[Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion

Sun Mar 20 03:34:10 PDT 2016

I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff. 
I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each 
little bunch of us has different concerns and shines light 
on different aspects of human life. But what we really need 
is shared concepts, through which we can understand each 
other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has 
appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, 
shared activity and the law of genetic development.
I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent 
in appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed 
out that in the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was 
generally practiced as 'cross-cultural', largely as 
comparison studies", but everything I read in your paper 
tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and used in 
just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the 
meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, 
originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One 
word can index different concepts. Achieving 
interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of shared 
concepts. But on the other hand, since the content of a 
concept is ultimately the larger system of practices to 
which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept can 
only be shared when the broader context of its use is 
already assimilated.
Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised 
that you were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite 
a different meaning than I would. It seems to denote 
empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors feeling the 
same emotions and values in the same situations," and I 
don't even know it means to "feel values."
Connected with this the description of joint action, turned 
out to be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see 
it, collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint 
action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as 
well as cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but 
I think they are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone 
marching in step.
I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating 
different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual 
appropriation by means of having a "center of commonality."

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I 
> thought that although CC and CHAT have many common 
> interests, most folks in each appeared to be unaware of 
> the other (judging by the infrequency of common 
> citations). As described in our article, we and several of 
> our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and have used 
> CHAT concepts in our research and intervention programs. 
> As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the 
> KEEP project, Seymour Sarason's work, and some of 
> Maynard's work with Greenfield. Also Kurt Lewin is a 
> source common to both CC and CHAT. I too would be 
> interested to hear of additional influence in the opposite 
> direction.
>
> You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial 
> systems with Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory 
> boldly attempts to be a universal theory of how change 
> occurs using Delta as the symbol for change.
>
> I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive 
> science, psycho-neurology, and a potential center of 
> commonality in psychology of interest! That is the goal of 
> the article, i.e., to show how the commonality of CC and 
> CHAT have the potential to form that commonality with 
> developmental, educational, cognitive, and 
> neuro-psychology. Hopefully this discussion format will 
> facilitate interest in the process.
>
> Cliff
>
> On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>
>> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting 
>> article. I was not familiar to cultural community 
>> psychology and this and the other papers in the symposium 
>> do a great job introducing and concisely describing the 
>> field, and how it evolved from community to cultural 
>> community psychology.
>>
>> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of 
>> CHAT literature had influenced the development of 
>> community psychology itself from the start. As I 
>> progressed in my reading, I then found clear references 
>> to these influences, which even meant the delay of the 
>> publishing of Roland's work, I assume, due to the 
>> important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for 
>> the project. But then I wondered on what had been other 
>> sources. What were other foundational influences to the 
>> field? I'd be interested to know about them in part 
>> because, while the paper discusses many examples in which 
>> CHAT gives input to CC, I would like to know more about 
>> the (possible) inputs in the other direction.
>>
>> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of 
>> commonality in psychology in general. I was glad to see, 
>> however brief, mentions to research in cognitive science 
>> and psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta theory is 
>> mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In the 
>> case of CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a 
>> scientific discipline based on dialectical materialism 
>> and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I just had a 
>> very brief first contact) seems to build upon the notion 
>> of psychosocial systems. This sounds very much in line 
>> with Vygotsky, who surely is a central source. Again, 
>> here I would love to hear what other insights/sources are 
>> involved that may provide new insights to those more 
>> familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alfredo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu 
>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of mike cole 
>> <mcole@ucsd.edu>
>> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l]  Article for Discussion
>>
>> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes-
>>
>>
>>
>> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the 
>> paper by Roland
>> Tharp and Cliff  O'Donnell from the most recent issue of 
>> MCA. Roland wanted
>> to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as 
>> people with a strong
>> family resemblance. He passed away before this part of 
>> the discussion could
>> take place.
>>
>>
>>
>> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of 
>> Cultural Community
>> Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the 
>> approach referred to
>> often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an 
>> acronym for
>> cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have 
>> a tradition of
>> chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our 
>> different interests.
>>
>>
>>
>> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and 
>> an invitation to
>> people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be 
>> celebratory of
>> Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing 
>> communication.
>>
>>
>>
>> get your copy at
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current
>>
>>
>>
>> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think 
>> might be interested.
>> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting!
>>
>>
>>
>> mike
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural 
>> science with an object
>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>
> Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D.
> Professor Emeritus
> Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action 
> (APA Division 27)
>
> University of Hawai‘i
> Department of Psychology
> 2530 Dole Street
> Honolulu, HI 96822
>
>
>