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

[Alfredo Jornet Gil]

What touches me of the article is something that perhaps relates to this tension that I find between David's (individualistic?) approach to prolepsis in his post (David, I thought, and continue thinking, that prolepsis refers to something that emerges in the relation between two, not something that either is present or absent within a person), and Phillip's view of young people figuring out what life is all about just as all we do. And so here (and in any neoliberal school context) we have wonderfully beautiful young people more or less interested in science or in maths, but all eager to live a life and evolve as best as they can (whatever that best may mean for each one). And then you see how the history and context that they come into gives them everything they need to develop motives and goals; to then make sure that the majority of them won't make it so that only a few privileged (or in the case of Margaret's paper none, according to the authors) succeed. And then what remains is not just a hollowed-out science and math identity, but also a hollowed-out soul that had illusion and now just doesn't. Not only a failure to provide opportunities to learners to become anything(one) good about science and math, but also a robbing of other possible paths of development that may had grown in people if they had been hanging out with some other better company. Do we have a term to refer to the opposite of a zone of proximal development? Not just the absence of it, but the strangling of it. 

Alfredo 
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of White, Phillip <Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu>
Sent: 17 November 2016 06:29
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started

David, the examples on page 193, students 1, 2 & 3 - aren't these examples of proleptic thought - especially for student 2, who looks at where she is "I have my own standards", a statement of the present, then a looking back at  what has happened, "I like to get straight A's". and then setting a target for the future, "help for like to get in college and stuff, so yeah, I participate in a lot of stuff." ending with a reassertion of present activities to attain future goals.


and there is a preponderance of the use of "I", rather than "you".


i'd give the young people for credit than a myopia focused merely on their age: the business of young people is figuring out what life is all about and how to participate, just as adults and infants and old people like me do.


i'm not convinced that your arguments are supported by the data in this Eisenhard / Allen paper.


phillip

________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 1:24:35 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started

Actually, Henry, I was attacking the idea that tense is an empty mental
space. I guess I am a little like Larry: when we discuss articles I have a
strong tendency to try to make them relevant to what I am doing rather than
to drop what I am doing and go and discuss what everybody else is
discussing. So what I am doing right now is trying to make sense of some
story-telling data where the adults are all over the map on tenses, and the
kids seem to stick to one tense only. The adults are slipping in and out of
mental spaces. The kids are telling stories.

I think the relevance to the article is this: When you look at the way the
article frames institutional practices and figured worlds, we see
prolepsis--a preoccupation with the future. But when we look at what the
kids are doing and saying it is very much in the moment. Is this simply
because mental processes like "like" and "want" tend to take simple present
(because they are less defined than material processes)? Or is it because
while the institutions have the near future firmly in view and the figured
worlds have irrealis in view, the business of young people is youth?

Vygotsky points out that the question the interviewer asks is very much a
part of the data. For example, if you ask a question using "you" you often
get "you" in reply, even if you design your question to get "I".

Q: Why do you want to kill yourself?
A: The same reason everybody wants to kill themselves. You want to find out
if anybody really cares.

To take another example that is probably more relevant to readers: both the
Brexit vote and the American elections are clear examples of statistical
unreliability in that if you tried to repeat the election the morning after
you would probably get an utterly different result. Take all of those black
voters and the real working class voters who voted Obama but couldn't be
bothered for Hillary (not the imaginary "white working class voters" who
work in imaginary industries in Iowa, rural Pennsylvania, North Carolina
and Florida). They might well have behaved rather differently knowing how
imminent the neo-Confederacy really was. This is usually presented as
"buyer's remorse," but it's more than that; the event itself would be part
of its replication. This is something that statistical models that use
standard error of the mean cannot build in (they work on the impossible
idea that you can repeat an event ten or twenty thousand times without any
memory at all).

In the same way, when you interview a group of students together you notice
that they tend to model answers on each other rather than on your question,
and when you interview them separately, you notice that YOU tend to change
your question according to the previous answer you received. On the one
hand, life is not easily distracted by its own future: it is too wholly
there in each moment of existence. On the other hand, each of these moments
includes the previous one, and therefore all the previous ones, in itself.
The past weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living, and objects in
the rear view mirror are always closer than they appear.

David Kellogg
Macquarie University



On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:23 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>