[Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion

[Huw Lloyd]

Michael,

First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels use of
"leading activity".

Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the focus seems
to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that do not
necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By development
I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not previously
accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity.

Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful beyond
a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of one
thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality (not a
quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original expression
is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new quality
ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to project
a cause-effect model).

Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate
dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing his/her
practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a
developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without identifying the
holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I think
there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other than what
you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show this
would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of
activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger materialistically, but
in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how this can
be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to certain
practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do not
achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve this
holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also within the
teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods were
the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case, they may
be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that
institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing more
this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a teaching
institution.

There is also potential confusion here between the internal of affect and
the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed external
source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not
necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be maintained
to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult).  Either
way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from the
outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate it --
they know enough to afford their volitional heightened concentration to
take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide anecdotal
examples if you want them).

>From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can be
misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the self-perpetuating
processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the
environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent to the
extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I take
Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some
trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as imputing
"material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of that
which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it is, I
believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this concretely
complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically assumed
to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time.

Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that perhaps
the way you are approaching it by imputing development to observations is
an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and its
problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from various
sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis, environment-subject,
internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your ideas
here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is whether the
paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background.

Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper.

Best,
Huw





On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
wrote:

> Thanks, Andy,
> Alfredo
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43
> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4
> article for discussion
>
> attached, Bill
>
> a
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote:
> > hi Alfredo,
> > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is Michael's
> > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available as a free
> > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or purchase.
> >
> > Interested in this discussion.
> > Thanks,
> > Bill Kerr
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Steemed xmca'ers,
> >>
> >>
> >> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected
> article
> >> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by
> Wolff-Michael
> >> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?".
> >>
> >>
> >> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief
> >> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion
> >> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in
> the
> >> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's
> >> writings.
> >>
> >>
> >> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques
> to
> >> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings
> >> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access
> right
> >> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat!
> >>
> >>
> >> The whole issue is published here:
> >>
> >> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList
> >>
> >>
> >> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days,
> and
> >> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy
> bringing
> >> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have
> for
> >> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on
> in
> >> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature.
> >>
> >>
> >> Alfredo
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>