Charles Nelson's questions are very important, especially for research which
relies heavily on interventions in practice (such as the research conducted
at the Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research in
Helsinki).
In my experience, collective Learning III is always both explosive and
gradual. It is an extended and multi-layered journey through the zone of
proximal development of the activity system(s) involved.
Double bind situations emerge in activities whether we
researchers/interventionists want it or not. In carefully designed and
conducted interventions, those double binds can be simulated and worked out
in safer and more supportive conditions than in the brute everyday.
Cheers,
Yrjo Engestrom
> From: Charles Nelson <c.nelson@mail.utexas.edu>
> Reply-To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 18:42:35 -0600
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: ethics of double bind situations
> Resent-From: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
>
> From YE/Bateson:
>
> "Even the attempt at Level III can be dangerous, and some fall by the
> wayside. These are often labeled by psychiatry as psychotic, and many
> of them find themselves inhibited from using the first person
> pronoun." (Bateson 1972, 305-306.)
>
> YE says individual Level III learning can be explosive, while the
> reciprocal contribution to society is gradual. But can collective
> Level III learning be explosive? And is it ethical to introduce
> subjects to double bind situations, knowing that even the attempt can
> be dangerous?
>
> Charles Nelson
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:11 PDT