Ok, well... things are getting pretty dullsville around here, and while i
know folks are probably working hard toward an aera deadline (I should be
too, but too much focussing makes me allergic), there is something creative
and distractive i have in mind, with respect to Lois' latest posting.
It's a game I've just adapted from an online art activity i've been observing.
The game is called "Activity Theory Stew" or "Do many cooks roil the soup?"
I'll need four (4) intrepid volunteers for this game, which goes in rounds.
The game will start in August, when we are ready, and when aera proposals are
submitted. Volunteers will apply to me directly -- and specify your
orientation: A) Activity (with a capital A); B) mediated action in context;
C) Culture is central; D) power, gender, and difference; E) forms of
participation. (Or you may want to substitute one of your own categories for
any one of the above) Don't worry that there might be overlaps -- this is a
only a game. If there are not enough volunteers, we won't play. All 5
players post in each of 5 rounds to xmca. Any xmca'er (player or non-player)
who criticizes a contribution will be expected to write a substitution for
the criticized element under the threat of due and duly backstage harassment
by "yours truly" -- the idea being that this is a creative game, and if you
are not playing, please respect those that are.
1) So here is how it works. In the first round, each player puts together a
text "scenario" according to their orientation. It can be simply a story, a
microgenesis, a scene, a setting, a description of a system/community/figured
world, whatever, with some combination of observation and theory -- but
balance between the two is NOT required. Fiction is fine. Postings are
limited to a maximum of 800 words, with a minimum of 100 words.
2) Second round. "A" extends the "B" posting, adding 100 to 800 words
according to A's prefered orientation. "B" responds to "C", "C" responds to
"D", "D" responds to "E", and "E" responds to "A", each according to their
own orientation. You see, we will be brewing 5 stews, 5 jointly cooked
stews. Postings must quote the prior work to guarantee artistic and semiotic
flow.
3-5) rounds three to five, we repeat the process. Again A responds to B's
latest posting, B responds to C's latest posting, etc. It might be argued
that A will always end up responding to B, B to C, and so on, and this
sequence will never really mix things up. Tough. It's my rules, and if you
want to play you have to stick to them. Besides, this is simplest to make
happen. And I think things could get plenty mixed up as it is.
At the end of play we will have 5 jointly constructed multiperspective
postings. No one wins, no one loses. What's the point? Having some
creative fun with theory, playing a new game with new rules, seeing what
happens when mulitiple perspectives are put into synthesis. Xmca'ers will
see the development happening right before their eyes. The possibilities
just make me tremble with excitement! It's not clear how this will work out,
it is kind of a ensemble of collective thought experiments.
Anyway, if you are interested, drop me a line. Don't forget to mention your
orientation -- but like any good game you can role play one that is not your
favorite, if you wish to break out of that boundary. Once you have chosen an
orientation, however, please try to stick to it. If there are more players
than roles I'll figure out some way to decide who is in, but we won't vote on
it.
Cheers,
Bill
On Tuesday 23 July 2002 07:22 pm, LHolzdan@aol.com wrote:
> I like the topic Mike put forth for an SRCD symposium very much.
>
> An excerpt:
> One major fraction line has been formulated as a difference between those
> who focus on "mediated action in context" versus those who focus on
> "activity" as a basic unit of analysis. Another common fraction line is
> between those who emphasize mediational tools and those who focus on forms
> of participation. Yet another set of issues centers on questions of the
> ability of one or another such position to deal with issues of power,
> gender, and difference more generally.
> Finally, the different perspective often appear to differ with respect to
> the extent to which the concepts of development and culture are, or are
> not, central to their concerns.
>
> Certainly those tensions were there at ISCRAT. Although my work leans to
> the "activity" and "forms of participation" side, I think my colleagues and
> I work to create programs from the perspective of a unity, rather than an
> opposition, of the sides each "fraction" takes. In addition to presenting
> some of this at ISCRAT, I (happily) attended a few sessions that I took as
> trying to do the same. Some of you might be familiar with the term Fred
> Newman and I coined (originally in 1979 but more widely known from our 1993
> book Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary Scientist) -- "tool-and-result" by which
> we mean to distinguish a) tools in which the process of creating them
> simultaneously creates their "result" from b) instrumental tools (tool for
> result, already made tools). We mean to highlight that human beings are
> not only tool users but tool makers. Our inspiration was originally
> Vygotsky's statement about his search for method being simultaneously the
> tool and the result of study, and we took this to indicate that he was
> formulating a tool-and-result methodology. Anyway, if we accept that
> people are capable of, and sometimes participate in, tool-and-result
> activity, then culture is a unity, i.e., mediational tool-and-developmental
> result.
> Unfortunately, I was off at a conference and couldn't suggest this for the
> SRCD symposium but perhaps Mike or someone else has ideas for another
> future venue.
>
> A question: In my ongoing work in outside-of-school youth development
> projects, I and the people who run them are situating them within the
> discourse of "supplemental education." The term was coined by Edmund
> Gordon in the 90s to refer to outside-of-school activities that
> white/middle class kids take part in to a far greater degree than
> black/latino/poor kids do (museum trips, drama, art, dancing lessons,
> conversations about politics, world events, etc.). Gordon and other
> educators believe supplemental education experiences help to explain the
> school achievement gap between these groups. They are pushing for social
> policy dialogue on this topic as a means to support, as well as (on
> Gordon's part) bringing the message to parents. Are others familiar with
> this term and do you find it useful?
>
> Thanks for any comments,
> Lois
>
> Lois Holzman
> Director
> East Side Institute for Short Term Psychotherapy
> 500 Greenwich Street
> New York NY 10013
> 212-941-8844
> www.eastsideinstitute.org
--
(:^{>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 01:00:11 PDT