[Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural psychology" ?

Thu May 21 20:59:21 PDT 2020

Both HAVE TO BE present at once, Andy or there is no perception.
Mike

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 8:55 PM Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:

> Yes, last week in our Hegel Reading Group we read the section in the
> Shorter Logic, following his critiques of Kant and Descartes, Hegel
> explains how thought is both immediate *and* immediate, and even over
> Zoom I could see the clouds gradually receding from my young students'
> eyes. All of a sudden the whole fruitless argument between scepticism and
> dogmatism, relativism and historicism, fell away. The most difficult thing
> to grasp was how perception was not just immediate and mediated, but both
> were essentially present in the same moment, how without the cultural
> training of the senses the brain could not make any sense at all of the
> nervous stimulation of the organs of sight, etc.
>
> Andy
>
> PS. the exact quote from Hegel is: "there is nothing, nothing in heaven,
> or in nature or in mind or anywhere else which does not equally contain
> both immediacy and mediation"
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbegin.htm*0092__;Iw!!Mih3wA!WkcWw-Z3AI5QbHQG3kQk977PWXXDiVwBdpwxA8ArenUhjysOeMjqpavdBME_3DAxgv7suw$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbegin.htm*0092__;Iw!!Mih3wA!TUMhXu_xWvwV4y6fvpgv4VHU2relV4Y4V5cWZTRpCZSmXSJxKlYezU-yXkbrDDuPh_oxBg$>
> ------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Hegel for Social Movements
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!TUMhXu_xWvwV4y6fvpgv4VHU2relV4Y4V5cWZTRpCZSmXSJxKlYezU-yXkbrDDuiF8_dnA$>
> Home Page
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!TUMhXu_xWvwV4y6fvpgv4VHU2relV4Y4V5cWZTRpCZSmXSJxKlYezU-yXkbrDDty4Bji_w$>
> On 22/05/2020 9:20 am, mike cole wrote:
>
> This is a point I have struggled to make for many years, Andy. I didn't
> know I was quoting Hegel:
>
> Hegel:
> 'Everything is both immediate and mediated."
>
> The challenge is to rise to the concrete with this abstraction or its just
> la la la.
>
> mike
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 6:42 PM Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:
>
>> Of course, Annalisa, I agree that Science is a moral practice, but that
>> is not what is at issue here.
>>
>>
>> Two issues concern me with what you have said: (1) the question of "who
>> decides?" and (2) the quantification of development as in "more evolved"
>> bringing with it the implication of moral value attached to development.
>>
>>
>> (1) The discovery of the "social construction of reality" was an
>> achievement of the Left, the progressives, with people like the Critical
>> Psychologists, the theorists of postmodernism and post-structural feminists
>> in the 1970s an 80s, who exposed how taken-for-granted facts along with the
>> truths of Science were on closer inspection ideological products of
>> dominant social groups. Of course, how reality is *seen *is an
>> inseparable part of how reality *is*. This insight led to a range of
>> powerful theoretical and practical critiques of all aspects of society.
>> Feminists offered an alternative way of interpreting reality as a powerful
>> lever for changing that reality by undermining patriarchal structures and
>> certainties. So far so good. But today, in 2020, it is not progressives who
>> are asking "who decides?" and calling into question the very idea of truth
>> and fact: it is Donald Trump and Rudi Giuliani. Quite honestly, this
>> outcome was always implicit in the postmodern and poststructuralist
>> critique. Or, could I say: "Donald Trump is a more evolved form of Judith
>> Butler" if I thought in those terms, which I don't.
>>
>>
>> Hegel takes up this problem with the maxim: "Everything is both immediate
>> and mediated." Yes, social interests dominant in a certain social domain by
>> definition determine what is true in that domain (though remember, every
>> social domain is finite and has its boundaries). But that is not just by
>> saying something about an* independently existing* reality which can be
>> subject to any number of *alternative* representations (as Kant would
>> have it), but rather the dominant social interests *determine that
>> reality itself*. They do that both *immediately *and *through the ideal
>> representation* of that reality which is *part of that reality*. You
>> can't "decide" by a purely discursive moves - you have to *change *that
>> reality. You do that with the weapons of both theoretical and practical
>> critique.
>>
>>
>> What this means is that you can study the documents (assuming you weren't
>> personally present) of some past dispute and see with your own eyes how and
>> why some people formulated new word meanings, and began to use these new
>> word meaning(s) in their own communication, and thereby facilitated others
>> from using this word meaning, and the relevant concepts, in their work, and
>> so on.
>>
>>
>> (2) As perhaps I have illustrated in my example above that there is no
>> implication of "higher" in development. In my own education, it was Sylvia
>> Scribner's "Uses of History" (1985) which explained this to me. "Higher"
>> implies comparison and comparison in turn implies *interchangeability*.
>> For example, if I was considering whether to emigrate to the US or France,
>> I might consider public safety as a metric and decide that France was
>> superior to the US and make my decision accordingly. Or, I might consider
>> job availability for an English-speaking monoglot like me as the metric,
>> and decide that the US was superior to France. But to decide that the US is
>> superior to France or vice versa without the choice and the relevant metric
>> is the moral judgment which neither you nor I find acceptable. They're just
>> different.
>>
>>
>> Understanding word meanings and concepts entails an analysis of *both *how
>> the word is used in the field in question, and the history as to how it
>> came to be so. Using the concept of "germ cell," I can work my way back and
>> forth through an etymological field, forensically, like a detective, until
>> I can connect the particular use of the word which emerged as a germ cell
>> at some earlier time, in some situation where the implication of choosing
>> that word meaning was abundantly clear to all, which allows me to see
>> *why* someone felt the need (now forgotten) to introduce the word
>> meaning and what it's absence would mean here and now, where it is already
>> taken for granted.
>>
>>
>> My apologies for the unacceptably long message, which is much against my
>> own mores, but I don't know how to clarify these issues more succinctly.
>>
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social Movements
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!TLrWUBWNIMJR-d4Rr1HJ5aNy8a9feC14rEE8Y9KK_yg-3NYAubzMD2iHXcVRpSlw_w_wdw$>
>> Home Page
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!TLrWUBWNIMJR-d4Rr1HJ5aNy8a9feC14rEE8Y9KK_yg-3NYAubzMD2iHXcVRpSkhfCnwZw$>
>> On 20/05/2020 3:51 am, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> I suppose the issue about being on a branch of evolution has more to do
>> with who decides what the branch is. Is it time? or is it topical? or is it
>> based upon the interlocutors?
>>
>> If we say one word usage is more "evolved" than another, I suppose I am
>> just pushing back on that because who decides what is more evolved?
>>
>> Forgive me, but can we ever say that if something is more "evolved" it is
>> actually better? What do we actually mean when we say something is evolved?
>>
>> What if one term lasts over a longer arc of time than another usage? It
>> seems if we use the evolution rubric, it would be considered more "fit"
>> than the one that is changing over the same period of time.
>>
>> I do find it helpful that you to bring up the germ cell and how that
>> concept pertains to analysis. That makes a lot of sense to me. I'm glad to
>> know that to assign the parentheses does entail an ideological move, and
>> that that can't be escaped. As long as we know what the ideology is, there
>> is transparency in our analysis.
>>
>> I do think moral evaluations are worth including on all discussions, not
>> necessarily to forbid discussions or scientific pursuits, but to use as
>> landmarks to keep our bearings. Scientific concepts have a way of not being
>> inclusive of contexts (i.e., lived experiences) or being grounded, right?
>>
>> Perhaps this is what made Vygotsky such a humane and compassionate
>> scientific thinker is that he could understand how scientific concepts can
>> be abusive tools for oppression. Anchoring them in lived experience shows
>> their validity. Would this be a fair statement to you, Andy?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Annalisa
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org> <andyb@marxists.org>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 17, 2020 7:23 PM
>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural psychology" ?
>>
>>
>> *  [EXTERNAL]*
>>
>> Annalisa, "where does history start"? Effectively there is no starting
>> point, and the choosing of a starting point is always an ideological move.
>> Foucault does this to great effect. Ilyenkov deals with this in his book
>> "The Abstract and Concrete in Marx's Capital" and explains the need for
>> what he calls the "logical-historical method." To short circuit the
>> complexities of reading Ilyenkov, in CHAT we rely on the identification of
>> the unit of analysis or "germ cell" to anchor our historical investigation.
>>
>>
>> "Sociogenesis" is just Latin for "social development," the word I used.
>> But if you are going to ascribe a moral value to "evolution" and then
>> reject the concept on that basis, you'd better also reject "development"
>> and all the "geneses" and evolution of species by natural selection and all
>> modern biology while you are at it. Alternatively, you could choose *not*
>> to ascribe moral values to scientific concepts, then the whole of science
>> is open to you.
>>
>>
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social Movements
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!VTGuGy4gvXj-8N5E9YCj2IevXlVoBhK7UBQ37lx10IRWhO4lMbcXmdD-gzoCEFYW2qyYWA$>
>> Home Page
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!VTGuGy4gvXj-8N5E9YCj2IevXlVoBhK7UBQ37lx10IRWhO4lMbcXmdD-gzoCEFZ5oaoZdg$>
>> On 18/05/2020 3:25 am, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andy (& VO's),
>>
>> I think that that was my point, that we cannot capture everything in the
>> word to describe the theory. And that is because of the limit of our
>> language.
>>
>> Even where genesis actually is, where something starts can be difficult
>> to pinpoint. I mean where does History actually start?
>>
>> These words that you mention phylogenesis, ethnogenesis, ontogenesis, are
>> words that are like brackets of a pair of parentheses. Who decides where to
>> put them? (And why not sociogenesis?)
>>
>> I'm not sure it's correct to say the choice of a word locates the user on
>> a branch of a cultural evolutionary tree, because then that starts to mean
>> that one speaker is more evolved than another based on the use of a word.
>>
>> It might be better to say that the choice of a word locates the user to a
>> particular context. I could live with that.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Annalisa
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org> <andyb@marxists.org>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 9:27 PM
>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural psychology" ?
>>
>>
>> *  [EXTERNAL]*
>>
>> You're never going to succeed in formally capturing the full scope of the
>> theory in a word, Annalisa. "socioculturahistoricalinguapparatical activity
>> theory" still leave out biology and Darwin, which is a part of our theory,
>> too.
>>
>>
>> It is sometimes said that human development is the coincidence of *four*
>> processes: *phylogenesis *(i.e., evolution of the species), cultural
>> development (*ethnogenesis*, the development of technology *and *language),
>> *social development* (one and the same culture has different classes and
>> political groups side by side) and *ontogenesis *(even twins can grow up
>> very differently according to the experiences (*perezhivaniya*) they go
>> through). I tried to describe this in:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/ontogenesis.htm__;!!Mih3wA!WkcWw-Z3AI5QbHQG3kQk977PWXXDiVwBdpwxA8ArenUhjysOeMjqpavdBME_3DBHSUSkHw$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/ontogenesis.htm__;!!Mih3wA!Vn9T05o4yQ8JmcN8k0Rcq65ZDZvXCxCkPwjrS8BQz_aRy-V218xJbfgO-7EiQaXB3YgOwg$>
>>
>>
>> But if you look into the history of a word what you will inevitably find
>> is that at some point (in time and social space) there was some dispute,
>> and this dispute was either (1) resolved by both parties agreeing and
>> marking this agreement by the coining of a new word meaning or the dropping
>> of a word meaning altogether, or (2) there is a split and one or both sides
>> of the split adopt a word meaning which distinguishes them from the other
>> side (structuralism's favourite trope) or variations on the above scenarios.
>>
>>
>> So the choice of a word tends to locate the user on a branch in the
>> cultural evolutionary tree.
>>
>>
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social Movements
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!Vn9T05o4yQ8JmcN8k0Rcq65ZDZvXCxCkPwjrS8BQz_aRy-V218xJbfgO-7EiQaXzee78rQ$>
>> Home Page
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!Vn9T05o4yQ8JmcN8k0Rcq65ZDZvXCxCkPwjrS8BQz_aRy-V218xJbfgO-7EiQaXY03UVbw$>
>> On 17/05/2020 11:56 am, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>>
>> David K & VO's
>>
>> What pray-tell is an anthropologue?
>>
>> I am divided (pun intended) about saying that sociocultural = social +
>> culture, when they are intertwined holistically. To me, sociocultural
>> points to a space in between, or perhaps better said to a context of
>> interactions between individuals (who form a society) that are easily
>> accepted among them and practiced over time.
>>
>> We can conceptually parse out the social and the cultural, but don't we
>> do that because of the words and not because of the ostensible reality
>> going on interactionally? Can we always understand something by dissecting
>> it into parts?
>>
>> Again, this seems to be the limit of language, not of the conceptual
>> context or content.
>>
>> In a sense to use the term "sociocultural" is to grab the tail of the
>> tiger. The tail of the tiger is still the tiger, but perhaps a more
>> manageable one than to grab its head.
>>
>> Perhaps this is why Vygotskians just call themselves Vygotskians to align
>> themselves with the source of the first theories rather than to later
>> conceptions and other developments (i.e. Leontiev, etc). Just thinking out
>> loud.
>>
>> Another argument is that if we want to be all inclusive, then we have to
>> include tool-use, as it's not the social, the culture, and the history, but
>> also the language and tools used. I realize some practitioners would say
>> that language is no different than a tool, but I feel language is
>> different, even though it may have a similar cognitive response in the mind
>> as would using a tool.
>>
>> Activity suggests tool use, though not always. Consider dance, or
>> storytelling, or going for a walk.
>>
>> How about: socioculturahistoricalinguapparatical activity theory???
>>
>> Yes! I am writing this a little tongue in cheek. I hope you do not mind.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Annalsia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of David Kellogg
>> <dkellogg60@gmail.com> <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 6:14 PM
>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural psychology" ?
>>
>>
>> *  [EXTERNAL]*
>> It's a very domain-specific umbrella, like those cane-brollies that go
>> with a bowler. "Sociocultural" is strongly preferred used in second
>> language acquisition, thanks to the influence of Merrill Swain, Jim Lantolf
>> and Matthew Poehner; I have never seen "cultural historical" used in this
>> literature. But "cultural-historical" is similarly preferred in psychology
>> and anthropology, thanks to the influence of J.V. Wertsch, Mike
>> Cole, Martin Packer and Andy Blunden; that's really why we are having this
>> discussion on what "socio-cultural" might mean on a list largely populated
>> by roving psychologists and nomadic anthropologues.
>>
>> Interestingly, the Francophones prefer "historico-cultural", using the
>> argument that you can understand the process without the product but not
>> the product without the process. I stopped using "sociocultural" because I
>> thought it was redundant, but now I am really not sure of this: it seems to
>> me that the relationship is a similar one--you can study society as process
>> without studying its cultural product (e.g. as demographics, economics,
>> statistics) but you can't really study culture without some understanding
>> of the process of its formation.
>>
>> There was a similar disagreement in systemic functional linguistics
>> between Halliday and Jim Martin over the term "socio-semiotic". Martin said
>> that it was redundant, because there couldn't be any semiotic without
>> society. Halliday rather flippantly replied that ants had a society without
>> a semiotics, and at the time it seemed to me that this was a non
>> sequitur, first of all because ants don't really have a society in
>> our sense (precisely because there is no such thing as an ant history
>> separate from phylogenesis on the one hand and ontogenesis on the other)
>> and secondly because ants most definitely do have a semiotics, albeit one
>> based on chemistry and not perception as ours is.
>>
>> It seems to me, in retrospect, that the relationship between the semiotic
>> and the social is much more like the relationship between the social and
>> the biological, or even the biological and the chemical. The semiotic is a
>> certain level of organization that the social has, but there are
>> other levels, just as biology is a certain kind of chemical organization
>> which does not exclude other, nonbiological ways organizing chemicals,
>> and chemistry is a kind of physical organization which doesn't exclude
>> sub-chemical organizations.
>>
>> Perhaps we can think of the relationship between culture and society in
>> the same way?
>>
>> David Kellogg
>> Sangmyung University
>>
>> New Article: Ruqaiya Hasan, in memoriam: A manual and a manifesto.
>> Outlines, Spring 2020
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238/167607__;!!Mih3wA!WkcWw-Z3AI5QbHQG3kQk977PWXXDiVwBdpwxA8ArenUhjysOeMjqpavdBME_3DBvZsXwhQ$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238/167607__;!!Mih3wA!QwnjuGWv1M4ZX6kMNV7A1nO46fLjKXBSeMFcdiKYZQb3gv2FV78Tq_DhJK9vM5IH1niRwQ$>
>>
>> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: *L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works* *
>> Volume One: Foundations of Pedology*"
>>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!WkcWw-Z3AI5QbHQG3kQk977PWXXDiVwBdpwxA8ArenUhjysOeMjqpavdBME_3DAVB3SXoQ$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!QwnjuGWv1M4ZX6kMNV7A1nO46fLjKXBSeMFcdiKYZQb3gv2FV78Tq_DhJK9vM5JySLOtJA$>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 8:28 AM David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> 4. As an umbrella term for any sociogenetic approach.
>>
>> Isn’t that its current usage?
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> *On Behalf Of *Annalisa Aguilar
>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 3:31 PM
>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural psychology" ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Andy, and VO's,
>>
>>
>>
>> What fascinates me is that the word "sociocultural" has a lot of
>> different facets in terms of how the word was used in different contexts.
>> It seems there are three I've been able to pick out.
>>
>>    1. as a derisive term in early Soviet history.
>>    2. as an empowering term from Latin American voices.
>>    3. as a relaxed term of the Marxist "brand" at the height of the Cold
>>    War in the US.
>>
>> I'm not sure if I've done justice in the manner that I've represented
>> that, but it is a well-intended attempt. Are there others?
>>
>>
>>
>> What I don't understand fully is whether there must be ONE explanation
>> how the term came to be, or ONE definition of what it actually means. Can't
>> it be polysemantic?  polycontextual?
>>
>>
>>
>> If that is what's happening, then it makes sense that there would be an
>> ongoing controversy about which one is the right definition or reason for
>> not using it, depending on the interlocutor.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we are to talk about who used the term first, and that's where the
>> value/authority holds, then all that tells us is that for those who value
>> who used the term first. that's where the authority is.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we talk about the emotional attachment of the word as it is used in
>> context and that's where the value/authority holds, then that tells us for
>> those who value the most personal attachment to the word, that's where the
>> authority is.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we talk about how the word was used functionally, where the
>> value/authority holds in its efficacy, then all that tells is that for
>> those who value whether the word works or not, that's where the authority
>> is.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure one can put any of one these over the other two (or if there
>> are more than that, if there are more). All we can say I suppose is whether
>> in a particular context is the word "sociocultural" appropriate or not?
>>
>>
>>
>> I do find that this debate has begun to have its own life, this debate
>> over the use of a word. I've begun doubt it will ever cease.
>>
>>
>>
>> One day the discussion will be how one used to debate about the term,
>> first everyone was this way about the word, than they were that way about
>> the word, and many large camps were formed in XXXX year to say why the word
>> should not be used, but then X years later other large camps formed to say
>> it is fine to use the word. I suppose it will only be when the debate
>> ceases will it come to pass that the debate will be forgotten. But will
>> that cessation solidify the use or non-use of the word?
>>
>>
>>
>> I understand the reasons for saying "cultural psychology." But for those
>> swimming in a culture where behaviorism is considered the soul of
>> psychology, adding "cultural" becomes a sad necessity.  Even then, that
>> necessity only depends upon how one sees culture, as either as an additive,
>> an integral ingredient of psychology, or its basis. I believe I've read on
>> the list that one should be able to say "psychology" and just *know* that
>> it includes culture. I don't think we are there yet.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then that would be my argument to use "sociocultural" to understand it
>> includes history. CHAT is sort of a defensive term (well, it is an
>> acronym). But then... it leaves out "social" and is that OK? We certainly
>> should not say sociocultural historical activity theory because that
>> acronym is very unfulfilling. What is nice about CHAT though is that to
>> chat is an activity of speech, and there is a implied meaning that also
>> pertains to Vygotskian theories, and therefore meaningful.
>>
>>
>>
>> In a sense, it's not the meaning that we are arguing over, but how the
>> limitations of our particular language fails to convey a meaning with such
>> precision that it thereby to parses away any other inappropriate meaning.
>> I'm just not sure that the project is one that can be achieved
>> successfully, even if it succeeds for an interim.
>>
>>
>>
>> At the same time I can see why story of the elephant and the blind men
>> also have a part to play in our understandings and assumptions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Annalisa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> on behalf of Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2020 7:49 PM
>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural psychology" ?
>>
>>
>>
>> *  [EXTERNAL]*
>>
>> Annalisa, I have only been talking and writing about Vygotsky and co.
>> since about 2000 and have been openly Marxist since the 1960s (indeed,
>> Vygotsky is core to how I understand Marx) and never had any reason not to
>> be. But it is true that when Mike first went to Moscow, it was at the
>> height of the Cold War, and when he and others first brought Vygotsky's
>> ideas to the USA, there was a lot of resistance to their Marxist content. I
>> think the naming issue only arose as Vygotsky and the others began to build
>> a real following. The issues with the choice of name change over the years,
>> as you say. I prefer" CHAT," but sometimes I use "Cultural Psychology" and
>> sometimes I use "Activity Theory" depending on the context.
>>
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social Movements
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fbrill.com*2Fview*2Ftitle*2F54574__*3B!!Mih3wA!TlyHZFzEZ7SUE8GqN8__jv7a2SAk9Q_jiqAbrNCH5Bf1I-_gLIHGg1AbVtGJm26SqOHBwA*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C6f6f52b10ee64d7bfdbd08d7f9d8676f*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637252580239268522&sdata=s6REk*2BjVd*2Btd*2BH4FD*2FsS8hm1G6*2B*2FmMW*2FXfk4Vok6eNM*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!Mih3wA!R9drsiySNEmllp604wKW_RghL8N-6pKyp0upwIQ08rRyyX4_xUCbMKYtkRxP4LhYAqXW_A$>
>> Home Page
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ethicalpolitics.org*2Fablunden*2Findex.htm__*3B!!Mih3wA!TlyHZFzEZ7SUE8GqN8__jv7a2SAk9Q_jiqAbrNCH5Bf1I-_gLIHGg1AbVtGJm26T9d8i0w*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C6f6f52b10ee64d7bfdbd08d7f9d8676f*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637252580239268522&sdata=VSo7NWNg3ZIpG7YMMUA6Ch*2BLEaFsqH*2FT1*2FuHN0t7Zlc*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Mih3wA!R9drsiySNEmllp604wKW_RghL8N-6pKyp0upwIQ08rRyyX4_xUCbMKYtkRxP4LiAFa1TEg$>
>>
>> On 16/05/2020 4:18 am, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>>
>> Andy, et al,
>>
>>
>>
>> I sort of came to this a little late in the thread, but I can offer that
>> Vera John-Steiner didn't mind "sociocultural" to describe Vygotskian
>> theory, but as I learn more about the word (thank you Mike), I can see how
>> once a word is utilized with intent of derision, it's hard for the
>> association to be broken.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it's that way with words all the time coming and going out of
>> favor, or meanings shifting, like the game of telephone, but across
>> generations and cultures.
>>
>>
>>
>> Might I contribute to the discussion by asking whether the use of
>> "sociocultural" was also a means of making the theories more available in
>> the West (at least in the US). It seems there was redscare (you are welcome
>> read the double entendre: "red scare" or "reds care", as you like)
>> prevalent, and wouldn't it be useful to remove the Marxist "brand" to
>> access the actual theories on child development? In other words, to
>> depoliticize the science?
>>
>>
>>
>> I had been a proponent of the use of the word, but as time passes, I can
>> see its problems.
>>
>>
>>
>> For me, I had preferred the word because historical was always a given
>> for me. In concern of the here and now, the real difficulty I had thought
>> was understanding the social- how interactions between the child and the
>> caretaker/teacher/knowledgeable peer and the -cultural, how the culture
>> impacts thought, those things are more of the micro level, but also
>> sociocultural, how the two also can interact and influence one another and
>> that combined bears its own signature on the mind and its development.  As
>> far as History (capital H) that is sort of difficult to measure when we are
>> talking about child development as there is very little history that a
>> child has, unless we are talking about genetics, I suppose.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now? I'm fairly agnostic about the term. I respect and am enriched by the
>> discourse in which we now we find ourselves immersed about it so thanks to
>> all for this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Annalisa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org> <andyb@marxists.org>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2020 7:24 PM
>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>
>> --

"How does newness come into the world?  How is it born?  Of what fusions,
translations, conjoinings is it made?" Salman Rushdie
---------------------------------------------------
Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!WkcWw-Z3AI5QbHQG3kQk977PWXXDiVwBdpwxA8ArenUhjysOeMjqpavdBME_3DBDTrLXgg$ 
Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com
Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu.
Narrative history of LCHC:  lchcautobio.ucsd.edu.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200521/116abf0a/attachment.html 