[Xmca-l] Re: "Context" or Object of activity
David Kellogg
dkellogg60@gmail.com
Wed Jan 31 13:15:58 PST 2018
Welcome back, Sasha. I missed you!
Not A but B. Not this, but that. Not wanting to be a Marxist, but really
being one. Not arbitrarily semantifying, but actually acting upon objects.
Not a passive envelope of context but a real object of activity. Not the
arbitrariness of boundaries set by linguists but the naturalness of limits
set by practical actions. It's a very convincing way to argue...but only so
long as I can recognize myself in A, and recognize you in B.
I can't. I don't think that Vygotsky only wanted to be a Marxist and
Leontiev really was one. Nor do I think that people semantify
arbitrarily--I think that language is a way of acting on "layers of air"
according to the natural properties of the object, and I think that the
relationship between wording and meaning is even more natural; I certainly
think that human language use is part of nature, since humans themselves
are part of nature. I think the way that I defined context, as all the
elements of a social situation which may be transformed into meaning, is
not at all passive; on the contrary, it presupposes sensuous activity more
than an expression like "object of activity" does (and that is why the
objectivist interpretation of Activity Theory is so prevalent). Therefore,
I don't think that the boundary of abstraction that I want to set between a
context and what Ruqaiya Hasan calls "material situational setting" is
arbitrary at all: on the contrary, I think that it is a way of solving the
problem that Andy raised (assuming that Andy really does want to solve the
problem of including the explanans in the explanandum). If we say that a
context is an abstraction from the world, and that it is made along lines
that are laid down by language in culture and by text in a situation, then
we don't have the problem of including the whole world in our
representation of the world (which is a problem that is symmetrical to the
one which Vygotsky, as a vigilant Marxist, raised--the problem of including
the whole child in our representation of the child).
To look at it from the other side, I don't think that Leontiev was really a
Marxist, because I don't think that a Marxist would ever reject the idea
that development has to take place through crises, as Leontiev did
(Problems of the Development of Mind, p. 399). I don't think that there is
any such thing as "actually acting on objects" that doesn't involve some
semantic representation of that object--cutting down a tree, for example,
involves knowing what a tree and an axe are, and what they are both used
for. Our languages--all human languages--have lexical ways of representing
unique objects, but no lexical ways of representing unique processes (that
is, we have proper nouns that we capitalize, like Sasha and David and LSV
and Moscow, but we have no proper verbs that we capitalize, like "The Way I
Struck the Tree With My Axe at Precisely 5:56 in the Morning on February
First 2018"). I don't think this is an unbounded abstraction from the
world, nor do I think it is arbitrary. It seems perfectly bounded
and natural to me, and so I think the fit between context and semantics is
a natural one and not an arbitrary one: it is the attempt to say "Just do
it!" that makes an arbitrary mess of human activities.
Yes, I do recognize that the language used by linguists--including
"context"--is not a familiar one for you or for Andy or for other people on
this list (that's why I drew your attention to the word "text" in
context--I don't normally argue from etymology, as Mike knows!). Yes, I am
perfectly reconciled to yelling incomprehensible things into a void as a
result. But I am not reconciled to giving up the word "context" or to
separating it from language use. When a man wants to cut down a tree, it's
very hard to separate him from his axe by simply repeating "not an axe but
an object of activity".
David Kellogg
Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric,
Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on “Neoformation: A
Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change”'
Free e-print available (for a short time only) at
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
David Kellogg
Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric,
Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on “Neoformation: A
Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change”'
Free e-print available (for a short time only) at
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Alexander Surmava <
alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...for me "context" is an abstraction from the world: a
> > context of culture is the ensemble of relations in the
> > world which we choose to semanticize in a given language,
> > and a context of situation is the ensemble of relations
> > in the world which we choose to semanticize in a single
> > text.
>
>
> You can attribute any meaning to a theoretically sterile concept of
> context, as you like "semanticize" it.
> From the point of view of Marxism, in the logic of which Vygotsky WANTED
> to theorize, and Leontiev and Ilyenkov really theorized, the subject does
> not arbitrarily "semantify" his objects, that is, natural things, things
> created by human labor and social relations, but actually act with them in
> accordance with their nature.
>
> Context is not a magical entity that affects the subject "placed in this
> context" in an incomprehensible magical way. Anything can "influence" the
> subject if and only if the subject acts with this object. In other words,
> to be exposed you must act yourself. Therefore, from an extremely broad and
> theoretically vague idea of the "context" (as something that "surrounds"
> the passive subject and for some reason affects it), we are forced to
> isolate what the subject really interacts with, what he is working on, that
> is, we must distinguish the concept of the object of activity, the real
> PREDMET DEYATELNOSTI. Everything that surrounds the subject, but with which
> he actively does not interact, any "context" with which the subject is not
> active does not exist for the subject at all, just as before the discovery
> of Becquerel the radioactive rays did not exist for human consciousness or
> "psyche", although, of course really "surrounded" him whenever he had
> carelessness to touch the salts of uranium or radium or to carry their
> crystals in his pocket.
> All this applies not only to the "hard things" surrounding us, but also to
> such soft and delicate matter as social relations. Those relationships that
> the subject is not able to at least try to somehow change by their own
> activity in them, for the subject as it does not exist at all, they, as
> Spinoza would say, are not adequately realized. Of course, the child is
> able to remember such little things as words (signs), say that now the
> president of the United States is Donald Trump. But really realizing the
> beauty of this political (or medical) fact, he will only be able to get
> involved in real relations with the political machine of the state through
> participation in elections or other forms of political activism, when his
> own activity will face fences erected by an elderly gentleman with an
> outstanding hairdo not only on the Mexican border, but, say, between him
> and the health care system.
> Therefore, practical implications for the practical teacher and
> psychologist are not numerous "contexts", the boundaries of which can only
> be established by the arbitrariness of the authors of treatises on the
> context, but the real objects, what our activities really deal with, what
> it stumbles upon and what it comes to.
>
> Sasha
>
> ------------------------------
> *От:* Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> *Кому:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Отправлено:* среда, 31 января 2018 3:11
> *Тема:* [Xmca-l] Re: Bronfennbrenner discussion
>
> You can say that "context" is an "abstraction from the
> world" if you like. But as Mike has shown, it is an
> unbounded abstraction. E.G. a new twist in Cold War
> diplomacy can skittle a 4thD project and/or open a new
> project for kids in San Diego and Moscow.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> On 31/01/2018 10:52 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
> > Andy--I don't understand how "context" means "the world".
> > That's what Malinowski thought. But I'm a linguist, and
> > for me "context" is an abstraction from the world: a
> > context of culture is the ensemble of relations in the
> > world which we choose to semanticize in a given language,
> > and a context of situation is the ensemble of relations
> > in the world which we choose to semanticize in a single
> > text. But even if you are not a linguist, doesn't a
> > "context" always mean something that goes with a text,
> > like chili con carne goes with meat?
> >
> > dk
> >
> > David Kellogg
> >
> > Recent Article in /Mind, Culture, and Activity/ 24 (4)
> > 'Metaphoric, Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A
> > Commentary on “Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to
> > Developmental Change”'
> >
> > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at
> >
> > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
> > <http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full>
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Andy Blunden
> > <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Mike, I have never been a reader of Bronfennbrenner, so my
> > comments may be immaterial here and I am happy if you and
> > others simply let them go through to the 'keeper (i.e.,
> > catcher).
> >
> > You will recall that in my "Interdisciplinary" book I
> > appreciated your work, but criticised it for your claim to
> > include "context" in the "unit of analysis" on the basis
> > that "context" was an "open ended totality" and to include
> > it in the "unit of analysis" was to destroy the very
> > idea of
> > a "unit."
> >
> > A point of agreement between us though has been the
> > need for
> > what we both call a "meso-level" unit between the
> > individual
> > action and the world, and that my use of "project" to name
> > this meso-level unit, and that the 5thD project was such a
> > unit, persisting for more than an individual's
> > lifetime and
> > escaping the control of the founder, but yet falling short
> > of macro-level units like the economy, science, the
> > nation, etc.
> >
> > Yjro is quite right when he said "the context is the
> > activity,", or rather "the activities." "The activity"
> > is of
> > course the project. But here Yrjo is being true to
> > analysis
> > by units. He is suggesting that the world is best
> > conceived
> > as being made up of activities (I would say "projects").
> >
> > To claim to include the "context" (which as you know means
> > "the world") *in* the unit which makes up the world,
> > is the
> > same logical fallacy as asking whether "I always lie" is a
> > lie, and destroy the whole point of analysis by units,
> > which
> > is to approach understanding infinite totalities by
> > means of
> > little things that you can grasp, which none the less
> > characterise the whole. This unit, projects, is mediating
> > between the individual action and the world.
> >
> > The problem is, I think, Yrjo's redefinition of "unit of
> > analysis" as (according to some of his students) "the unit
> > to be analysed," which I characterise as that list you
> > make
> > up, of everything you're going to put in your suitcase,
> > which you might need on your journey. This was *not*
> > Vygotsky's idea, or that of Goethe, Hegel or Marx.
> >
> > Whatever the problem, what happens depends on the context.
> > How do you conceive of the context? by units. The
> > context is
> > a totality not part of a unit.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Andy Blunden
> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> > <http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
> > On 31/01/2018 9:45 AM, mike cole wrote:
> > > Hi Jon-
> > >
> > > There are obviously a ton of issues to discuss
> > in your article. I
> > > guess that my paper on using his ideas as part of
> > the process of designing
> > > activities for kids in university-community
> > partnerships is
> > > an example of inappropriate mis-appropriations. I'm
> > not sure. If I need a
> > > defense its that I thought the ideas as I understood
> > them useful, but I was
> > > not testing his formulations in the same way you are
> > concerned to do, but
> > > using (some of) them for planning, analysis, and
> > interpretation.
> > >
> > > While trying to sort that out, I'll just make a
> > couple of observations.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:17 PM, Jonathan Tudge
> > <jrtudge@uncg.edu <mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu>> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Yes, Martin, there always is culture within the
> > microsystem--it's the only
> > >> place in which culture is experienced.
> > Microsystems are always embedded
> > >> within culture (I'd add always within multiple
> > cultures, but I don't think
> > >> that Urie ever wrote that).
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >>
> > >> Jon
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>
> > >> Jonathan Tudge
> > >>
> > >> Professor
> > >> Office: 155 Stone
> > >>
> > >> Our work on gratitude:
> > http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/
> > <http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/>
> > >>
> > >> A new book just published: Tudge, J. & Freitas, L.
> > (Eds.) Developing
> > >> gratitude in children and adolescents
> > >>
> > <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev-gratitude-
> > <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev-gratitude->
> > >> in-children-and-adolescents-flyer.pdf>,
> > >> Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
> > >>
> > >> My web site:http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge
> > <http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge>
> > >>
> > >> Mailing address:
> > >> 248 Stone Building
> > >> Department of Human Development and Family Studies
> > >> PO Box 26170
> > >> The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
> > >> Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
> > >> USA
> > >>
> > >> phone (336) 223-6181
> > >> fax (336) 334-5076
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Martin Packer
> > <mpacker@cantab.net <mailto:mpacker@cantab.net>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Wow, very graphic! At first I thought my
> > microsystem had exploded! :)
> > >>>
> > >>> The 20,000 dollar question for me has always been,
> > why is culture in the
> > >>> macrosystem? Is there no culture in my here-&-now
> > interactions with other
> > >>> people? (Well, perhaps in my case not!)
> > >>>
> > >>> Martin
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Tudge
> > <jrtudge@uncg.edu <mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Greetings, Martin,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I hope that this works (taken from a powerpoint
> > presentation).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jon
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jonathan Tudge
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Professor
> > >>>> Office: 155 Stone
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Our work on gratitude:
> > http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/
> > <http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A new book just published: Tudge, J. & Freitas,
> > L. (Eds.) Developing
> > >>>> gratitude in children and adolescents
> > >>>>
> > <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev-
> > <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev->
> > >>> gratitude-in-children-and-adolescents-flyer.pdf>,
> > >>>> Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
> > >>>>
> > >>>> My web site:http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge
> > <http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Mailing address:
> > >>>> 248 Stone Building
> > >>>> Department of Human Development and Family Studies
> > >>>> PO Box 26170
> > >>>> The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
> > >>>> Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
> > >>>> USA
> > >>>>
> > >>>> phone (336) 223-6181
> > >>>> fax (336) 334-5076
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Martin Packer
> > <mpacker@cantab.net <mailto:mpacker@cantab.net>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi Jon,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Would it be possible for you to post here the
> > figure you mentioned in
> > >>> your
> > >>>>> message, page 69 of your book?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Martin
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or
> > Dr. Lowie or discuss
> > >>>>> matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I
> > become at once aware that
> > >> my
> > >>>>> partner does not understand anything in the
> > matter, and I end usually
> > >>> with
> > >>>>> the feeling that this also applies to myself”
> > (Malinowski, 1930)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 10:24 AM, Jonathan Tudge
> > <jrtudge@uncg.edu <mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Hi, Mike,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> There are a couple of problems with the 2005
> > book. One is that the
> > >>>>> papers
> > >>>>>> are drawn from UB's writings from the 1970s to
> > the early part of this
> > >>>>>> century. As is true of Vygotsky's writings
> > (and probably any
> > >> theorist
> > >>>>> who
> > >>>>>> wrote over a significant span of time) it's
> > really important to know
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>> date of publication. The other problem is that
> > at least one of the
> > >>>>>> chapters is incomplete, and there are errors in
> > at least one other.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> As for the concentric circles or the
> > matrioshka--they're both
> > >> excellent
> > >>>>>> examples of how powerful metaphors can go
> > powerfully wrong! Both are
> > >>>>>> utterly misleading, in that they really focus
> > attention on the
> > >>> different
> > >>>>>> layers of context (and even then don't make
> > sense--the mesosystem
> > >>>>> consists
> > >>>>>> of overlapping circles, as in a Venn diagram).
> > Nonetheless, you're
> > >>>>>> right--UB continued to use the metaphor in his
> > final publications.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> However, his theory really developed a lot from
> > the 1970s onwards
> > >> (see
> > >>>>> Rosa
> > >>>>>> and Tudge, 2013; Tudge, 2013), and from the
> > early 1990s onwards
> > >>> "proximal
> > >>>>>> processes" were the centerpiece of his
> > Process-Person-Context-Time
> > >>> (PPCT)
> > >>>>>> model. These are essentially the everyday
> > activities in which
> > >>> developing
> > >>>>>> people engage, and they always and only occur
> > in microsystems.
> > >>> However,
> > >>>>>> what goes on in microsystems is always
> > influenced by (a) the person
> > >>>>>> characteristics of the developing individuals
> > of interest and those
> > >> of
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>> others with whom they interact, (b) the
> > characteristics of the
> > >> context,
> > >>>>>> both proximal (as in the nature of the
> > microsystem in which those
> > >>>>>> activities are occurring) and distal (the
> > macrosystem, which for him
> > >>> was
> > >>>>>> culture, whether considered at the level of
> > society or within-society
> > >>>>>> cultural groups), and (c) time, which includes
> > both the need to study
> > >>>>> over
> > >>>>>> time (longitudinally) and in time (the
> > prevailing social, economic,
> > >> and
> > >>>>>> political climate). A graphic representation
> > that better reflects
> > >>> his
> > >>>>>> developed position than the concentric circles
> > can be found in Tudge
> > >>>>>> (2008), on page 69.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I actually think that he rather dropped the
> > ball on culture,
> > >>>>>> unfortunately. I really like his writings on
> > this in his 1979 book
> > >> and
> > >>>>> in
> > >>>>>> his 1989 (or 1992) chapter on ecological
> > systems theory. Reading his
> > >>>>> 1998
> > >>>>>> (or 2006) handbook chapters you'll find
> > virtually no mention of the
> > >>>>> impact
> > >>>>>> of culture (or macrosystem) despite drawing on
> > Steinberg et al.'s
> > >>>>> research
> > >>>>>> on adolescents from different racial/ethnic groups.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Don't feel bad, though, if you have always just
> > thought of
> > >>>>> Bronfenbrenner's
> > >>>>>> theory as one of concentric circles of
> > context--you're no different
> > >> in
> > >>>>> that
> > >>>>>> regard from just about everyone who has
> > published an undergrad
> > >> textbook
> > >>>>> on
> > >>>>>> human development, not to mention a majority of
> > scholars who have
> > >> said
> > >>>>> that
> > >>>>>> they've used UB's theory as foundational for
> > their research (see
> > >> Tudge
> > >>> et
> > >>>>>> al., 2009, 2016).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If anyone would like a copy of any of these
> > papers, just send me a
> > >>>>> private
> > >>>>>> message to jrtudge@uncg.edu
> > <mailto:jrtudge@uncg.edu>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> - Tudge, J. R. H. (2008). *The everyday lives
> > of young children:
> > >>>>>> Culture, class, and child rearing in diverse
> > societies.* New York:
> > >>>>>> Cambridge University Press.
> > >>>>>> - Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B.,
> > & Karnik, R. B.
> > >> (2009).
> > >>>>>> Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s
> > bioecological theory of human
> > >>>>>> development. *Journal of Family Theory and
> > Review, 1*(4), 198-210.
> > >>>>>> - Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2013). Urie
> > Bronfenbrenner’s
> > >> theory
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>>> human development: Its evolution from ecology
> > to bioecology.
> > >> *Journal
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>>> Family Theory and Review, 5*(6), 243–258.
> > DOI:10.1111/jftr.12022
> > >>>>>> - Tudge, J. R. H. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner.
> > In Heather Montgomery
> > >>>>>> (Ed.), *Oxford bibliographies on line:
> > Childhood studies*. New York:
> > >>>>>> Oxford University Press.
> > >>>>>> - Tudge, J. R. H., Payir, A., Merçon-Vargas,
> > E. A., Cao, H., Liang,
> > >>> Y.,
> > >>>>>> Li, J., & O’Brien, L. T. (2016). Still misused
> > after all these
> > >> years?
> > >>> A
> > >>>>>> re-evaluation of the uses of Bronfenbrenner’s
> > bioecological theory
> > >> of
> > >>>>> human
> > >>>>>> development. *Journal of Family Theory and
> > Review*, *8,* 427–445.
> > >> doi:
> > >>>>>> 10.1111/jftr.12165.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Jon
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Jonathan Tudge
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Professor
> > >>>>>> Office: 155 Stone
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Our work on gratitude:
> > http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/
> > <http://morethanthanks.wp.uncg.edu/>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> A new book just published: Tudge, J. & Freitas,
> > L. (Eds.) Developing
> > >>>>>> gratitude in children and adolescents
> > >>>>>>
> > <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev-
> > <https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge/books/dev->
> > >>>>> gratitude-in-children-and-adolescents-flyer.pdf>,
> > >>>>>> Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> My web
> > site:http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge
> > <http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/faculty/tudge>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Mailing address:
> > >>>>>> 248 Stone Building
> > >>>>>> Department of Human Development and Family Studies
> > >>>>>> PO Box 26170
> > >>>>>> The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
> > >>>>>> Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
> > >>>>>> USA
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> phone (336) 223-6181
> > >>>>>> fax (336) 334-5076
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 6:20 PM, mike cole
> > <mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Hi Jon --
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Nice to see your voice!
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I only have Urie's 2005 collection, *Making
> > Human Beings Human, *to
> > >>>>> hand. I
> > >>>>>>> checked it out
> > >>>>>>> to see if the terms activity and context
> > appeared there. Only sort
> > >> of!
> > >>>>>>> Activity is in the index, but context is not
> > (!). I attach two pages
> > >>>>> from
> > >>>>>>> the book for those interested (and able to
> > read my amateur
> > >>>>>>> photos). Here it seems that activity and
> > context coincide at the
> > >> micro
> > >>>>>>> level, but perhaps only there?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Concerning embedded circles and context. It
> > turns out that the
> > >> person
> > >>>>> who
> > >>>>>>> induced Sheila and me to write a textbook on
> > human development was
> > >> U.
> > >>>>>>> Bronfenbrenner. And this same U.B. discussed
> > with us how to
> > >> represent
> > >>>>> his
> > >>>>>>> perspective circa 1985, pretty early in the
> > task of writing the
> > >> first
> > >>>>>>> edition. His use of matroshki (embedded dolls)
> > as a metaphor and his
> > >>>>>>> rhetoric at the time (and in 2005 as well) invites
> > >>>>>>> a concentric circles representation. We
> > discussed other ways of
> > >> trying
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>> represent the idea and he
> > >>>>>>> said that our representation came as close as
> > he could figure out.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> In the 2005 book he refers to my work as
> > combining a Vygotskian
> > >> notion
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>>>> context with an anthropological one (p. 126),
> > and uses the term
> > >>>>> "ecological
> > >>>>>>> context." I assume that most of my Russian
> > colleagues would argue
> > >> that
> > >>>>> LSV
> > >>>>>>> used the concept of "social situation of
> > development," not context.
> > >> I
> > >>>>> have
> > >>>>>>> no idea how he would respond to Yrjo's
> > declaration that the activity
> > >>> is
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>> context, but it does not seem too far off from
> > what is written on
> > >> the
> > >>>>> pages
> > >>>>>>> attached.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Perhaps someone on xmca who is skilled at
> > searching texts in
> > >> cyrillic
> > >>>>> could
> > >>>>>>> search for his use of the term, context. I
> > have always been curious
> > >>>>> about
> > >>>>>>> what such a search would turn up, but lack the
> > skill
> > >>>>>>> to carry out the query.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> And perhaps you have written something about
> > the mistake of
> > >>> interpreting
> > >>>>>>> U.B.'s notion of contexts using embedded
> > circles we could learn
> > >> from??
> > >>>>>>> Certainly the passages on p. 46 remind me of
> > the work of Hedegaard
> > >> and
> > >>>>>>> Fleer, who also draw upon U.B.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> mike
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> <PPCT (Tudge, 2008, p. 69).pptx>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list