Hi,
It seems to me that one of the reasons we separate cognition form emotion
and motivation, is that we constantly keep forgetting to look into other
relationships that are indicated by the Activity theory model developed by
Yrjo Engestrom. We are still examining the relationships between the
individual, the semiotic tools (language and other cognitive tools) and the
object (objective). The motivations and the emotions, I think, would be more
prominent if we looked at the "division of labor" - i.e. the relationships
among the participants in regard to their roles in the activity. The
triangles involving personal relationships between an individual, an object
and another individual or a group of individuals, would probably be more
"saturated" with feelings and motivations.
Anne Ubersfeld's theory of drama (somewhat based on Greimas' actantial
model) offers just the kind of categories and tools needed to investigate
the emotional dimension of human involvement in an activity. I used
Ubersfeld's (Greimas') categories to analyze metaphors in the political
speeches for my paper at ISCRAT this year. It seems to me that one can
define both emotional/motivational and cognitive aspects of an
activity/action/act -- as relationships between various "points" in the
Activity "triangles". The emotional/motivational is an experienced, felt
dimension. Ubersfeld talks about the defining role of the "arrow of desire"
between the Subject and the Object. For instance: a character (subject) may
LOVE or HATE something or someone. This may become an axis of the drama -
this relationship between the subject and the object of her/his desire. This
is a motivated relationship, which is at the same time, emotional, political
and also cognitive. Other protagonists in a drama (activity) relate to the
focal character (subject of our analysis) depending on their role regarding
the subject's "arrow of desire". However, most of our (CHAT) analyses still
revolve around the subject's cognitive relationship to the socially
constructed semiotic and cognitive categories, and do not examine in closer
detail one's personal/experiential relationships with the world of objects
and other people. Yrjo's "triangles" touch upon the "division of labor" and
the "rules, norms, customs", both of which place constraints onto our hero's
"arrows of desire", thereby creating powerful emotions/motivations.
If you analyze discourse not only to find someone's understanding of an
object (topic) of concern (cognitive dimension), but to find the acts of
creating or changing interpersonal relationships (emotional/motivational
dimension), then you would find that emotional and cognitive aspects go hand
in hand. Bakhtin comes quickly to mind with his insistence that every
discursive act is also an ideological and a political act. For example, one
can analyze the relationship between J. and L. in Gordon's example also as
an activity of defining their interpersonal relationship by using the
activity of constructing an object. When you don't know anything else (as I
don't) and analyze only the short film, you see that J. has more initiative
(she is the first in getting the book and offering the first proposal), but
L. strives to have more control (nothing can be done without her consent).
Their roles shift several times, each one of them asserting her own need to
be in control and also to offer reassurance of the mutual positive
relationship. They, you might think, have several motivations going on: to
fulfill a task given by the teacher (who is a silent participant in this
activity), to assert their own contribution to the task (for the teacher),
to be a good friend, to perform well for the camera (?)... There might be
more motivational arrows than this excerpt can reveal. The point is that it
is possible to "put together" the emotional and the cognitive aspects. They
are all contained in the CHAT model of an activity.
Ana
----------------------------------------
Ana Marjanovic-Shane
home: 1-215 - 843 - 2909
mobile:+267 -334-2905
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 12:27 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: more re cognition and emotion
Also to pick up on your comment, Jay:
>So you might say that what I am after is not just another academic
>discourse that neuters feeling, but a different kind of practice
>that does not need to, that does not sacrifice the uses of
>theoretical and semiotic analysis (or perhaps in this case, of
>synthesis, of production), but finds ways to make meanings about
>feeling that also evoke our feelings (delightful and apprehensive)
>about meanings.
As I noted, the activities we call the 5th Dimension seems to provide
an existence proof of such practices. The fact that the social relations
between undergraduates and children is constituitive of the activity is
one important reason why. The use of narrative field notes as data is
another. The constant intertwining of theory and practice is another.
It is notable that in those parts of my own writing that are "second hand"
and about the work of others, whether theory or evidence, I find great
difficulty in fusing cognition and emotion, privileging the former. But
when my writing shifts to descriptions of the practice, I, like the
undergrads, start fusing cognition and emotion again.
Having long recognized this tendency is one source of my fondness for the
idea that we murder to dissect. indeed.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 01:00:08 PST