[Xmca-l] Re: Don't do it

[mike cole]

Ulvi-

I have been slow to respond to your question about what I meant by sending
you the quotation about revolution from Dickens and a surmise about the
questions you raised.

I sent the Dickens as a gesture of sympathy with your
search for understanding how deliberately imposed misery by the rich and
powerful can be tolerated and not revolted against.

My comment was intended as a suggestion of why people might hesitate at
your solution, however inevitable it must seem to you. Tom Richardson
expressed the view that I was gesturing towards.

With respect to the relation of the educational system and its human
products to the rich and powerful. I suggest that the history of
literacy/education at least in the West, was intricately interconnection
with the development of class divisions reaching back to about
or at least 4000 BCE. Academics are highly educated/literate and their
association with the rich and powerful reflects it, although their actions
and desires vis a vis power may seek other interests.

Since posting that passage from Dickens, I have become less certain of the
conditions that must seem, inevitably, to induce violent (if necessary)
revolution. A book by Katherine Boo called *Behind the beautiful forevers** :
life, death, and hope in a Mumbai undercity. *

The book is a kind of ethnographic account of people living in a slum next
to the highway that leads to the Mumbai airport in India. The title comes
from a large sign on a tall, long wall next to the Road, an ad for Italian
tiles that reads

BEAUTIFUL FOREVER BEAUTIFUL FOREVER BEAUTIFUL FOREVER...

The wall obscures from view a slum where the misery seems every bit as deep
as that of situations in the world today where the people do not revolt,
but are successfully suppressed.

Millions of people in Sudan are suffering agonizing starvation, refuges
roam in many parts of the world, the list is as long as this listserve and
longer.

Its a very disturbing and upsetting world, and threatening to get a lot
worse. History does not make me optimistic in this regard.

So everyone does the best they can and on fora such as this, explore that
familiar question, What Is To Be Done?

Repeating old errors under new and much more dangerous-to-the-species
conditions is presumably what we would like to think that our scholarship
is helping us to avoid, even as we debate how best to achieve a humane
alternative.

Maintaining international scholarly, collegial, and committed contacts
seems the very least we can do. And we are doing it, as we type.

I am off to see some Russian colleagues to talk about imagination. And some
Canadians to talk about culture and development. And among the very
privileged to be able to do so.

En iyi dileklerimle

mike




On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
wrote:

> thanks for sharing David,
> A
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> Sent: 13 March 2017 23:43
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Don't do it
>
> Alfredo:
>
> Here's an early draft I uploaded to Academia.edu:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/31850352/Thinking_of_Feeling_
> Hasans_Complaints_Vygotskys_Late_Lectures_and_the_
> Development_of_Narrative_in_Children
>
> Sometimes I prefer this version to the one that got accepted: it's a lot
> chattier and less IMRADish (I mean, less
> IntroMethodResultandDiscussion-ish). But the reviewers didn't like it and
> I
> can see their point too: part of the meaning of an academic is sounding
> like an academic, just as part of the meaning of a Frenchman is sounding
> like a Frenchman.
>
> This is relevant to another point: ideology and ideation, prescriptive vs
> transformative, and more generally perjorative vs. descriptive use of
> language. But that's another thread.
>
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:14 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> wrote:
>
> > David, make sure you share the link with us again once your article in
> > Language and Education on meta function comes online. I tried the DOI you
> > gave us but it does not work. I am looking forward to read it!
> >
> > Alfredo
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > on behalf of David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > Sent: 13 March 2017 08:37
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Don't do it
> >
> > In my own (unpublished) study, it was the interpersonal metafunction
> which
> > emerged first, not the ideational one. That is, children grasped the idea
> > of giving and getting goods and services before they had the idea that
> > experience could be encoded in language and shared with somebody who
> didn't
> > actually have it. (This study just confirmed work by Clare Painter, Jane
> > Torr, and Halliday himself.)
> >
> > However, I think that Rein is right in one sense: there is some larger
> > whole from which BOTH the interpersonal and the ideational must be
> > co-differentiated. I don't think this differentiation is what happens in
> > development, though: it's an artefact of analysis. I don't think that
> this
> > larger whole exists in infants, or even in early childhood; to use the
> > Pepperian idea in Karimi-Aghdam article, it's a kind of artefact that
> > arises post hoc, from looking at contextualism (which is dispersive) and
> > organicism (which is integrative) together. By looking at an integrated
> > whole and by thinking about it as development-in-context, we infer it,
> but
> > to assume that it actually happens, that all word meanings are "given" to
> > children, is to commit the Augustinian fallacy (that Wittgenstein
> > criticizes at the beginning of Philosophical Investigations)
> >
> > Halliday's got a name for this larger whole, at least once it arises in
> > actual speech. It's the TEXTUAL metafunction, that is, the textual
> devices
> > that we use to integrate interpersonal functions and ideational ones
> into a
> > single clause. To return to the example I gave earlier:
> >
> > a) Don't do it. (interpersonal proposal, ideational material process,
> "you"
> > and "it" are Actor and Goal, textually unmarked)
> > b) It's not necessary (interpersonal proposition, ideational relational
> > process "it" and "necessary" are Carrier and Attribute, textually
> unmarked)
> > c) Don't do it, because it's not necessary. ("because" is a conjunctive
> > adjunct which integrates the two propositions--it has neither
> interpersonal
> > nor ideational function, but is a purely textual element).
> >
> > (I've got a study on how this metafunction arises in Korean kids--it
> seems
> > to me that it's not explicit until quite late, in sixth grade, in my
> data.
> > This one will actually be PUBLISHED...in Language and Education! (DOI:
> > 10.1080/09500782.2017.1306074)
> >
> > David Kellogg
> > Macquarie University
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Rein Raud <rein.raud@tlu.ee> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, this I can agree with - especially as this is fairly close to my
> own
> > > theory of meaning ("Meaning in Action", Polity 2016, ch.2), except that
> > in
> > > my opinion the ideational is already given to us interpersonally (as
> when
> > > someone explains to us what a word means), while there is also an
> > > "experiential" meaning with which this ideational claims identity. But
> > what
> > > you say makes sense. Best, Rein
> > >
> > > On Mar 11, 2017, at 22:41 , Martin John Packer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rein,
> > > >
> > > > David is building here on Halliday’s analysis of the two fundamental
> > > ‘functions’ of language, the ideational and the interpersonal. It is
> when
> > > the child becomes able to combine the two in the same utterance that
> > > grammar emerges. (That was not David’s point; I just find it a very
> > > interesting idea!)
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 11, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Rein Raud <rein.raud@tlu.ee<mailto:rein
> .
> > > raud@tlu.ee>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David, I was only reacting to what you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I shall call this form of meaning--for meaning it is--"interpersonal"
> > > > meaning, in order to distinguish it from "ideational" meaning. I
> think
> > > that
> > > > interpersonal meaning is meaning, but it is meaning which is directed
> > > > towards organizing an interaction as the giving or getting of
> > information
> > > > or goods and services. Ideational meaning is meaning too, but it is
> > > > directed towards the representation (hence, "indication") of human
> > > > experience and logic. They're equally meaningful, but they are filled
> > > with
> > > > different kinds of meanings.
> > > >
> > > > "Ideational" here seems to be what Austin calls "locutionary".
> > > "Interpersonal", in turn, seems to be what Austin called "performative"
> > (in
> > > the illocutionary and perlocutionary varieties) and indeed you define
> it
> > > as  "directed towards organizing an interaction". Thus I don't think
> your
> > > counter-argument here is wholly legitimate, or perhaps I've missed the
> > > point.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Rein
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 11, 2017, at 22:09 , David Kellogg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here I'm talking about the difference between:
> > > >
> > > > a) Don't do it.
> > > > b) You are doing it.
> > > > c) Are you doing it?
> > > >
> > > > This is not a difference between locutionary, illocutionary, and
> > > > perlocutionary force--Austin would say that all of these are
> > locutionary
> > > in
> > > > their force, because the pragmatic purpose and the resulting event,
> > which
> > > > is the giving of linguistic examples and their reception, is the
> same.
> > > And
> > > > yet they are different. How so?
> > > >
> > > > They are different in the nature of the commodity which is put at
> risk.
> > > In
> > > > a) that commodity is goods and services, while in b) and c) that
> > > commodity
> > > > is information. This means that in a) language is ancillary--we can
> > often
> > > > perform the same "speech act" (to use the behavioristic terminology
> of
> > > > Austin, Searle, and their disciples in pragmatics) using
> gesticulation,
> > > > gesture, "eye language", or just intonation. But in b) and c) the use
> > of
> > > > lexicogrammar is central--we cannot successfully exchange
> propositions
> > > > without encoding them lexicogrammatically.
> > > >
> > > > This is not the same difference that Austin is discussing. Austin is
> > not
> > > a
> > > > linguist, so he wants to transfer meaning from language to context:
> to
> > > > speech roles, to social recognition and to social outcomes. That's
> > simply
> > > > not possible in this situation: the meaning of b) and c) lies in the
> > > > lexico-grammar and nowhere else. Speech act theory is to linguistics
> > what
> > > > behaviorism is to psychology.
> > > >
> > > > David Kellogg
> > > > Macquarie University
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 6:33 AM, Rein Raud <rein.raud@tlu.ee<mailto:
> > > rein.raud@tlu.ee>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > These differences have been discussed quite some time ago in
> > J.L.Austin's
> > > > "How to Do Things with Words" (1962), from which speech act theory
> > > > originated. Austin distinguishes between locutionary (primary
> > semantical)
> > > > meaning, illocutionary meaning (what is being meant) and
> perlocutionary
> > > > meaning (any event is being produced by the utterance). Thus when you
> > say
> > > > "Do you have some time?" you might mean "Can you spare some time for
> > me?"
> > > > and the perlocutionary result of this is that you will actually help
> me
> > > > (because you are in a position where you cannot say "no" to me, f.ex.
> > > > because I am your boss). A lot of speech act theory has evolved from
> > > this,
> > > > notably in the work of Searle. Best to all, Rein Raud
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 11, 2017, at 21:18 , David Kellogg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ulvi, Mike...
> > > >
> > > > We started this thread with Ulvi's important remark that there is a
> > > > difference between:
> > > >
> > > > "Don't do it."
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > "it is not necessary."
> > > >
> > > > Ulvi said that the difference does not lie in their polarity--they
> are
> > > > both
> > > > negative. Nor does it lie in their representational (referential, or
> > > > "ideational" meaning). They both refer to "it" and to the
> advisability
> > of
> > > > "it".  Ulvi said that the first was imperative, and the second was
> not
> > > > (the
> > > > technical term for the non-imperative form of the second is
> > > > "indicative-declarative", as opposed to "indicative-interrogative"
> > which
> > > > would be a question).
> > > >
> > > > I shall call this form of meaning--for meaning it is--"interpersonal"
> > > > meaning, in order to distinguish it from "ideational" meaning. I
> think
> > > > that
> > > > interpersonal meaning is meaning, but it is meaning which is directed
> > > > towards organizing an interaction as the giving or getting of
> > information
> > > > or goods and services. Ideational meaning is meaning too, but it is
> > > > directed towards the representation (hence, "indication") of human
> > > > experience and logic. They're equally meaningful, but they are filled
> > > > with
> > > > different kinds of meanings.
> > > >
> > > > The difference is qualitative, and that is another way of saying that
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > "revolutionary" (because revolution originally meant turning around
> > axis;
> > > > the first political "revolution" was the rather pathetic "turning" of
> > > > Latin-speaking civilization from a republican to an imperial form
> under
> > > > Augustus). The difference is between making a proposal and offering a
> > > > proposition--i.e. between realizing a potential state and simply
> > > > discussing
> > > > an actual one.
> > > >
> > > > One of the interesting aspects of Professor Jang's paper is that it
> is
> > > > about adolescents who are in the process of forming concepts, but who
> > are
> > > > not there yet. And one way in which an adolescent forms a concept
> about
> > > > the
> > > > difficult concept of a social contract, of citizenship, of
> nationality
> > is
> > > > pseudoconceptual: it is based on discussing "actual" perceptual
> > > > differences
> > > > between races. This might seem irrelevant to current political
> > discourse.
> > > > Unfortunately, it isn't.
> > > >
> > > > What does a teacher say to kids who are thinking this way? Do we say
> > > > "Don't
> > > > do it"? Or is it better to show them that it is not necessary?
> > > >
> > > > David Kellogg
> > > > Macquarie University
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Ulvi İçil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com
> > <mailto:
> > > ulvi.icil@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mike, please corrct me if i wrongly take this meaning that
> revolutions
> > > > causes big numbers of death, death in masses, so we would not prefer
> > > > them.
> > > >
> > > > But, what if we sum up all the deaths because of occupatinal murders
> in
> > > > workplaces, deaths from drugs, murders of women and early death
> because
> > > > of
> > > > lack of sufficient health care and all the deaths due to the bad
> > > > orgsanisation of society under capitalism  and what is more turning
> of
> > > > tens
> > > > of millions of children into ignorant and fanatic human beings who
> are
> > > > brought up able to kill anyone on the street etc
> > > >
> > > > Is it not more rational to put en end to this state of human society
> > > > rather
> > > > than to perpetruate it, allow it to exist.
> > > >
> > > > Unemployment itself 20 % in Turkey.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 11 Mar 2017 03:14 tarihinde "mike cole" <mcole@ucsd.edu<mailto:
> mcole@
> > > ucsd.edu>> yazdı:
> > > >
> > > > From my personal web page, Ulvi:
> > > >
> > > > *Apropos Thoughts on Revolutions and Their Causes*
> > > >
> > > > (From C. Dickens, *A Tale of Two Cities*, Ch 15)
> > > >
> > > > Along the Paris streets, the death carts rumble, hollow and harsh.
> > > >
> > > > Six tumbrels carry the day's wine to La Guillotine. All the devouring
> > > > and
> > > > insatiate monsters imagined since imagination could record itself,
> are
> > > > fused in the one realization, Guillotine. And yet there is not in
> > > > France,
> > > > with its rich variety of soil and climate, a blade, a leaf, a root, a
> > > > sprig, a peppercorn, which will grow to maturity under conditions
> more
> > > > certain than those that have produced this horror. Crush human
> humanity
> > > > out
> > > > of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it will twist itself
> > > > into
> > > > the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and
> > > > oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit,
> > > > according
> > > > to its kind.
> > > >
> > > > It is the nature of the fruits sewn by the French Revolution that
> give
> > > > pause for thought. And perhaps accounts for the lack of reply to your
> > > > articulately formulated note.
> > > >
> > > > mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Ulvi İçil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com
> <mailto:
> > ul
> > > vi.icil@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If I say
> > > >
> > > > don't do it, it is imperative.
> > > >
> > > > But if I say,
> > > >
> > > > It is not realistic and you do not need it.
> > > >
> > > > It is affirmative and even  though negative, it is again affirmative,
> > > > to
> > > > demobilize you.
> > > >
> > > > What I mean is Revolution.
> > > >
> > > > Addressed to a married couple with two children.
> > > >
> > > > With 3 thousand Turkish liras in Istanbul in a  rented home of at
> > > > least
> > > > 1000 tl for rent.
> > > >
> > > > 1 usd = 4 Turkish liras
> > > >
> > > > Survival economics.
> > > >
> > > > Any prospect?
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > That simple.
> > > >
> > > > What is socialist revolution?
> > > >
> > > > It is neither an intention nor a wish.
> > > >
> > > > It is simple necessity.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>