[Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural psychology" ?
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Thu May 21 22:20:51 PDT 2020
Just by the by, to connect two threads. ... With the arrival
of COVID and distancing, we switched the Hegel Reading group
to Zoom, and all the participants agree that it is an
improvement over the face-to-face readings. Also we have
iimproved consistency of attendance. And with the sessions
recorded no-one misses out, and people use the recording to
revise content even if they were present live. The recording
and being able to attend without leaving home are the major
attractions. There are 8 attendees, aged from mid-20s to
mid-70s.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Hegel for Social Movements <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!SWzHKiQk5LBYJC_akHrj7JMBAvRE5X5M0hn6ydUkXYu1y5Jy6AY0YdRStq3T2rJqaXSBhA$ >
Home Page <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!SWzHKiQk5LBYJC_akHrj7JMBAvRE5X5M0hn6ydUkXYu1y5Jy6AY0YdRStq3T2rLUq68nAg$ >
On 22/05/2020 1:59 pm, mike cole wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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!SWzHKiQk5LBYJC_akHrj7JMBAvRE5X5M0hn6ydUkXYu1y5Jy6AY0YdRStq3T2rKkHBzrgQ$
> <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 <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on
>>> behalf of Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 17, 2020 7:23 PM
>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on
>>>> behalf of Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 9:27 PM
>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> <mailto: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!SWzHKiQk5LBYJC_akHrj7JMBAvRE5X5M0hn6ydUkXYu1y5Jy6AY0YdRStq3T2rIVT9bXsQ$
>>>> <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
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on
>>>>> behalf of David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>>> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 6:14 PM
>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto: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!SWzHKiQk5LBYJC_akHrj7JMBAvRE5X5M0hn6ydUkXYu1y5Jy6AY0YdRStq3T2rKRse1JpA$
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238/167607__;!!Mih3wA!QwnjuGWv1M4ZX6kMNV7A1nO46fLjKXBSeMFcdiKYZQb3gv2FV78Tq_DhJK9vM5IH1niRwQ$>
>>>>>
>>>>> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: /L.S.
>>>>> Vygotsky's Pedological Works/ /Volume One:
>>>>> Foundations of Pedology/"
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!SWzHKiQk5LBYJC_akHrj7JMBAvRE5X5M0hn6ydUkXYu1y5Jy6AY0YdRStq3T2rLHuoNRww$
>>>>> <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
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> on behalf of Andy Blunden
>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org
>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2020 7:49 PM
>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> on behalf of Andy Blunden
>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org>
>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>
>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2020 7:24 PM
>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto: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!SWzHKiQk5LBYJC_akHrj7JMBAvRE5X5M0hn6ydUkXYu1y5Jy6AY0YdRStq3T2rKQUjg98A$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!WkcWw-Z3AI5QbHQG3kQk977PWXXDiVwBdpwxA8ArenUhjysOeMjqpavdBME_3DBDTrLXgg$>
> Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://re-generatingchat.com__;!!Mih3wA!WkcWw-Z3AI5QbHQG3kQk977PWXXDiVwBdpwxA8ArenUhjysOeMjqpavdBME_3DBsgnimuA$>
> Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu
> <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>.
> Narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu
> <http://lchcautobio.ucsd.edu>.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200522/ec9c7bb7/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list