Very helpful Jay. I will try to keep my whig under my hat.
mike
On 1/23/07, Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Just to note that Peirce said a LOT about semiosis, using his many
> variations of the word (he liked Greek spelling), and it did make a
> big change, but a long time after he passed on.
>
> As to history, I've always started with the idea that if we know how
> we got where we are, we'd be rather likely to disagree with the
> choices (or necessities, or ideologies) of the past that got us here
> (since they don't tend to stay constant all that long), and so we'd
> both want to change things and realize that there's no good reason
> (from our point of view today), why they had to turn out the way they now
> are.
>
> This historical subversiveness contrasts with a more dominant, often
> called "Whiggish", view of history, which tends, like old-fashioned
> apologist social functionalism, to claim that the way things are is
> the way they have to be, and that history teaches us the lessons we
> learned about why this is so. This is a variant of progressionist
> evolutionary theory, and the 19th century view, still quite alive if
> not among many evolutionary biologists, that all of evolution and all
> of history is one grand upward march to ... ME! Here we sit, at the
> crown of creation, in, if not the best of all possible worlds, at
> least a world that is as it is because by and large that's how it has
> to be. To which I say, most heartily ... bullshit!
>
> More kindly, these different perspectives on history (and their is a
> LITTLE truth in Whiggism ... a very little) are central to the divide
> between political radicals and political conservatives, left and
> right, which may change its colors and fashions, and programs, but
> has remained remarkably constant for an awfully long time. And it
> behooves us on the one side, I think, to have some understanding and
> appreciation for WHY some people are on the other side.
>
> We tend most often to say that they just follow their interests, even
> unconsciously, and no doubt in the large and the long term that's
> true enough (e.g. statistically, or ala Bourdieu's neo-Durkheimian
> survey research). But it's a mistake I think, and far too dangerously
> easy, to leave it at that. We need much deeper and better accounts of
> why conservatives believe the crazy things they do! because to them
> they are not crazy, but follow from a long tradition of
> well-developed arguments and what appears to them to be mountains of
> evidence.
>
> Conservatives attract many voters with their arguments, including
> many whose objective interests should not dispose them that way.
>
> A key reason why CHAT needs to re-invigorate its emphasis on the
> historical is just because we are contending against another view of
> history, one that is dangerous to everything we are working for, and
> which needs to be faced with a vigorous and well-developed
> alternative view ... hopefully one that can prove its worth with
> contributions to practical problem solving and making the world
> others would just accept, different and better for more of us.
>
> JAY.
>
> At 08:51 AM 1/22/2007, you wrote:
> >This is one of the issues I find really interesting in action
> >research - how do you understand this redefintion. You change the
> >understanding of the relationship between espoused theory and theory
> >in use (I'm using Argyris' terminology here) through discussion and
> >change in the way individuals talk about their projects (is it an
> >attempt to come to a better match between theory in use and the way
> >we talk about what we do) - and I guess in the best of all possible
> >worlds this will loop back and change the way we talk about activity
> >- so espoused theory becomes closer to theory in use. But when this
> >change occurs, is it a move from objectification and basis in
> >history (and how the organization was developed through history) to
> >a more process oriented overall understanding of activity. For
> >those who believe the Peirce made a qualitative change when he
> >introduced the concept of semiosis (and let's face it, it wasn't the
> >most overwhelming introduction, maybe he only used the word a few
> >times) - is it a movement towards a more Pragmaticist based semiosis?
> >
> >Do we need to recognize history in an attempt to understand the
> >problem better. Jay makes a great point, why do we have forty
> >minute periods, why do we have nine month school schedules? It is
> >because of history, and we sort of know that history, or
> >interpretations of that history - but then how does it help us get
> >closer to solving our problem. And if we give primacy to history,
> >doesn't this open the door to the argument that the reason we do it
> >this way is because of our history, and our history got us here, so
> >our history should play an important part in our problem solving?
> >
> >Just some questions on a snowy Monday morning.
> >
> >Michael
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Jay Lemke
> >Sent: Sun 1/21/2007 2:40 PM
> >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >Subject: RE: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to SCHAT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Action Research is about solving immediate problems, but one of its
> >strategies is to get people talking about what those problems really
> >are. In the course of which they often re-define the key problems as
> >being larger than their immediate symptoms. When you then start to
> >collaboratively investigate these bigger issues, you almost always
> >find that history has played a role in getting us into the mess we're
> >in. And that understanding how to get out of it often depends on
> >figuring out a way around the path that historically got us where we are.
> >
> >Why are school classes only 40 minutes long? why are students
> >segregated by age in schools? why don't teacher-student relationships
> >in schools last more than a few months to less than one year? why are
> >curriculum subjects separated? why is curriculum content dictated to
> >be uniform? why do we use pencil-and-paper testing? why don't
> >students get to learn from non-teacher mentors? why can't I take my
> >students on a field trip outside the school? why can't they learn by
> >participating/observing in other institutions?
> >
> >Why can't we talk about the topics we're really interested in? why
> >can't we spend more than 2 weeks on this? why can't I learn basic
> >biology over 2 years instead of one? why can't we talk about human
> >sexuality? or famous gay figures in history? why can't we learn about
> >law, religion, economics, politics? why can't we discuss the causes
> >of violence in my neighborhood? Why don't I get paid for all the work
> >the school requires me to do?
> >
> >The causes of most social headaches are institutional and structural,
> >and the timescales across which we need to look to understand how
> >they came to cause our headaches expand in historical time as we
> >probe these networks of causes.
> >
> >Remember: give a man a fish, he eats today; teach him to fish, he
> >eats tomorrow too? Action research, and the CHAT perspective, is
> >about learning new ways to eat, about looking across longer relevant
> >timescales for alternatives and solutions, not about eating the first
> >fish to come our way (though if you're really hungry, why not?).
> >
> >JAY.
> >
> >PS. Short-term solutions can give us the breathing space to seek
> >longer-term ones. But they can also exacerbate longer-term problems,
> >or disguise them until they get even worse.
> >
> >
> >
> >At 01:30 PM 1/21/2007, you wrote:
> > >Hello Michael,
> > >
> > >It seems to me the example you give about a headache has more to do
> > >with a definition of the problem than it does to do with the role of
> > >history. Do I define the problem as a need to remove the pain right
> > >now, or do I define the problem as the need to make sure I don't get
> > >headaches again. If I define the problem as the former then I take
> > >an aspirin, and because the consequences of the action are that I no
> > >longer have a headache, I am able to assert that the aspirin helped
> > >in getting rid of the headache, and I have a relatively high level
> > >of warranted assertability, and the aspirin becomes the first
> > >instrument I reach for when wanting to solve a similar problem. If
> > >I want to get rid of my headaches completely, I don't determine the
> > >cause beforehand, because that is going to guide my problem solving
> > >activity, but not necessarily in the right direction (let's say I
> > >think that my dog's barking is causing my headaches - I get rid of
> > >my dog, and that is my solution. But my headaches continue, and now
> > >I am without a dog). Instead I approach the problem as an
> > >experiment, setting up careful activities with measurable
> > >consequences. This is not to say that ideas that have gone before
> > >are not important, but only as part of an array of instruments I can
> > >use in my experiment.
> > >
> > >But history often times plays a more important, defining role, that
> > >has implications for our problem solving. History takes a dominant
> > >position in our thinking and then we focus on maintenance of history
> > >rather than the solving of the problem. This, it seems to me, is at
> > >least part of the problem that action research is attempting to deal
> > >with, at least in some of its incarnations. It is interesting
> > >because Santayana makes the point very early that Americans have two
> > >ways of dealing with issues - the way they say they are going to
> > >deal with issues and the way that they actually do deal with
> > >issues. Even back in in early part of the nineteenth century
> > >American's were saying that they deal with issues through
> > >religion/ideology such as being Catholics, or Protestants, or
> > >Conservatives or such. But in actual problem solving Americans are
> > >almost always Naturalists, dealing with problems as they occur
> > >within the confines of nature. The difficulty is sometimes that
> > >ideology overwhelms Naturalism, and it does so through history -
> > >meaning it causes people to confuse who they say they are with what
> > >they do. Here in the United States we are going through an
> > >interesting political period in which individuals actually act
> > >(vote) against their own best interests. The question is why. Is
> > >it the manipulation of activity through the implications of
> > >history? Again, it seems to me that this was one of the issues
> > >Action Research is meant to solve (I have some ideas of why it might
> > >not be that successful related to the dynamic nature of
> > >information). This is why I wonder if the introduction of history
> > >from the CHAT perspective is necessarily a positive for Action
> > >Research. I don't have any answer for this, and I'm not drawing any
> > >conclusions. Just something this discussion on Action Research has
> > >spurred in my thinking.
> > >
> > >Michael
> > >
> > >________________________________
> > >
> > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth
> > >Sent: Sun 1/21/2007 12:52 PM
> > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >Subject: Re: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to
> > >XMCAtheoreticaland methodological interests
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Hi Michael,
> > >the problem with "immediate problems" is that these are concrete
> > >expressions of issues at a very different level. Addressing the
> > >immediate problem is like taking aspirin when you hurt somewhere.
> > >What this solution to your immediate problem does not provide you
> > >with is an understanding of the causes of headache, so that taking
> > >aspirin is only patching some deeper problem---the causes, which are
> > >of a very different nature, could be psychological, psychosomatic,
> > >physiological, etc.
> > >Historical analysis of the system as a whole is one way of getting at
> > >the determinants---causes---of the immediate problems and how these
> > >are mediated by the system as a whole. There are neat analyses by
> > >Klaus Holzkamp or Ole Dreier that show why in counseling, for
> > >example, you need to do more than treat immediate causes.
> > >Cheers,
> > >Michael
> > >
> > >On 21-Jan-07, at 9:15 AM, Michael Glassman wrote:
> > >
> > >Had a chance to take a look at both Cathrene's chapters and the paper
> > >by Anne Edwards. It is really interesting, good work. I am left
> > >with an initial question. In both cases (and I might be wrong here),
> > >what the authors were saying that CHAT (or SCRAT) have to offer
> > >action research is a historical perspective, which, from what I am
> > >reading, is not really part of Action research. The question this
> > >brings to mind is, "Is this a good thing?" Do we naturally take
> > >historical analysis as a good when we are attempting to deal with
> > >immediate problems, and to sort of break the yoke the the larger
> > >cultural foregrounding when attempting to deal with immediate
> > >problems, or does it in some way "stack the deck" and force a more
> > >culturally historical acceptable solution to the problem. It's a
> > >problem I really struggle with. One thing that Cathrene's chapters
> > >really did for me is make me recognize the relationship between micro-
> > >genetic research and action research - because I suppose in the best
> > >of all possible worlds micro-genetic research is action research (or
> > >is it the other way around?)
> > >
> > >Michael
> > >
> > >________________________________
> > >
> > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth
> > >Sent: Sun 1/21/2007 11:32 AM
> > >To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >Subject: Re: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to XMCA
> > >theoreticaland methodological interests
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Hi all, regarding the question of action research in schools and
> > >CHAT---i.e., the points Anne Edwards article is about---we also had
> > >written many years ago a conceptualization of this form of research
> > >and some variants in an online article that some might find
> > >interesting in this context:
> > >
> > >Roth, Wolff-Michael, Lawless, Daniel V. & Tobin, Kenneth (2000,
> > >December). {Coteaching | Cogenerative Dialoguing} as Praxis of
> > >Dialectic Method [47 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /
> > >Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 1(3). Available
> > >at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-00/3-00rothetal-
> > >e.htm [Date of Access: Month Day, Year]
> > >
> > >Cheers, Michael
> > >
> > >
> > >On 19-Jan-07, at 5:37 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
> > >
> > >Two papers have been posted and can now be found at the xmca website:
> > >
> > >Catherene's chapters and the article by Anne Edwards.
> > >
> > >
> > >We will be posting an article from the most recent, exciting, issue
> > >of MCA
> > >shortly. More about
> > >that later since there is slippage in the process.
> > >
> > >But the papers for discussion are there. Perhaps
> > >Time for doing some research by taking action and finding them so you
> > >can
> > >comment, ask questions,
> > >or provide an excuse not to do the dishes!!
> > >
> > >Have a nice weekend all.
> > >mike
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >xmca mailing list
> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >xmca mailing list
> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > ><winmail.dat>
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >xmca mailing list
> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >xmca mailing list
> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >xmca mailing list
> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >Jay Lemke
> >Professor
> >University of Michigan
> >School of Education
> >610 East University
> >Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> >
> >Tel. 734-763-9276
> >Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
> >Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> >_______________________________________________
> >xmca mailing list
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >xmca mailing list
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> Jay Lemke
> Professor
> University of Michigan
> School of Education
> 610 East University
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>
> Tel. 734-763-9276
> Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
> Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:33 PST