Michael,
the political considerations which come into play when you try to work out
how to combat a morally or ethically objectionable situation are a
different question. But still it may even be that more suffering results
from a morally justified intervention than would be the case if no action
is taken. Still it is right to do so.
For example if an innocent person is to be executed for a murder, and you
know (and have evidence) that it was a lynch mob of 12 of the respectable
citizens who were responsible for the same murder, and not the innocent
black man who has been falsely convicted. Do you remain silent because the
suffering of those 12 would exceed that of the one innocent to be
sacrificed? Obviously not.
Conversely, Bush's invasion of Iraq could not be justified on the argument
that the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam, and nor is the
argument that after all it turned out that they are not in fact better off
the last word in opposing the invasion. If you are a utilitarian, then OK,
you can justify one country invading another on this basis, but I'm afraid
it just won't do. Immoral actions cannot be justified by "the greater
good". It is not OK to torture people or suppress freedom of speech because
it keeps the peace.
You ask: where do these deontological moral principles come from? Good
question. But just because you can't answer that question, does not give
you an excuse for violating them. Just because you don't believe in the
Bible as the Word of God, that does not absolve you from treating others as
you have them treat you.
Andy
At 06:13 PM 30/01/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>David,
>
>You say that there must be a moral standards - no universal morality, but
>the need to hold ourselves and others to some standards. But where do
>these moral
>standards come from. Are you suggesting that they are part of some
>deontic justice system, some categorical morality, but that this is all
>right as long as we
>are careful not to make this justice retributive?
>
>You use the example of the female circumcision. Let me raise a
>hypothetical. Let us say that you see female circumcision as morally
>objectionable, and that one needs to take action when they find something
>morally objectionable. Let's say you see it happening in a village and
>determine that it is important to stop. You ask the villagers to stop, but
>they say no because this has been part of their traditions for a thousand
>years. You go in and attempt to stop the practice through what you
>consider moral means - some form of social arbitration in which there are
>rewards tied to stopping the practice. In the course of attempting to
>stop the practice some members of the community want to get the rewards
>and some do not. Old animosities are brought in to play and the village
>splits along historical lines. Members of the village stop talking with
>each other, and there are actually stones thrown at houses, people lose
>their livelihood. There is a fight an somebody is killed. This is all
>horrifying to you and you do everything you can to stop it, but the
>situation is spinning out of control. And one group in the village still
>continues with female circumcision.
>
>In your opinion, were your actions moral?
>
>Michael
>
>________________________________
>
>From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of David H Kirshner
>Sent: Tue 1/30/2007 10:07 AM
>To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>Subject: RE: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to SCHAT - Whiggism?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Andy and Michael,
>Thanks for your replies.
>
>Michael, in an earlier post, takes issue with the reification of morality
>"as an object outside of a human's relationship to nature, ... that ...
>should somehow stand outside of our activity and act as a commentator, a
>sort of Greek chorus, on our actions, and therefore guide our actions."
>Instead he suggests we "might see morality as a process, integrated in to
>our relationship with nature, integrated in to all the other actions that
>we do, with the same quality as all other actions that we do (in other
>words our moral actions are not part of a separate category)."
>
>Andy takes issue with what he sees as my "retreat to conscience,"
>suggesting instead that "we need a new ethic, we actually have to resolve
>an ethos for living together which resolves both the problems which got us
>here and the problems we've found when we got here!"
>
>These two comments seem to share a common theme, that it is possible to
>find a new, more satisfactory, ethic. For Michael this ethic would come out
>of our relationship to nature that we therefore can live without reifying,
>and for Andy, from some other source, not disclosed. Neither seems to me to
>come to grips with the postmodern dilemma of how to create moral standards
>that are not also Moral standards--i.e., to recognize that there is no
>universalist solution to morality, yet to continue to hold ourselves and
>others to moral standards. My solution-direction is to recognize our own
>moral standards for the cultural imposition they are, but to act on them,
>nonetheless. What this means is that we have to muster the courage to
>impose moral standards without the psychological prop of moral
>indignation--the hallmark of Moral action. It also means that we get to
>weigh the consequences of our moral enforcement against the moral benefits
>obtained by prevailing. For instance, if we decide, say, that forced female
>circumcision is wrong, we get to take action on that issue--notwithstanding
>that it is practiced within a culture in which it is morally
>acceptable--but then we probably wouldn't want to hang transgressors in the
>market square (as we might if operating from Moral principles).
>
>Hope this helps.
>David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy
> Blunden
>
> <ablunden@mira.ne To: "eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity"
> t> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
> Sent by: cc: (bcc: David H
> Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)
> xmca-bounces who-is-at webe Subject: RE: [xmca]
> Action Research and its relationship to
> r.ucsd.edu SCHAT -
> Whiggism?
>
>
>
>
> 01/30/2007
> 02:20
> AM
>
> Please respond
> to
> "eXtended
> Mind,
> Culture,
>
> Activity"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I agree a lot David: we have a problem, we got here for good reasons, but
>it is a serious problem, there's no simple solution, and the solution being
>
>imposed by the neocons is worse than the disease.
>But I don't agree with your tentative solution, a retreat to conscience (if
>
>I understand you correctly, probably I didn't), we live in a big world and
>I think we want to go on living in a big world: we need a new ethic, we
>actually have to resolve an ethos for living together which resolves both
>the problems which got us here and the problems we've found when we got
>here! :-)
>Andy
>At 07:12 AM 29/01/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >Andy,
> >
> >The fear of relativism seems to be that it erodes moral standards. After
> >all, if my moral standards are just local to my groups or culture, then
> >other groups or cultures are entitled to their own standards--an
>especially
> >difficult dilemma when we recognize the heterogeneity of cultural
>identity,
> >and hence that such shifting standards might need to be applied within our
> >community. So we become locked into a Hobbesian choice of being willing to
> >defend what are taken to be universal Moral standards (which from a
> >historical perspective we see as often playing out as unbridled
> >self-interest acted upon with ferocious and amoral tenacity), versus the
> >absence of any sort of moral compass.
> >
> >Clearly there's no simple solution. To deny our relativist interpretation
> >in order to retain the ability to act is to do serious damage to what--for
> >better or for worse--we have become. Right now we have no solution, but
> >perhaps we can evolve toward one that recognizes the limited and
> >self-centered location of our own values, but acts on them nonetheless.
> >This would involve self-consciously selfish moral actions--moral acts done
> >without the righteous indignation that inevitably powers Moral acts. In
> >this way we retain at least a limited possibility of moral action, with
>the
> >dilemma of relativism effectively shifted from the state of the world to
> >the battleground of our own conscience.
> >
> >David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Andy
> > Blunden
> >
> > <ablunden@mira.ne To: "eXtended Mind,
> > Culture, Activity"
> > t> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >
> > Sent by: cc: (bcc: David H
> > Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)
> > xmca-bounces who-is-at webe Subject: RE: [xmca]
> > Action Research and its relationship
> > r.ucsd.edu to SCHAT -
> > Whiggism?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 01/29/2007
> > 02:04
> > AM
> >
> > Please respond
> > to
> > "eXtended
> > Mind,
> > Culture,
> >
> > Activity"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >But Jay, the kind of rant against historical ladders which I think you are
> >fond of, signal to me and to social conservatives, a kind of moral
> >relativism which is a real life-on-earth-threatening problem at the
>moment,
> >
> >a view which sustains a kind of egotism which is eroding the very
> >foundations of social life. Is modernism of the Fordist variety the main
> >enemy today? Jay, I am sure that you are not such an egotist (you wouldn't
> >be on xmca if you were), but that is exactly how this rant against
> >democracy and progress sounds to those think that Christianity, family and
> >democracy are things worth defending, or those that think that unionism,
> >social solidarity, education, universal rights and public utilities are
> >worth defending.
> >
> >Andy
> >
> >At 10:17 PM 28/01/2007 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > >I think you've read me a little too literally. I hardly think that US
> > >conservatives are either homogeneous on these matters or that they take
>a
> > >genuinely historical view of things. I wish they did! I was using the
> > >notion of Whiggish history to exemplify a tendency to naturalize those
> > >aspects of how things are that are also in our own, or our class
>interest.
> > >
> > >There are a lot of things that US conservatives think are quite natural
> > >and necessary and part of God's natural order, to which civilization has
> > >risen through long experience -- like abominating sex of any kind they
> > >don't like, or insisting that marriage can only be between a man and a
> > >woman. It's the "basics" about which they are Whiggish. Or consider
>their
> > >absolute certainty that the USA is the natural leader of the free world,
> > >the freeest and most liberal country, and has the best system of
> > >government evolved by history. Or indeed that democracy is the last and
> > >highest step on the ladder of political thought and that in all the
> > >millennia that humans may have left, nothing better will ever come
>along.
> > >Etc. And that goes double for born-again christianity.
> > >
> > >Of course they are also out to advance their interests beyond the
>present
> > >state of things, which in many respects is not ideal for them. And that
>is
> >
> > >where the political magic of coalition building comes in. The Bushes,
>and
> > >a lot of other western political leaders, are heavily "invested" in
>Saudi
> > >oil, and a little gay-bashing was a small price to pay for the votes to
> > >enable them to defend their interests against Saddam's perceived threat.
> > >On the other side, quasi-christian fundamentalists recruit more good ol'
> > >boys by being gung-ho adventurist 'patriots' (i.e. nuke the muslims)
>than
> > >by paying any attention to Jesus' views on such matters. Of course,
>there
> > >has always been a minority ahistorical strain in christianity ... it
> > >spawns wacko cults by the dozen every century and always has.
> > >
> > >The problem with trying to understand how other people think politically
> > >is that it is often a total mashup of reasonable principles, disguised
> > >self-interest, and totally schizoid blindness to blazing contradiction.
>By
> >
> > >contrast, a Whig is an ideal type rarely met with, as you note.
> > >
> > >Our major problem in the US is that we have, except here and there
>online,
> >
> > >no public forums where alternative views are really discussed in ways
>that
> >
> > >might bring out some of these problems. When I watch the BBC, centrist
>as
> > >it seems to me, I weep because at least they always present two points
>of
> > >view on every political issue that actually sound like they're
>different.
> > >Every night. In the US, when that happens, it means we are in a
>dangerous
> > >political crisis.
> > >
> > >JAY.
> > >
> > >
> > >At 02:35 AM 1/24/2007, you wrote:
> > >>Jay, I certainly take seriously your injunction for us to try harder to
> > >>understand how other people think politically, but I am not sure that I
> > >>agree with your observations.
> > >>
> > >>Firstly, you refer to a "Whiggish" view of history as being dominant.
>But
> >
> > >>I just don't see it (in far away Melbourne). The view of history that I
> > >>see in people who claim the mantle of conservatism who are calling the
> > >>political tune at the moment, is a very belittling and dismissive one.
> > >>These people seem willing to invent new Churches from scratch with no
> > >>regard whatsoever for the experience of millennia of Christianity,
>invent
> >
> > >>new labour laws from the top of their head, without regard for how the
> > >>current systems are the way they are, set off on new Crusades without
> > >>ever having experienced war or thought about the lessons of past wars,
> > >>abolish age-old institutions willy nilly, and so on. It is more likely
> > >>progressives like most of us on xmca who argue that institutions are
>like
> >
> > >>they are for very good reasons. Honest conservatives, Whigs if you
>like,
> > >>are scarce as hen's teeth these days.
> > >>
> > >>Secondly, who thinks we are in the best of all possible worlds, "the
> > >>crown of creation" because that's the way it *has* to be? I think
>people
> > >>(especially maybe young people) who have actually never ever thought
> > >>about the way things are at all, never reflected on history at all,
>could
> >
> > >>be imputed with this kind of view, if you believe in imputing views
>based
> >
> > >>on things other than holding them. Of those who have a view about
>history
> >
> > >>and the way things are, almost everyone seems to think things are in a
> > >>bad way and getting worse. In fact the very impossibility of even
> > >>imagining that things could ever improve and the ease of imagining a
> > >>global disaster is one of the biggest problems we have. It is, I think,
> > >>people who claim that "all the grand narratives have ended" and "people
> > >>no longer believe in progress" etc who are the most likely to believe
> > >>that we now live in the only grown-up stage of history.
> > >>
> > >>Thirdly, how adequate is the dichotomy between "political radicals and
> > >>political conservatives"? There is little "conservative" about people
> > >>like George Bush and Tony Blair. The people who advise them? Come on!
> > >>These are the people who make up history as they go along. The
>religious
> > >>right? I don't think so, these people are prepared to bring on a
> > >>holocaust in the hope that they will be saved.
> > >>
> > >>I accept that things are very different in different countries, and
>it's
> > >>hard to get an overview. What do you think?
> > >>
> > >>Andy
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>At 07:47 PM 23/01/2007 -0500, you 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
> > >>
> > >>Hegel Summer School 16/17th February 2007. The Roots of Critical Theory
>-
> > >>Resisting Neoconservatism Today
> > >>http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/16022007.htm
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>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
> >
> >Hegel Summer School 16/17th February 2007. The Roots of Critical Theory -
> >Resisting Neoconservatism Today
> >http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/16022007.htm
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
>Hegel Summer School 16/17th February 2007. The Roots of Critical Theory -
>Resisting Neoconservatism Today
>http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/16022007.htm
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
Hegel Summer School 16/17th February 2007. The Roots of Critical Theory -
Resisting Neoconservatism Today
http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/16022007.htm
_______________________________________________
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 - 10:11:34 PST