[Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started

[HENRY SHONERD]

David,
I was puzzled that you found Langacker to be relevant to this topic, but the last paragraph of your post makes an important connection between Langacker and Vygotsky: Both see speech acts as staged…interactants view themselves as “on stage”. I think the book by Vera and Reuben is largely about how differently math is “staged” by working mathematicians as contrasted with doing math in school. I think it would be interesting to analyze how natural language and the language of math scaffold each other in both contexts. Word problems have been a well-used way of connecting the two languages; stats and graphs are commonly used in the media to clarify and elaborate text in articles on economics, presidential elections, and what not. 

I would love to read your “unpublishable” on Langacker and Halliday on tense. What I recall from reading Langacker is his interest in “basic domains”, starting with the temporal and spatial. Somewhere he has said that he believes that the temporal domain is the more basic. As you’d guess, the spatial domain is especially useful in elucidating what he calls “things” (nouns are conceptually about things); the temporal domain is more closely connected to what he calls “processes” wherein he analyzes tense and aspect.  

I think Langacker would agree that his work in cognitive grammar has a long way to go in contributing to the idea that grammar is usage based, rather than some autonomous module, but he is working on it. I think there is a potential for connecting Halliday and Langacker, though I’m not smart enough to convince you of that evidently. Somehow the connection must be made by staying close to the data, “thick description” ethnographers are fond of saying. I think the article by Carrie and Margaret is raising this issue. 

The “hollowed out” math curriculum in the article resonates with the “potholes” you say teachers must watch out for. Some may say that  the hollowing out is typical even of “elite” K-12 schools. Some may say that this is deliberate. I would say my own experience of math in school was often hollowed out, which I sensed, but didn’t discover until I got to the “pure math” department in the mid 60s at Univ of Texas at Austin under the leadership of Robert Lee Moore. He is a main protagonist in Chapter 8 of Vera’s and Reuben’s book. 

I’ll end it there.

Henry



  
> On Nov 15, 2016, at 1:38 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Henry:
> 
> I just wrote another unpublishable comparing how Langacker and
> Halliday treat tense, and I'm starting to come to grips with the different
> theory of experience underlying the two grammars. Langacker somehow sees it
> as creating empty mental space (and aspect as creating space within space).
> Halliday sees tense as a way of abstracting concrete doings and happenings.
> Halliday's tense system is not spatial at all but temporal: it's temporally
> deictic and then temporally recursive: a kind of time machine that
> simultaneously transports and orients the speaker either proleptically or
> retroleptically. So for example if I say to you that this article we are
> discussing is going to have been being discussed for two or three weeks
> now, then "is going" is a kind of time machine that takes you into the
> future, from which "You are Here" vantage point the article has been (past)
> being discussed (present). Present in the past in the future.
> 
> And that got me thinking about theory and practice. It seems to me that the
> they are related, but simultaneously and not sequentially. That is, the
> output of one is not the input of the other: they are simply more and less
> abstract ways of looking at one and the same thing. So for example in this
> article the tasks of theory and practice are one and the same: the task of
> theory is really to define as precisely as possible the domain, the scope,
> the range of the inquiry into authoring math and science identities and the
> task of practice is to ask what exactly you want to do in this
> domain/scope/range--to try to understand how they are hollowed out a little
> better so that maybe teachers like you and me can help fill the damn
> potholes in a little. You can't really do the one without doing the other:
> trying to decide the terrain under study without deciding some task that
> you want to do there is like imagining tense as empty mental space and not
> as some actual, concrete doing or happening. Conversely, the way you dig
> the hole depends very much on how big and where you want it.
> 
> So there are three kinds of mental spaces in the first part of the article:
> 
> a) institutional arrangements (e.g. "priority improvement plans",
> career-academy/comprehensive school status STEM tracks, AP classes)
> b) figured worlds (e.g. 'good students', and 'don't cares', or what Eckhart
> and McConnell-Ginet called 'jocks', 'nerds',  'burnouts', 'gangbangers')
> c) authored identities (i.e. what kids say about themselves and what they
> think about themselves)
> 
> Now, I think it's possible to make this distinction--but they are probably
> better understood not as mental spaces (in which case they really do
> overlap) but rather as doings (or, as is my wont, sayings). Different
> people are saying different things: a) is mostly the sayings of the school
> boards and administrators, b) is mostly the sayings of teachers and groups
> of kids, and c) is mostly the sayings of individual students. It's always
> tempting for a theory to focus on c), because that's where all the data is
> and it's tempting for practice too, because if you are against what is
> happening in a) and in b), that's where the most likely point of
> intervention is.
> 
> "But the data does suggest that the "figured worlds" are figured by
> authored identities--not by institutional arrangements. Is that just an
> artefact of the warm empathy of the authors for the words (although maybe
> not the exact wordings) of their subjects, or is it real grounds for hope?
> 
> Marx says (beginning of the 18th Brumaire): "*Men make* their own *history*,
> *but they* do *not make* it as *they* please; *they* do *not make* it
> under self-selected circumstances, *but* under circumstances existing
> already, given and transmitted from the *past*. The tradition of all dead
> generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."
> 
> It's a good theory, i.e. at once a truth and a tragedy. And it's a
> theory treats time as time and not as an empty stage.
> 
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:39 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> I have read only part of Margaret’s and Carrie’s article, but I wanted to
>> jump in with a reference to a book by Vygotskian Vera John-Steiner and her
>> mathematician husband Reuben Hersh: Loving and Hating Mathematics:
>> Challenging the Mathematical Life. Huw’s point (v) which refers to
>> “identities of independence and finding out sustainable within these
>> settings (school math classes) spent high school. Vera’s and Reuben’s book
>> contrasts what it’s like to work and think like a real (working)
>> mathematician (what I think Huw is talking about) and what we call
>> mathematics in the classroom. Chapter 8 of the book "The Teaching of
>> Mathematics: Fierce or Friendly?” is interesting reading and could be
>> relevant to this discussion.
>> Henry
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 13, 2016, at 2:47 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Margaret
>>> 
>>> My reading has not been a particularly careful one, so I leave it to
>>> yourselves to judge the usefulness of these points.
>>> 
>>> i) Whether arguments can be made (for or against) a nebulous term
>>> (neoliberalism) with its political associations, by arguments about
>>> identity that are themselves not deliberately political.
>>> 
>>> ii) Whether it is better not to focus essentially on the place of
>> identity.
>>> 
>>> iii) Whether it is worthwhile contrasting the role/identity of "model
>>> student" with "identities" that anyone excelling at STEM subjects would
>>> relate to.  On this, I would point to the importance with identifying
>> with
>>> appreciations for "awareness of not knowing" and "eagerness to find out"
>>> (which also entails learning about what it means to know).
>>> 
>>> iv) Whether you detect that to the degree that an identity is
>> foregrounded
>>> in the actual practice of STEM work (rather than as background social
>>> appeasement), it is being faked? That is, someone is playing at the role
>>> rather than actually committing themselves to finding out about unknowns.
>>> 
>>> v) Whether, in fact, there is actually a "tiered" or varied set of
>>> acceptable "identities" within the settings you explored, such that
>>> identities of independence and finding out are sustainable within these
>>> settings, possibly representing a necessary fudge to deal with the
>>> requirements placed upon the institutions.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Huw
>>> 
>>> On 12 November 2016 at 20:30, Margaret A Eisenhart <
>>> margaret.eisenhart@colorado.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>> 
>>>> Carrie and I are newcomers to this list, and we thank you for the
>>>> opportunity to engage with you about our article, “Hollowed Out.”  We
>> also
>>>> hope for your patience as we learn to participate in the stream of
>>>> thinking here!
>>>> 
>>>> Given the comments so far, we are intrigued by others’ ideas about the
>>>> link between our theory and our data.  On this topic, we would like to
>>>> make clear that we did not intend to suggest that the students were
>> making
>>>> sense of their lives in the same way that we interpreted them through
>> the
>>>> lens of our theory. Our claim is that opportunities and figured worlds
>> are
>>>> resources for identity and that the students' words to us reflected
>>>> perspectives consistent with neoliberalism, with some pretty serious
>>>> implications. Like Phillip White, we are interested in what theories
>>>> others would use to explain the data we presented.
>>>> 
>>>> Like Mike Cole, we are also intrigued by the prospect of “exemplars” we
>>>> might turn to.
>>>> 
>>>> We look forward to hearing your thoughts.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Margaret Eisenhart
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 11/11/16, 11:35 AM, "lpscholar2@gmail.com" <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> A resumption in exploring the meaning and sense (preferably sens as
>> this
>>>>> term draws attention to movement and direction within meaning and
>> sense)
>>>>> of this month’s article.
>>>>> The paper begins with the title and the image of (hollowed-out) meaning
>>>>> and sense that is impoverished and holds few resources for developing a
>>>>> deeper sens of identity.
>>>>> The article concludes with the implication that the work of social
>>>>> justice within educational institutions is not about improving
>>>>> educational outcome in neoliberal terms; the implications of the study
>>>>> are about *reorganizing* the identities – particulary
>>>>> identities-with-standind that young people are *exposed* to, can
>>>>> articulate, and can act on (in school and beyond).
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would say this is taking an ethical stand?.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I will now turn to page 189 and the section (identity-in-context) to
>>>>> amplify the notion of (cultural imaginary) and (figured worlds).
>>>>> This imaginary being the site or location of history-in-person. That is
>>>>> identity is a form of legacy (or *text*) ABOUT the kind of person one
>> is
>>>>> or has become in responding to (external) circumstances.
>>>>> These external circumstances are EXPERIENCED primarily in the
>>>>> organization of local practices and cultural imaginaries (figured
>> worlds)
>>>>> that circulate and *give meaning* (and sens) to local practices
>>>>> 
>>>>> Figured worlds are interpreted following Holland as socially and
>>>>> culturally *realms of interpretation* and certain players are
>> recognized
>>>>> as (exemplars).
>>>>> 
>>>>> As such cultural, social, historical, dialogical psychological
>>>>> (imaginaries) are handmaidens of the imaginal *giving meaning* to
>> *what*
>>>>> goes on in the directions we take together.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Two key terms i highlight are (exemplars) and (direction) we take.
>>>>> The realm of the ethical turn
>>>>> What are the markers and signposts emerging in the deeper ethical turn
>>>>> that offers more than a hollowed-out answer.
>>>>> Are there any *ghost* stories of exemplars we can turn to as well as
>>>>> living exemplars? By ghosts i mean ancestors who continue as beacons of
>>>>> hope exemplifying *who* we are.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My way into exploring the impoverished narratives of the neoliberal
>>>>> imaginary and reawakening exemplary ancestors or ghosts from their
>>>>> slumber to help guide us through these multiple imaginaries
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: mike cole
>>>>> Sent: November 9, 2016 3:04 PM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alfredo--
>>>>> 
>>>>> for any who missed the initial article sent out, you might send them
>>>>> here:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am meeting shortly with Bruce. A list of improvements to web site
>>>>> welcome, although not clear how long they will take to implement.
>>>>> 
>>>>> mike
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> last week I announced MCA's 3rd Issue article for discussion:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Hollowed Out: Meaning and Authoring of High School Math and Science
>>>>>> Identities in the Context of Neoliberal Reform," by Margaret Eisenhart
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Carrie Allen.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The article is open access and will continue to be so during the
>>>>>> discussion time at this link.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks to everyone who begun the discussion early after I shared the
>>>>>> link
>>>>>> last week, and sorry that we sort of brought the discussion to a halt
>>>>>> until
>>>>>> the authors were ready to discuss. I have now sent Margaret and Carrie
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> posts that were produced then so that they could catch up, but I also
>>>>>> invited them to feel free to move on an introduce themselves as soon
>> as
>>>>>> they ​​wanted.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is not without some doubts that one introduces a discussion of an
>>>>>> article in a moment that some US media have called as "An American
>>>>>> Tragedy"
>>>>>> and other international editorials are describing as "a dark day for
>> the
>>>>>> world." But I believe that the paper may indeed offer some grounds for
>>>>>> discuss important issues that are at stake in everyone's home now, as
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>> recently describes in a touching post on the "local state of mind" and
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> have to do with identity and its connection to a neoliberal
>>>>>> organisation of
>>>>>> the economy. It is not difficult to link neoliberalism to Trump's
>>>>>> phenomenon and how it pervades very intimate aspects of everyday life.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If this was not enough, I think the authors' background on women's
>>>>>> scholar
>>>>>> and professional careers in science is totally relevant to the
>>>>>> discussions
>>>>>> on gendered discourse we've been having. Now without halts, I hope
>> this
>>>>>> thread gives joys and wisdom to all.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
>> edu>
>>>>>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>>>>> Sent: 02 November 2016 01:48
>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks Mike and everyone! I am sure Margaret (and many of those still
>>>>>> reading) will be happy to be able to catch up when she joins us next
>>>>>> week!
>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
>> edu>
>>>>>> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> Sent: 02 November 2016 01:32
>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Gentlemen -- I believe Fernando told us that Margaret would be
>>>>>> able to join this discussion next week. Just a quick glance at the
>>>>>> discussion so far indicates that there is a lot there to wade into
>>>>>> before she has had a word.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am only part way through the article, expecting to have until next
>>>>>> week
>>>>>> to think about it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> May I suggest your forbearance while this slow-poke tries to catch up!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:38 PM, White, Phillip
>>>>>> <Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> David & Larry, everyone else ...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> by way of introduction, Margaret and Carrie point out that the data
>> in
>>>>>>> this paper emerged through a three year study - which was the
>>>>>> processes
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> how students of color, interested in STEM, responded to the
>> externally
>>>>>>> imposed neoliberal requirements. they framed their study using
>>>>>> theories
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> social practices on how identity developed in context.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> David, you reject the theories.  or so i understand your position. as
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> write: It's that the theory
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> contradicts my own personal theories.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> are you also rejecting the data as well?  it seems as if you are
>>>>>>> suggesting this when you write: The authors find this point (in the
>>>>>> case
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> Lorena) somewhere between the
>>>>>>> beginning of the tenth and the end of the eleventh grade, but I think
>>>>>>> that's just because it's where they are looking.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> you reject the narrative of Lorena on the grounds that it could be
>>>>>> traced
>>>>>>> back to infancy.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> do you also reject the identical narrative found in the adult
>>>>>>> practitioners within the context of the high schools?  that this
>>>>>> narrative
>>>>>>> is not one of a contemporary neoliberal practice but rather could be
>>>>>> traced
>>>>>>> back to, say, the mid 1600's new england colonies, in particular
>>>>>>> massachusettes, where the practices of public american education
>>>>>> began?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> to explain the data that emerged from the Eisenhart/Allen study, what
>>>>>>> theories would you have used?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> phillip
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>> on behalf of lpscholar2@gmail.com <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 7:03 AM
>>>>>>> To: David Kellogg; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Margaret and Carrie,
>>>>>>> Thank you for this wonderful paper that explains the shallow
>>>>>>> *hollowed-out* way of forming identity as a form of meaning and
>>>>>> sense. I
>>>>>>> will add the French word *sens* which always includes *direction*
>>>>>> within
>>>>>>> meaning and sense.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> David, your response that what our theory makes sens of depends on
>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> we are looking makes sens to me.
>>>>>>> You put in question the moment when the interpersonal (you and me)
>>>>>> way of
>>>>>>> authoring sens *shifts* or turns to cultural and historical ways of
>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> immersed in sens. The article refers to the *historical-in-person*.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My further comment, where I am looking) is in the description of the
>>>>>>> sociocultural as a response to *externally changing circumstances*
>> as
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> process of *learning as becoming* (see page 190).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The article says:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This process is what Lave and Wenger (1991) and other Sociocultural
>>>>>>> researchers have referred to as *learning as becoming,* that is,
>>>>>> learning
>>>>>>> that occurs as one becomes a certain kind of person in a particular
>>>>>>> context.  Identities conceived in this way are not stable or fixed.
>> As
>>>>>>> *external circumstances* affecting a person change, so too may the
>>>>>>> identities that are produced *in response*. (Holland & Skinner,
>> 1997).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In this version of *history-in-person* the identity processes that
>>>>>> start
>>>>>>> the process moving in a neoliberal *direction* are *external*
>>>>>>> circumstances. I am not questioning this version of the importance of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> external but do question if looking primarily or primordially to the
>>>>>>> external circumstances as central if we are not leaving a gap in our
>>>>>>> notions of *sens*.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If by looking or highlighting or illuminating the *external* and
>>>>>> highly
>>>>>>> visible acts of the actual we are leaving a gap in actual*ity.
>>>>>>> A gap in *sens*.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To be continued by others...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: David Kellogg
>>>>>>> Sent: October 31, 2016 2:15 PM
>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I was turning Mike's request--for a short explanation of the
>>>>>>> Halliday/Vygotsky interface--over in my mind for a few days, unsure
>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> to start. I usually decide these difficult "where to start" questions
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the easiest possible way, with whatever I happen to be working on. In
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> case it's the origins of language in a one year old, a moment which
>> is
>>>>>>> almost as mysterious to me as the origins of life or the Big Bang.
>> But
>>>>>>> perhaps for that very reason it's not a good place to start (the Big
>>>>>> Bang
>>>>>>> always seemed to me to jump the gun a bit, not to mention the origins
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> life).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Let me start with the "Hollowed Out" paper Alfredo just thoughtfully
>>>>>> sent
>>>>>>> around instead. My first impression is that this paper leaves a
>> really
>>>>>> big
>>>>>>> gap between the data and the conclusions, and that this gap is
>> largely
>>>>>>> filled by theory. Here are some examples of what I mean:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> a)    "Whereas 'subject position' is given by society, 'identity' is
>>>>>>> self-authored, although it must be recognized by others to be
>>>>>> sustained."
>>>>>>> (p. 189)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> b)  "It is notable that this construction of a good student, though
>>>>>>> familiar, does not make any reference to personal interest,
>>>>>> excitement,
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> engagement in the topics or content-related activities." (193)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> c)  "When students' statements such as 'I get it', 'I'm confident',
>>>>>> 'I'm
>>>>>>> good at this', and  'I can pull this off' are interpreted in the
>>>>>> context
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the figured world of math or science at the two schools, their
>>>>>> statements
>>>>>>> index more than a grade. They reference a meaning system for being
>>>>>> good
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> math or science that includes the actor identity characteristics of
>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> able to grasp the subject matter easily, do the work quickly, do it
>>>>>> without
>>>>>>> help from others, do it faster than others, and get an A." (193)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In each case, we are told to believe in a theory: "given by society",
>>>>>>> "self-authored", "does not make any reference", "the context of the
>>>>>> figured
>>>>>>> world". It's not just that in each case the theory seems to go
>> against
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> data (although it certainly does in places, such as Lowena's views as
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> tenth grader). I can always live with a theory that contradicts my
>>>>>> data:
>>>>>>> that's what being a rationalist is all about. It's that the theory
>>>>>>> contradicts my own personal theories.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't believe that identity is self authored, and I also don't
>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>> that subject position is given by society as a whole, I think the
>> word
>>>>>>> "good" does include personal interest, excitement, and engagement as
>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> as it includes being able to grasp the subject matter easily, do the
>>>>>> work
>>>>>>> quickly, do it without help from others, do it faster than others and
>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> an A. To me anyway, the key word in the data given in c) is actually
>>>>>> "I"
>>>>>>> and not "it" or "this": the students think they are talking about,
>> and
>>>>>>> therefore probably are actually talking about, a relation between
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> inner states and the activity at hand  or between the activity at
>> hand
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> the result they get; they are not invoking the figured world of
>>>>>> neoliberal
>>>>>>> results and prospects.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But never mind my own theories. Any gap is, after all, a good
>>>>>> opportunity
>>>>>>> for theory building. The authors are raising a key issue in both
>>>>>> Vygotsky
>>>>>>> and Halliday: when does an interpersonal relation become a
>>>>>>> historico-cultural one? That is, when does that 'me" and "you"
>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>> in which I really do have the power to author my identity (I can make
>>>>>> up
>>>>>>> any name I want and, within limits, invent my own history,
>>>>>> particularly
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> I am a backpacker) give way to a job, an address, a number and a
>> class
>>>>>> over
>>>>>>> which I have very little power at all? When does the interpersonal
>>>>>> somehow
>>>>>>> become an alien ideational "identity" that confronts me like a
>> strange
>>>>>>> ghost when I look in the mirror?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The authors find this point (in the case of Lorena) somewhere between
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> beginning of the tenth and the end of the eleventh grade, but I think
>>>>>>> that's just because it's where they are looking. We can probably find
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> roots of this distinction (between the interpersonal and the
>>>>>>> historico-cultural) as far back as we like, right back to (Vygotsky)
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> moment when the child gives up the "self-authored" language at one
>> and
>>>>>>> takes on the language recognized by others and (Halliday) the moment
>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> the child distinguishes between Attributive identifying clauses ("I'm
>>>>>>> confident", "I'm good at this"), material processes ("I can pull this
>>>>>> off")
>>>>>>> and mental ones ("I get it").
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (To be continued...but not necessarily by me!)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil
>>>>>> <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dear xmca'ers,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am excited to announce the next article for discussion, which is
>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>> available open access at the T&F MCA pages<http://www.tandfonline.
>>>>>>>> com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1188962>.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> After a really interesting discussion on Zaza's colourful paper
>>>>>> (which
>>>>>>>> still goes on developed into a discussion on micro- and
>>>>>> ontogenesis),
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> will from next week be looking at an article by Margaret Eisenhart
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> Carrie Allen from the special issue on "Reimagining Science
>>>>>> Education
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the Neoliberal Global Context". I think the article, as the whole
>>>>>> issue,
>>>>>>>> offers a very neat example of research trying to tie together
>>>>>>>> cultural/economical? and developmental aspects (of identity in this
>>>>>>> case).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Margaret has kindly accepted to join the discussion ?after US
>>>>>> elections
>>>>>>>> (which will surely keep the attention of many of us busy).
>>>>>> Meanwhile, I
>>>>>>>> share the link<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039
>>>> .
>>>>>>>> 2016.1188962>  to the article (see above), and also attach it as
>>>>>> PDF.
>>>>>>>> ??Good read!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>