Eric,
I understand the concept of "mediation" as a central concept in Vygotsky's
theory. It is both "semiotic" mediation and more general
socio-cultural-historical mediation. In effect human experience of the world
is not direct but mediated by the cultural artifacts. And the concept of an
artifact implies its semiotic nature inseparable of its material existence.
Artifacts are both products of human activity and the tools for further
activity; they shape our understanding of the world and each other. I see
every relationship that is established in the complex web of activity, not
as a direct relationship but instead mediated in some way.
For instance, a person relates to another person using: an object of mutual
interest/concern (a topic) + various tools (semantic and material, *this is
a very unfit terminology*). This is what I understand Arne meant in:
"Subject acts on Subject via mediational means". In other words, the
relationship between subjects of a dialogue depends on what is this dialogue
about (topic) and what is being "done" to the topic. We would relate to each
other quite differently if we discuss politics, or if we discuss CHAT
issues, or if we discuss personal relationship and what we think of each
other. Our relationship may change dramatically depending on the topic
(object) of the dialogue/activity.
Or, the relationship between a Subject and an Object (a person and her/his
"object of desire") is mediated by social circumstances (personal and
historical) and more closely by an addressee (or addressees) in a dialogue.
This is the "usual" view of mediation - social mediation between the subject
and the object. For instance, we have a language that embodies a certain
understanding of the universe quite different from another language. Or, one
of the participants in a dialogue/activity may shape the way another
participant understands and relates to an object. This is very well
illustrated in Gordon's example where L and J are making a decision what to
make as an object for their science task.
Or, the relationship between a subject and the society (group) is mediated
by norms/rules/customs historically developed in that culture. Depending on
an activity in which you will participate, you will wear, for instance,
quite different clothes: a swimming suit if you are on the beach or a member
of a water-polo team in the game, but not if you are going to take a test in
your education class at the university. But even what counts as a decent
swimming suit depends on the historical and geographical position.
But, the relationship between the society and its norms/rules/customs may be
and always is mediated by individuals who "bend", "twist", "play" with these
rules and norms and bring about their permanent change. (Bakhtin's view of
dynamics of the linguistic and social rules).
And so on: each relationship which is established and being established
between any two "elements" is always mediated by a third relevant "element".
In fact it is better to call them "functions" - not elements, because their
roles may be played by different subjects, objects, tools, symbols, roles,
rules etc.
Ana
----------------------------------------
Ana Marjanovic-Shane
home: 1-215 - 843 - 2909
mobile:+267 -334-2905
-----Original Message-----
From: MnFamilyMan@aol.com [mailto:MnFamilyMan@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:19 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Wells, Hunting, and the Bounty (aka bb shooting from the hip)
Ana,
When you write, "vygotsky's general model of mediation" are you referring to
semiotic mediation or some other aspect of his theoretical thinking?
Thank you for clarification,
eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 01:00:07 PST