ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>
>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%2Bmglassman>=
>> ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>] On
>> Behalf Of Rolf Steier
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 6:58 AM
>> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity; mike cole;
>>
>> lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The
>> Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>
>> Thank you for your thoughts Larry,
>>
>> I wanted to pick up on your
>> suggestion of the table metaphor
>> because I
>>
>> think that's really interesting. I believe you
>> are proposing the shared
>> meal as analogous to the kind of orientation
>> work (or perhaps Leigh Star
>> might consider this translation or
>> pre-translation work?) that precedes the
>> task at hand (in the case of our study, the
>> task is design). Excerpt 3 from
>> our study might be relevant here, when in turn
>> 6, the curator turns to the
>> researcher, leans in, and points in order to
>> create a shared visual field.
>>
>> The curator and the researcher can
>> now orient towards the existing
>>
>> gallery in order to imagine future, possible
>> changes in the gallery. The
>> curator is in a sense extending an invitation
>> to sit down at the same table
>> to be able to share his vision for the gallery.
>>
>> This shared meal might of course
>> also be considered designed. Ingold (
>> *Making*) actually uses this same
>> table metaphor to demonstrate the
>>
>> facilitation of activity as an aspect of
>> design - *"Everyday design catches
>> the narrative and pins it down, establishing a
>> kind of choreography for the
>> ensuing permanence that allows it to proceed
>> from the moment you sit down
>> to eat. In such a straightforward task as
>> laying the table - in enrolling
>> into your relation bowl and spoon, milk jug
>> and cereal box - you are
>> designing breakfast."*
>>
>> There is an improvisational
>> quality to the bodily/performative
>>
>> orientation work that is maybe not captured by
>> the shared expectations of
>> sitting down to a meal. But at the same time,
>> we can also consider the
>> workspace of the multidisciplinary design team
>> as designed in the same way
>> that the meal is designed in order to support
>> the objective of the meeting.
>> That is, the, design team must first engage in
>> a place-making activity for
>> their collaborative setting in order to attend
>> to the design of the
>> exhibition space. The designers set the table
>> with a white board, sketches
>> and design ideas, perhaps some coffee... etc.,
>> before turning to the task
>> of imagining the future exhibition.
>>
>> Lubomir, you asked - *"who are the
>> placemakers -- the architects or
>>
>> the USERS of designed/created/socially
>> produced spaces?" *I think this is
>> difficult to answer because both architect and
>> user play a role in the
>> place-making process. The architects embed
>> possible meanings (if place and
>> meaning are analogous than perhaps these might
>> be considered 'place
>>
>> potentials') that only emerge
>> through the activity of the users. I'm
>>
>> only thinking through this now, so feel free
>> to elaborate or to disagree!
>>
>> Rolf
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:28 PM,
>> Alfredo Jornet Gil <
>>
>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks a lot, Lubomir!
>>
>> On to your question, I am
>> tempted to stretch a bit
>> across frameworks
>> and answer that, the
>> difference between the process
>> of performing an
>> activity in space and
>> developing a sense of place
>> would be akin to the
>> difference between an
>> operation and an action as per
>> Activity theory.
>>
>> Again, we must be careful on
>> the distinction between space
>> as a sort
>> of objective geometrical
>> coordinate, or space as not
>> becoming a part
>>
>> of "an"
>>
>> experience (in Dewey's sense).
>> In the first sense, the sentence
>> "performing an activity in
>> space" makes only sense when
>> talking about
>> geometrical practices, for
>> example; one may think that in
>> some
>> engineering practices, it is
>> possible to orient to space as
>> space, as
>> a coordinate. BUT still, the
>> experience of being doing such
>> practice,
>> if it has import to further
>> development in the person, it
>> must be
>> refracted through the person's
>> experience; there must be
>> involvement,
>> and therefore placemaking. In
>> the second case, we might
>> think of us
>> performing some activity
>> within taking much of it,
>> without noticing we
>> are doing. It is in this sense
>> that I do the bridge with
>> operations
>>
>> versus actions.
>>
>> I would not have many problems
>> in associating place with
>> meaning and
>> placemaking with
>> meaning-making, although I
>> personally would be
>> careful if doing so,
>> emphasizing the situational
>> and distributed
>> nature of the process that
>> placemaking attempts to capture.
>>
>> Hope this helps
>> Alfredo
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Lubomir Savov Popov
>> <lspopov@bgsu.edu
>> <mailto:lspopov@bgsu.edu>>
>> Sent: 14 July 2015 23:06
>> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; Rolf
>> Steier; eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>
>> Activity
>>
>> Cc: mike cole;
>> lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: The
>> Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>
>> Thank you Alfredo,
>>
>> By the way, I should have
>> started my mail with an
>> appreciation for
>> your article and Mike's choice
>> to bring it to our attention.
>>
>> Now it is almost clear how you
>> use the word and conceptualize the
>> phenomenon. I would
>> respectfully ask you for a few
>> more things: what
>> is the difference between the
>> process of performing an
>> activity in
>> space and developing a sense
>> of place. I personally
>> interpret place in
>> terms of appropriation of
>> space in the process of human
>> activity and
>> the subsequent meaning making
>> which has existential
>> importance for the
>> individual. The phenomenon of
>> place is on par with the
>> phenomenon of
>> meaning and placemaking is a
>> process on par with meaning
>> making. How
>> do you position yourself
>> regarding such conceptualization?
>>
>> On a similar note, who are the
>> placemakers -- the architects
>> or the
>> USERS of
>> designed/created/socially
>> produced spaces?
>>
>> By the way, I might be
>> stretching too much the part
>> on place and
>> distracting from other aspects
>> of your wonderful article.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Lubomir
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> [mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015
>> 4:31 PM
>> To: Lubomir Savov Popov; Rolf
>> Steier; eXtended Mind,
>> Culture, Activity
>> Cc: mike cole;
>> lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:lchc-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: The
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list