[Xmca-l] Re: Communication, Co-generalization, and Crises

[Huw Lloyd]

I have deeper disagreements with respect to the role of
language/codification, but for the sake of the interest around
generalisation I offer this elaboration: the mediating aspect of "inter" is
the agreed/established structures of activity, such as legitimate moves
within a game.  The skill at making a move has a different basis to this.
Both novice and advanced chess players can agree upon legitimate moves, but
what they actually do is liable to be very different.

Best,
Huw

On 9 November 2016 at 20:22, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike puts his finger on the very spot. I said:
>
> "Another way to put it would be to say that “generalization” is
> really "inter-generalization”, because it is between the child and the
> environment, and “interaction” is really “intra-generalization”—within the
> child."
>
> This needs to be EXACTLY the other way around: "generalization" is really
> intra-generalization, because it is within the child. It's the way the
> infant, for example, decides that "mama" is not just a sound that coincides
> with the appearance of the mother's face or the way that the toddler
> decides that similar objects can have the same name and similar actions
> have the same name too, and the way that pre-schoolers realize that you can
> name things that don't even exist, and the way that the school age child
> decides that things like "growth" and "school" do not really exist, but
> then again they do, not because we name them but because we do them and
> then we name them.
>
> And of course "interaction" is really "inter-generalization", because it is
> between the child and the environment. It's the way that the child and the
> environment come to an agreement about what to call things.
>
> Here's a wonderful example. A Korean mother is taking her two children to
> the doctor, and she talks to them one by one as the other is being seen by
> the doctor. She is a member of our Vygotsky group, so she is trying to
> replicate a little experiment that Vygotsky and Piaget performed with their
> own children...playing a game where you call dogs "cows" and cows "dogs".
>
> One of her kids is in the "Crisis at Three" (the crisis of 'negativism').
> We will call her Number 3. And the other is in the "Crisis at Seven" (the
> crisis of affectation, posing, clowning and pretension--the crisis of lying
> and imaginary friends). As you'll see, it makes a difference!
>
>
> Mom : Number Three...do you know what your name is? What do we call you?
>
> Three:  Number Three.
>
> Mom : Number Three? Number Three? Well, suppose I decide to call you Number
> Seven. How is that?
>
> Three: You can't.
>
> Mom: I can't? Then I'll call Number Seven Number Three. How's that? No
> good?
>
> Three: No good.
>
> Mom : Why is it no good?
>
> Three : You can't switch names like that.
>
> Mom : I can't switch names?
>
> Three: No.
>
> Mom : So what's your name?
>
> Three : Number Three.
>
> Mom : It's not Number Seven? Suppose I call you "Princess" from now on?
>
> Three : No.
>
> Mom : No good? Why not?
>
> Three : Just because.
>
> Now Number Seven comes out of the doctor's office, and it's Number Three's
> turn. So Mommy turns to Number Seven.
>
> Mom : Seven! Do you know what your name is?
>
> Seven : Number Seven.
>
> Mom : Really? Number Seven, suppose I gave your name to Number Three. Is
> that okay or not? Then I give Number Three's name to you. How's that?
>
> Seven. Uh. OK.
>
> Mom : So, you are Number Three, and Number Three is Number Seven--right?
>
> Seven (grinning) : Good.
>
> Mom : Good? Is it right? Is it proper?
>
> Seven : Right!
>
> Mom : Oh, really. Say...Number Three...
>
> Seven : (laughs)
>
> Mom : (laughs) Do you know what your mother's name is?
>
> Siwon :.. Daddy.
> I think you can see that the children are at very different stages of
> development. But one way to look at is that they have very different
> co-generalizations about names, and that both causes and is caused by very
> different experiences with interactions--the pre-schooler has many more
> years of interactions with imaginary characters!
>
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
>
> >
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You might link that up with my remarks about Wertsch's "implicit
> > mediation", Larry, in the comparisons paper.
> >
> > Best,
> > Huw
> >
> > On 9 November 2016 at 17:56, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > One further trace from Ruqaiya. What I posted previously is on page 9
> of
> > > her article. Further down this page Ruquaia is  focusing on (mental
> > > dispositions).
> > >
> > > In her words:  The Vygotsky literature ignores what I (Ruqaiya) have
> > > called *invisible semiotic mediation*: Mediation that occurs in
> discourse
> > > embedded in everyday ordinary activities of a subject’s life.  In this
> > way,
> > > the literature on semiotic mediation ignores the genesis of mental
> > > (dispositions), the social subjects’ culturally learned *sense* of
> *what
> > > matters in life*. And yet there is every reason to suppose that these
> > > mental (attitudes) are critical in the success of otherwise *visible*
> > > semiotic mediation, which is active in the genesis of *so called*
> higher
> > > mental functions.
> > >
> > > This draws our attention to two dimensions of semiotic mediation
> > > (invisible and visible) and a third aspect which is the relation
> occuring
> > > within the intertwining of the (invisible and visible)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> > >
> > > From: lpscholar2@gmail.com
> > > Sent: November 9, 2016 7:59 AM
> > > To: Rod Parker-Rees; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Communication, Co-generalization, and Crises
> > >
> > > Rod, Mike, David,
> > > I know i am now in over my head, trying to follow this nuanced and
> > complex
> > > conversation through communication, co-generalization and crises.
> > > I have been reading Vygotsky’s last lecture on school age in
> > > conconjunction with Ruquiya’s paper (semiotic mediation language and
> > > society: Three exotripic theories – Vygotsky, halliday, Bernstein).
> > >
> > > To read both papers in a zig-gap-zag back and forth immersion in this
> > > topic or theme (textual theme)
> > >
> > > Here is Ruqaiya  as she enters our conversation on this emerging topic
> of
> > > communication, co-generlization and what she refers to as the
> > *experiential
> > > or representational* aspect of semiotic mediation.
> > >
> > > RUQUIYA:  a second contradiction in Vygotsky’s theory is that his views
> > on
> > > language as system posits the history of the development of linguistic
> > > meaning is social BUT meaning itself is representational/experiential.
> > > He wishes to stress the sociogenesis of higher mental functions, but
> the
> > > only meanings he finds of interest are the meanings that do NOT
> DIRECTLY
> > > relate to interpersonal relations.
> > >
> > > My turn is up, but i do recommend reading both David Kellogg’s
> > translation
> > > of Vygotsky’s last lecture in con/junction with Ruqaiya’s paper. This
> way
> > > of reading each paper through the other may allow Baritones to
> foreground
> > > soprano voices within the exploration of semiotic mediation.
> > >
> > > PS Ruquia briefly mentions gesturing as a semiotic modality or means of
> > > co-generating meaning but my turn is up.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> > >
> > > From: Rod Parker-Rees
> > > Sent: November 9, 2016 5:32 AM
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Communication, Co-generalization, and Crises
> > >
> > > This raises questions for me about how we understand the word
> 'concept'.
> > >
> > > This can be understood as referring to things that go together but
> really
> > > things that are taken together - the 'con' seems to do double work,
> both
> > > the togetherness of the things which are taken together and the
> > > togetherness of the cultural agreement to take these things AS going
> > > together. So concepts, as we usually use the term, are
> co-generalizations
> > > or conconcepts? Things which we (together) agree to think of as going
> > > together.
> > >
> > > It is easy to miss the sociocultural 'agreement' aspects, as it is in
> > > 'understanding', which no longer resonates with a sense of joining in
> > with
> > > (or standing among) others.
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > Rod
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
> > > Sent: 09 November 2016 05:40
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Communication, Co-generalization, and Crises
> > >
> > > These are interesting ideas, David. I will respond and ask questions in
> > > italics between paragraphs because the overall note seems to contain
> some
> > > sub-themes worth comment on their own.
> > >
> > > ​​
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:55 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >  Huw:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think in general we tend to overstate the differences between
> > > > Vygotsky's thinking in different periods, because we notice that he
> > > > changes his wordings and we assume that means he has changed his
> mind.
> > > > We forget that Vygotsky steals most of his words from other people
> > > > ("egocentric speech", "pseudoconcept", "mediation", "neoformation",
> > > > etc.) and then works them into his own system of concepts, and it's
> > > > the system of concepts that is really new, not the words.
> > > >
> > > > ​*I agree,but its hard to keep the chronology straight and a lot of
> > > > his
> > > ideas come from Western Europe/US sources*​. *The translations of terms
> > > across systems cannot help but be a distorted lens which use of common
> > > terms hides from us. Unwitting players in the pseudoconcept game.* ​
> > >
> > > > So for example Yasnitsky and Van der Veer claim that Vygotsky gave up
> > > > instrumentalism, abandoned the distinction between higher and lower
> > > > psychological functions, and tried to become a Gestaltist, and
> failed.
> > > > None of this is true, as far as I can tell. The final lectures--right
> > > > up to the one I sent around--have a central role for word meanings,
> > > > maintain that the higher psychological functions are specifically
> > > > human and the main expanadum, and include some pretty harsh
> criticisms
> > > > of the Gestaltists, who were by then showing distinctly Nazi
> > tendencies.
> > > >
> > > > ​*The stages of instrumentalism, functional systems, to
> "perezhivanie"
> > > > (transactionalism?) have always seemed to me a clear case where
> > > > earlier stages are sublated. He was critical of Gestaltists for their
> > > > reductions to biology and the fascism associated with it, but the
> > > > problem of the whole in relations to parts and the centrality of
> > > > structuration seems to remain. How else could one step in instruction
> > > > create two steps in development?* ​
> > > >
> > >
> > > ​
> > > >
> > > > But it is certainly true that the words change, and some of the words
> > > > that have caused the most trouble--interestingly enough--disappear.
> > > > For example, Vygotsky stops using the word "reaction", he no longer
> > > > talks about "vrashevaniye" or "introvolution", and he only uses the
> > word
> > > "internalize"
> > > > once, when he is talking about a whole system of concepts (not when
> he
> > > > is talking about reactions). So the question arises--what takes its
> > > place?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's what we put in the "Thinking at School Age" chapter that I
> sent
> > > > around. Criticisms from Russophones?
> > > >
> > > > ​*The issues raised here seem really central to understand, but I am
> > > > not sure I fully understood them all.*​
> > > >
> > > > Vygotsky contrasts обобщения (“generalization”) and общения
> > > > (“communication”, “contact”, “interaction”). But if we translate
> these
> > > > terms as “generalization” and “communication” respectively, we
> obscure
> > > > the fact that they have the same root: “commonality” or “sharing”.
> > > >
> > > > *​OK, got it, the unity of generalization and communication, in
> > > > russian, have the same root as "common-ness (обще​-ness)​."​ But I
> > > > have trouble getting from there to "meta-communication." Maybe my
> > > > denseness.*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > ​
> > > > ​In Russian, об is a preposition, meaning “about” or “of”, so we
> might
> > >
> > > render this contrast as “about-communication” or “meta-communication”
> vs.
> > > > “communication”. But this would allow the sociological, interpersonal
> > > > side of Vygotsky’s meaning to eclipse the psychological,
> intra-personal
> > > side.
> > > >
> > > > ​*Why and when do we have to allow such eclipsing given the
> > > > theoretical formulation above? Missed that.*
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > ​
> > > >
> > > > Another way to put it would be to say that “generalization” is really
> > > > “inter-generalization”, because it is between the child and the
> > > > environment, and “interaction” is really
> “intra-generalization”—within
> > > > the child.
> > >
> > >
> > > *​I find that very difficult to follow but the next sentence reads
> > > correctly to me... although I am not sure what 'the child derives"
> > means.* ​
> > >
> > >
> > > > The child derives intra-mental generalizations through a process of
> > > > inter-personal communications, by interaction using shared word
> values
> > > > within a speech community. This “community generalization” or “common
> > > > generalization” or “co-generalization” for short is what is enabled
> by
> > > > word meanings shared within the speech community. These meanings the
> > > > child at first only partially shares.
> > > >
> > >
> > > *Does the community generalization- to common generalization, to
> > > co-generation end correspond to the extreme, externalize form of sense?
> > So
> > > these are different ways of expressing the conventionality/historical
> > > nature of word meaning?​*
> > >
> > > ​*Seems to me that not only the child at first, but the human of any
> age
> > > for ever after only partially share the conventional/valued word
> meanings
> > > of the society that mediate everyday experience (to use some borrowed
> > > words!) of one's same of the species' delights.​*
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This word обобщения usually translated as “generalization”. Because
> > > > this turns out to be a very important point in this particular
> lecture
> > > > and in the lectures that follow, we will take the liberty of
> > > > translating as “co-generalization”. A “co-generalization” is a
> > > > generalization about generalizations made by the child through
> > > > construing the shared generalizations of word values in a speech
> > > community.
> > > >
> > >
> > > *​This seems the biggy to pull of. What, in truth, do russianophiles
> have
> > > to say about it?*
> > >
> > > mike​
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David Kellogg
> > > >
> > > > Macquarie University
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Huw Lloyd <
> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Where does 'co-generalization' come from, David? Perhaps a good
> > > > > carry
> > > > over
> > > > > from your consideration of political milieu is the factor of
> tension
> > > > > in
> > > > > development: tension to foster attention, a socialised 'will' if
> you
> > > > like.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Huw
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7 November 2016 at 21:16, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, of course, Peg is really right--or at least half right.
> That
> > > > > > is,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > American elections are not just a plebiscite on sexual assault,
> > > > > > and
> > > > using
> > > > > > the term "sexual predator" reduces the whole thing to the kind of
> > > > > > "tu quoques" argumentation which makes up the whole of the
> > > > > > Republican
> > > > > case
> > > > > > these days. Actually, for the first time in my memory, the
> > > > > > American elections are about real issues that actually touch the
> > > > > > lives of
> > > > ordinary
> > > > > > people, namely sexism, racism, and the impunity conferred by real
> > > > > > fame
> > > > > and
> > > > > > largely imaginary wealth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I would like to know that the other half is also right: that
> > > > > > is,
> > > > that
> > > > > > xmca's normal concerns with mind, culture, and activity do not
> > > > > > require radio silence in times of crisis. Let me talk about
> > > > > > another crisis and
> > > > > see.
> > > > > > Unlike the USA, South Korea has had, since 1949, six different
> > > > > > constitutions. Until very recently (1997) the peaceful transfer
> of
> > > > power
> > > > > > was the exception and not the rule: governments changed if and
> > > > > > only if people took matters into their own hands, either through
> > > > > > mass demonstrations or violent military coups or both (the one
> > > > > > apparent exception was when the current president's father, Bak
> > > > > > Jeonghi, was
> > > > > forced
> > > > > > to call an election by the Nixon administration: on the verge of
> > > > > > losing
> > > > > to
> > > > > > Kim Daejeong, he peacefully overthrew himself instead).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, Vygotsky also describes development in terms of six crises
> > > > > > (Birth, One, Three, Seven, Thirteen and Seventeen) and five more
> > > > > > or less stable periods of equilibrium (Infancy, Early Childhood,
> > > > > > Preschool, School
> > > > Age,
> > > > > > Adolescence). In fact, the Zoped (assuming that "ped" means
> > > > > > pedological
> > > > > and
> > > > > > not pedagogical) really refers to the functions that belong to
> the
> > > > > > NEXT zone of development and not the actual one: if a child can
> > > > > > simply take
> > > > > over
> > > > > > functions from the environment and make them his or her own, then
> > > > almost
> > > > > by
> > > > > > definition they are functions that belong to the zone of actual,
> > > > > > and
> > > > not
> > > > > > the zone of proximal, development. That means that for every
> > > > > > stable
> > > > > period,
> > > > > > the Zoped is going to be a crisis (and of course that, along with
> > > > > > prolepsis, accounts for the unpredictability of the Zoped which
> > > > > > Peg
> > > > > noted).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Korean crises not when people are overexploited and ruthlessly
> > > > > suppressed;
> > > > > > that is a much better description of the stable periods in Korean
> > > > > history.
> > > > > > Crises happen just when people become superproductive and try to
> > > > > > self-emancipate. I think crises of development in the child also
> > > > > > happen
> > > > > the
> > > > > > same way: that is, during normal periods, the environment is
> > > > > communicating
> > > > > > with the child and the child is taking over co-generalizations by
> > > > > > restructuring them to fit the child's extant psychological
> system.
> > > > > > But Vygotsky says that there are moments when this cannot happen,
> > > > > > because
> > > > the
> > > > > > psychological system itself must be restructured: the central
> > > > > neoformation
> > > > > > dissolves the social situation of development.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > During normal times, the environment is the source of development
> > > > > > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > child's personality is only the site of development: but during
> > > > > > these
> > > > > crazy
> > > > > > crises (the crisis of "autonomous speech", the crisis of the
> > > > negativistic
> > > > > > "proto will", the crisis of the affected, manneristic, clownish
> > > > > > "proto-self"), it is almost as if the child, superproductive and
> > > > active,
> > > > > > wants to "turn the tables", transforming the personality into the
> > > > source
> > > > > of
> > > > > > development and adapting the environment to it instead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One of the most puzzling things in Vygotsky's last lectures is
> the
> > > > > Central
> > > > > > Line of Development. On the one hand, these are always forms of
> > > > > > "communication" and "co-generalization". And on the other,
> because
> > > > > each
> > > > > > Neoformation is entirely new, what is Central in one period is
> > > > Peripheral
> > > > > > in the next: perception, for example, is the maximally developing
> > > > > function
> > > > > > in Infancy, but memory is the leading function in Preschool.
> > > > > > Speech is
> > > > a
> > > > > > Central Line of Development in early childhood but Thinking in
> > > > > > School
> > > > > Age.
> > > > > > How can BOTH of these things be true?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems to me that both of them are true.Communication
> represents
> > > > > contact
> > > > > > with the social environment, and this is always foregrounded
> > > > > > during
> > > > > stable
> > > > > > periods and backgrounded during crises. Co-generalization
> > > > > > represents
> > > > what
> > > > > > we use to call "internalization", and this is foregrounded during
> > > > crises
> > > > > > and backgrounded during stable periods. In addition, the content
> > > > > > of the communication and co-generalization changes as the child
> > > > > > develops, from doing things in Infancy, to saying things in Early
> > > > > > Childhood, to
> > > > feeling
> > > > > in
> > > > > > Preschool, and to thinking in School Age. When co-generalization
> > > > becomes
> > > > > > super-productive, we get conscious awareness, and  with
> awareness,
> > > > > crisis.
> > > > > > With crises, worlds change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David Kellogg
> > > > > > Macquarie University
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http:
> > > //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> > >
> > > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely
> for
> > > the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
> > > intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
> > > information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on
> > it.
> > > If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> > > immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
> > > necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
> accepts
> > > no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan
> > emails
> > > and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
> responsibility
> > > for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
> > > attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless
> accompanied
> > > by an official order form.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>