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

[Ulvi İçil]

Thank you Mike!

After Cigdem Kagitcibasi, mainstream media preferred to mention only the
long list of awards she received. In a short article in Turkish, I
preferred to remind that she worked a lot for working-class children, and
especially for girls, that she emphasized the importance of social class
context in social sciences.

Best wishes
Ulvi

Best wishes

Ulvi

14 Mar 2017 20:45 tarihinde "mike cole" <mcole@ucsd.edu> yazdı:

> 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>