[Xmca-l] Re: Wikipedia CHAT entry

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

And Mike, the text is an emergent property of the community. The best you
can get is multiplication of concurrent views, not the blocking of some
over others---unless the community as a whole itself blocks itself. m

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:13 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues-
>
>      I am kind of surprised at the response to my query about the
> authorship of the Wikipedia
> page. I have always interpreted the 1-2-3 generation characterization of
> Helsinki's school's as
> indexing the increasing complexity of the systems of activity that are
> being described/analyzed,
> and used for the design of new interventions that seek to address perceived
> problems of some
> community/organization. The subject-medium-object unit, the s-m-o unit as a
> constituent of a collective activity, and the collective activity in
> relation to other activities with which it interacts. News of the fourth
> generation has not filtered down here to the periphery.
>
> This kind of expansion has been accompanied by a shift in disciplinary
> identity. CHAT is not a classical psychological approach. The Russians use
> the term, "non-classical psychology" even for LSV's work. But once one
> moves to the study of activity, anthropology and sociology come into
> play.... at least so it seems to me. And of course, the linkage with
> various flavors of linguistics have been present since before the beginning
>
> I felt a strong kinship with the idea of a psychology that took everyday,
> joint, mediated, activity as a unit of analysis. Perhaps no more than
> sloppy eclecticism ensued. Many of my Russian and Western European
> colleague seem to think so. Certainly, my everyday notion of activity did
> not take on the philosophical heritage of German/Russian discussions of
> deyatelnost and Tategkeit. Nor was I sensitive to the social/societal
> distinction, Etc. But I found Yrjo's reconstruction/expansion
> useful and still do. At the same time, ideas associated with the "3rd
> generation" formulation have proven useful in thinking about
> university-community collaborations. I would, of course, prefer
> even strong intellectual tools, so like Yrjo I look to actor network
> theory, distributed cognition, and other frameworks that seem to help me
> understand the processes of learning/development/change that I observe and
> participate in.  Reducing Yrjo's work to self aggrandizement seems to be
> really
> unfortunate.
>
> If one looks at the iconography of American appropriations of Vygotsky, the
> cover of Luis Moll's (1990) book on Vygotsky and Education has a triangle
> inside a circle -- mediated action in context. Yrjo declared that the
> activity IS the context a couple of years later. Now look at the
> iconography in the newest edition of that book. No triangle, just circles
> -- the activity has become the context (a la
> Bronfenbrener). Doesn't feel like progress to me.
>
> Was there politics in the research of LCHC? Of course. It involved
> agreements over the distribution
> of resources within the university, the professional community, etc. I
> would like to think that the work
> was more than self-aggrandizement, but may that is simply a self
> aggrandizing illusion.
>
> So, I renew my question. Does anyone know who the author of the wikipedia
> page is/was? A lot of
> work went in to creating it, and it seems that the best way to block
> invidious interpretations of
> "third generation" as new, better, shinier, and truer, is to continue the
> narrative of the wikipedia
> entry through inclusion of other variations in the development of
> Vygotsky's ideas. Of course, that would
> require labor, but if there is no will, there is no way.
>
> In the meantime, a discussion on XMCA that was inviting to our colleagues
> who think they are participating in the development of 3rd Generation AT
> theorizing a la Helsinki, and do not think of themselves as self
> aggrandizing bad people, seems to me as if it might be useful.
>
> my two centavos
>
> mike
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> wrote:
>
> > There are a couple of related senses in which the term "generation" may
> be
> > heard here: as in a new major development in the theory, so that this
> > generation is some form of evolution from the previous one; and as it
> > regards to nationality, of being the third, fourth or "n" line of
> offspring
> > following some original.
> >
> > As a new comer to CHAT, when I went to the ISCAR Summer University in
> > Moscow in 2011, I remember people there complaining that, if someone in
> > Finland was claiming the third generation, who were then they, who had
> been
> > attending to and learning from the lectures of those who had attended to
> > and learned from the very founder's lectures?
> >
> > It soon comes into issues of legitimacy and authorship that may easily
> > confuse newcomers, I think. But then again,
> > there is a history, there are indeed lineages and developments, and we
> > need categories to mark those up, I guess.
> > Alfredo
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > on behalf of Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > Sent: 28 January 2018 14:17
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Wikipedia CHAT entry
> >
> > Re "The work you do by calling it 3rd generation is making a distinction
> > with other forms of AT. That's all."
> >
> > Of course it isn't all, Michael. It is misleading anyone new to the field
> > (and who has not had the experience of knowing how knowledge gets reduced
> > or made superficial) into thinking that this is where the new work is
> done
> > and that this is supposed to represent the leading edge of the work. It
> is
> > political in that this unwarranted status functions as an attractor for
> > such research-related attention, which is further supported in other
> ways.
> >
> > Best,
> > Huw
> >
> > On 28 January 2018 at 12:51, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Huw,
> > > you may be hung up with words, perhaps in search of these elusive
> > meanings.
> > >
> > > I am not doing that kind of work anymore, but I think using the
> adjective
> > > distinguishes other forms of theory use from the one that has evolved
> > > around the Helsinki triangle. The work you do by calling it 3rd
> > generation
> > > is making a distinction with other forms of AT. That's all.
> > >
> > > And your comment about politics---this appears a truism if you take the
> > > stand of Voloshinov.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anyone who has carefully studied the historical works of AT, which
> are
> > > > psychological, would know that it is nonsense to call this a "third
> > > > generation". Calling it a "third generation" is a political
> manoeuvre.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Huw
> > > >
> > > > On 28 January 2018 at 01:56, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Huw,
> > > > >
> > > > > I had worked on those ideas as well:
> > > > >
> > > > > Roth, W.-M. (2007). The ethico-moral nature of identity:
> Prolegomena
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > development of third-generation cultural-historical activity
> theory.
> > > > > International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 83-93
> > > > > Roth, W.-M. (2007). Emotion at work: A contribution to
> > third-generation
> > > > > cultural historical activity theory. Mind, Culture and Activity,
> 14,
> > > > 40-63.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Huw Lloyd <
> > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is anyone other than Engestrom claiming that their work is 3rd
> > > > generation
> > > > > > AT? Are there any Russian psychologists clamouring to understand
> > what
> > > > > > improvements have been made to their system in this "3rd
> > generation"?
> > > > It
> > > > > > doesn't seem like a careful depiction to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Huw
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 27 January 2018 at 18:49, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just stumbled across the wikipedia page. Someone put a lot of
> > > work
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > that entry. It would be
> > > > > > > interesting to discuss with whose who put it together so
> > carefully.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Check it out.
> > > > > > > mike
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural-
> > > > > > > historical_activity_theory&action=history
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>