I had written a piece a while back with Jim that was a parallel to the
article that appeared in Ed Psych on identity formation and addressivity
for the first issue of Culture and Psychology. It was a commentary piece
to another article on travel writing that appeared in that same issue.
The full reference is:
Penuel, W.R., & Wertsch, J.V. (1995). Dynamics of negation in the identity
politics of cultural Other and cultural self. Culture and
Psychology, 1, 343-359.
Bill
At 05:28 PM 09/19/1999 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi, Victoria - Like everyone else I've known, I like very much to discuss my
>own work :)
>
>You wrote:
>>>"Affect as a sign og mimesis at work" ... I am wondering would you consider
>>>negative affect as also sign of mimesis at work, such as to the effect of
>>>affecting non participants among the "girls" on XMCA.
>
>Yes, I think transference is a mimetic function, but then, to be honest, I
>don't know what I'm talking about. (I talk about it because I want to think
>about it but I need time that I don't have to do that)
>
>You also wrote:
>
>>I
>>>thought that I started this conversation to discuss about affect and
>identity on
>>>XMCA, but it seems that we've strayed ...
>
>I strayed. Did Bill Penuel recommend any readings in backchannel to you?
>Bill, can you post any references you might have for Victoria on the list?
>-- thank you.
>
>Judith
>
>
>
>
>>Firstly, let me introduce myself (to you, Judy, again). We met at the
>recent AERA
>>in Montreal, where I attended your presentation and also requested for a
>copy of
>>your paper. I've also recently received your paper via "snail-mail". Thanks
>>heaps! I'ld would like to discuss it further with you later, if it's okay
with
>>you?.
>>
>>I've been working on the topic of A CHAT Perspective of Identity
Construction
>>(IC) (especially within the contexts of beyond schooling environments)
>since late
>>1996. Back then (in '96/97), I was still toying with the idea of a CHAT
>>perspective to SRL (self-regulated learning) and motivation and even wrote
>>something about it, though at the time, none of my colleagues at my faculty
>have
>>articulated this notion or shown any interest (XMCA was unknown to me at
>the time
>>too!). But reading about Lave and Wenger, and subsequently, Mike's book (on
>>Cultural Psychology), and others as well, I've shifted my interest to
identity,
>>especially within religious COP. Nevertheless, I'm certain that the
relations
>>between SRL and IC is mediated/motivation by interest (or the lack of it? -
>>somewhat mentioned in Wenger's book, "COP: Learning, meaning and
identities.).
>>
>>Judy Diamondstone wrote:
>>
>>> Victoria, Since this question still preoccupies me, it was interesting to
>>> see Bill's response to you that quoted me -- and to see my own
rehashing of
>>> Ann Freadman's text about -- well, about rehashing texts, in some sense...
>>
>>Perhaps, the "data-rich" description of Ann's text, as mentioned by Bill,
and
>>you, serves to further illuminate Bakhtin's novel articulation about the
>problem
>>of speech genres. In some sense, even our "conversation" highlights the
>problems.
>>Rehearsing texts in written forms, versus verbal utterances, and
subsequently
>>appropriating speech, are almost like living in two/more different planets.
>If I
>>may suggest, one may expect scholarly discussions on XMCA to have a somewhat
>>informal personality. This is so only to the extent when conversing on
>relatively
>>un-academically inclined topics (such as fishing and blah). But the moment
>>academia is introduced into the conversation/multilogues, it transforms the
>>interactions into a dense exchanged of jargons, thereby similarly
transforming
>>the genre(s) of speech, as is evident even at this instant. Nonetheless,
there
>>are both very explicit and as well as "un-written" rules on XMCA (eg
using AT
>>perspective). For example, the topic of fishing is not considered XMCA
>interest,
>>not unless if it were something like "A Study of Self Regulation in Fishing
>>Techniques among Novice Fishermans". Any response???
>>
>>
>>> Does identification necessitate or presuppose affect? Why is it that in
the
>>> x-list practices the pattern of participation remains stubbornly resistant
>>> to any redistribution of KINDS of participants? How come more girls don't
>>> play more often in the multilogues?
>>
>>In playing out the various genres of speech, this seems to be also
reflected in
>>the "demography" of participants, Judy. Why not more "girls"? Perhaps,
"gals"
>>like to converse, more often than not, in persons and privacy than in public
>>arena such as XMCA. This is also not discounting the fact that there are
many
>>(and I emphasise, TOO MANY) silent observers/participants ... In
articulating
>>this, I could stand accused of gender biasness, so, I'll claim that this is
>>usually the practice among my female colleagues and peers. Even I am
>"guilty" of
>>this, "watching" XMCA as a peripheral participant for almost a year now. So,
>>Judy, would one more "girl" participant increase your motivation to press
on in
>>these multilogues?
>>
>>> I think of affect as a sign of mimesis at work, and we tend to treat
mimesis
>>> as the primitive precondition for rational communication/ multilogue,
rather
>>> than as the intertwined and necessary twin of whatever we actually say. So
>>> in Eva's elegant modelling of the discussion list, the activity system
as a
>>> whole got analyzed into several separate, cascading systems -- while that
>>> picture is elucidating, it's also as Nate and others have pointed out
>>> problematic.
>>
>
>>
>>> Some thoughts before they're even half-baked: IF we can assume that
mimesis
>>> is at work in any communicative act -- both precondition for AND
>>> simultaneous operant in whatever gets talked about (the dynamically
>>> unfolding multilogue) THEN perhaps it may be the "missing part" (Luiz
>>> Ernesto Merkle) of the ecosocial system that drives the dynamically
>>> unfolding multi-logue. That which is missed/missing is a function of
>>> mimesis, the unrecognizable twin of whatever issues-focused talk we do --
>>> our search for MORE understanding than we already "have".... for the ever
>>> elusive completion.
>>>
>>> Things get pretty murky here for the analyst :)
>>> What do you think?
>>
>>Before responding to this further, let me just admit that it's way past
midnite
>>for me here (and after marking a bunch of student's papers on Attribution
>>Theory), so, my thoughts are showing signs of clouding. I'm also thinking
now
>>that I'm missing the point that I'm responding to you (nb: Bakhtin
claimed that
>>comprehensible, articulated utterance elicit no response). Hence, my
response.
>>
>>And Mike said something like ...
>>"Victoria--
>> You ask:
>> Does this mean that
>>identification necessitate affect, such as positive motivation and personal
>>interest bordering even fun and amusement, thus crossing into comfortable
>>zone. The consequence is a postive identity within such community of
>>practice?
>>
>>I am not sure that positive motivatin and interest bordering on fun
>>and amusement have positive identity in a COP as a necessary consequence,
>>but they sure do help.
>>mike"
>>
>>So, mike, would you consider the above about affect and ID in COP as both
overt
>>process and consequence in 5th D?
>>
>>Thanks for your responses, folks.
>>
>>Victoria
>>
>>
>>> Judith
>>>
>>> Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
>>> Graduate School of Education
>>> Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
>>> 10 Seminary Place
>>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183Victoria wrote:
>>
>>> there have been in the past a number of mails bordering on
>>> >informality and on friendly self disclosure, thus crossing into more
>>> >personal genre of speech and conjuring an image of a friendly
community and
>>> >"comfortable zone" of interaction. It brings to mind of Bakhtin's
discussion
>>> >on "The problem of speech genres", where he claimed, "An absolutely
>>> >understood and completed sentence, if it is a sentence and not an
utterance
>>> >comprised of one sentence, cannot evoke a responsive reaction: it is
>>> >comprehensible, but it is still not all."
>>> >
>>> >In articulating this, I am suggesting that perhaps, my identity as a
>>> >observer (passive/inactive etc) participant in XMCA in the past (up till
>>> >now) has only been that of a somewhat disengaged member, watching the
>>> >"actions/interactions". This has been the case, in my short experience in
>>> >XMCA, when reading most mails that were "comprehensible, ... complete".
>>> >
>>> >But, in noticing mails that borders on the affect, I'm almost ready to
jump
>>> >in response.... The same response is conjured too in
>>> >reading mails which raised more questions rather than those with complete
>>> >logically discussions.
>>> >
>>> >Relating this to identity and community of practice. Does this mean that
>>> >identification necessitate affect (?)
>>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
>> name="v.yew.vcf"
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>Content-Description: Card for Victoria Yew
>>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>> filename="v.yew.vcf"
>>
>>Attachment Converted: C:\MYDOCU~1\ATTACH~1\vyew2.vcf
>>
>
>
>Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
>Graduate School of Education
>Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
>10 Seminary Place
>New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Penuel, Ph.D.
Research Social Scientist
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue, Mailstop BS116
Menlo Park, CA 94025
tel. 650-859-5001
fax 650-869-5001
email: bpenuel who-is-at unix.sri.com
Check out our website at
www.sri.com/policy/ctl
---------------------------------------------------------------