[Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
Rolf Steier
rolfsteier@gmail.com
Mon Jul 20 10:04:12 PDT 2015
This makes sense to me, Andy. I could also interpret the photographs as
boundary objects as they support the coordination of therapy activities
between Thomas and the nurse. I think it depends on the aspect of activity
one is attempting to explore as opposed to the definite identification of
what may or may not be a boundary object. This is only my opinion though!
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> Or alternatively, the boundary object in question is Thomas's aged body,
> which is subject to an interpretation which Thomas contests by showing
> photographs of far away places and explaining how well-travelled he is,
> seeking an interpretation of himself as a well-travelled and experiences
> man-of-the-world.
> Does that make better sense?
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> On 20/07/2015 11:27 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>
>> Yes, I agree. My own interest is in social theory and I'd never heard of
>> "boundary objects." It seems to me that what BOs do is introduce some
>> social theory into domains of activity (scientific and work collaborations
>> for example) where the participants naively think they are collaborating on
>> neutral ground. So it is not just granularity, but also the ideological
>> context.
>>
>> In Yjro Engestrom's article, the home care workers collaborate with the
>> old couple according to rules and regulations, communications resources,
>> technology, finance and so on, which in the unnamed country, the old couple
>> are apparently cast as "patients". Isn't it the case that here it is those
>> rules and regulations, etc., which are the "boundary objects"?
>>
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> On 20/07/2015 11:13 PM, Rolf Steier wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> <mailto: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/
>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>> 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>
>>> <mailto: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/>
>>> <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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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: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>
>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%2Bmglassman
>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%252Bmglassman>>=
>>> ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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
>>
>>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list