[Xmca-l] Re: Wertsch is focusing on the concept of *settings* and I wonder if the notion of *human worlds* is considered equivalent to this notion of *settings* ?

[Andy Blunden]

Larry, all notions are linked, I am sure.

The idea of "settings" is a powerful one, used not only by 
Wertsch but others such as Hedegaard. The trouble I have 
with it is that it can function to blur some important 
distinctions. Is the setting an artefact (e.g. a type of 
building and related furniture and signage, etc., for 
example marking it as a school) or is it an activity (such 
as doing schoolwork). Extending this (example) what is the 
setting on a school field trip? - the ambiguity is of course 
a real one, not just an artefact of theory - on a field 
trip, in the absence of all the physical markers of the 
classroom, kids can mistakenly behave in a way inappropriate 
to school work. On the other hand, extending the same 
(example) in the other direction, if a child is acting as a 
stand-over man in the classroom in order to extort pocket 
money from other children is this deemed to be taking place 
in a "school setting"? That is, it tends to blur the 
mediating artefact with the activity, albeit in ways which 
mirror real ambiguity. Expressions like "cultural 
[settings], institutional [settings], and historical 
[settings]" seem in turn to merge activity and tool/sign 
with context in the broadest sense. Such settings do indeed 
"provide and shape the cultural tools" insofar as they are 
deemed to imply collaborating with other people. The next 
sentence talks about "mediational means"; these are indeed 
"carriers" of patterns of activity, etc. But artefacts 
(tools and signs) are not the only mediational means. Does 
the author mean artefacts, or are theories and practices 
(such as for example would characterise a specific 
institution) also intended to be included? If so, what does 
this mean for the idea of a "setting." How does setting 
differ from frame, or context, or discourse, or activity or 
genre or field, or ...?

So there are some powerful ideas in this mixture, but the 
blurring going on disturbs me.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making 

On 21/08/2017 2:02 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
> On page 204 of the Wertsch article : “The Primacy of Mediated Action in Sociocultural Studies”  is the notion of broadening the concept of *Settings*  On page 204 is this paragraph:
>
> “Vygotsky’s analysis of mediation is central to understanding his contribution to psychology. Indeed, it is the key in his approach to understanding how human mental functioning is tied to cultural [settings], institutional [settings], and historical [settings] since these settings shape and provide the cultural tools that are mastered by individuals to form this functioning.  In this approach the mediational means are what might be termed the *carriers* of sociocultural patterns and knowledge.”
>
> I notice that other traditions posit the notion of {worlds] that come into existence with human approaches to [worlds].
>
> Is it ok to consider that Wertsch who is exploring linking human mental functioning to human settings is indicating the same realm as others who are exploring human mental functioning linking to human *worlds*.
>
> In particular the author John William Miller posits the actuality of *midworlds* that resemble or have a family semblance to the notion of *settings*.
> Also Continental Philosophy explores *worlds* that exist as human dwelling places?
>
> The notions of [settings] and [worlds] seem to be linked?
>
>
>
>
>   
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
>
>