I think that idea is really worth thingking about, Jay. Can you give us a
concrete expample
to think with? The general idea is appealing.
mike
On 10/16/07, Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>
> An interesting point, certainly, that we _do_ reify these things, in
> many ways, and it is through those reifications, and not as
> abstractions, that rules, norms, divisions of labor, etc. have their
> material mediations for us.
>
> We write down laws, we mouth aphorisms, we have indeed got road
> signs, and markers of class divisions and gender divisions, and media
> advertising and photos to show which toys go with boys and which with
> girls, etc. etc.
>
> How then do these mediations differ from those at the top center of
> the triangle? all mediations are surely both material and semiotic,
> but those that run vertically are frequently repeated, they become
> typical of communities, and not just ad hoc improvisations of a
> moment. As such, their dynamics, the timescales on which they change
> (and don't change), are quite different. In Latour's terms, their
> networks are "longer", or materially speaking, there is a lot more
> "mass" at stake, more people, more tool-making engines, more fat and
> thin wallets, more prisons and uniforms and weapons. More badges of
> rank, more paper flowing through chains of command, more social
> geography of big and small houses built near and far to one another,
> with more or less garbage in their streets.
>
> Those social realities down at the bottom represent a lot more "weight".
>
> What do you think?
>
> JAY.
>
>
> At 08:13 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
> >At 07:05 PM 14/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:
> >>I agree with Mike that mediation, in some sense(s), occurs not just
> >>through tools, but also via more community level "culture". The
> >>problem, I think, is to not simply reify abstractions like rules,
> >>norms, division of labor, etc.,
> >
> >
> >... or on the other hand, to see how rules, norms, division of
> >labor, etc., *are* reified (or objectified), and why people act in
> >line with them as if they were written down like road signs?
> >
> >Andy
> >
> >>but, again as Mike recommends, to see how they play out in concrete
> >>cases. From such cases we can try to build a repertoire of
> >>different ways in which these community-level mediations occur.
> >>
> >>In the genre/SFL/register approach that Gordon recommends, and that
> >>Ruqaiya Hasan also commented on, one way to see such mediations is
> >>through the ways in which different "social voices" (ala Bakhtin)
> >>or textual genres, which have their manifestations in talk and
> >>texts at the apex of the top triangle, themselves translate
> >>divisions of labor and opinion, or social norms, in the community
> >>(or communities) into concrete practices ... such as in Bakhtin's
> >>notion of heteroglossia, which has both a sociology of social
> >>divisions aspect and also an "axiological" one, which manifests
> >>social norms, attitudes, values, etc. According to SFL discourse
> >>theory, we ought then to expect to see these lower-triangle
> >>mediations show up in genre and register differences, right down to
> >>the level of linguistic choices and frequency distributions.
> >>
> >>If there is, among the waiting queue of papers-seeking-comment on
> >>xmca, any which offer us concrete cases where we might pursue these
> >>possibilities, I'd be very interested to see them. Especially if
> >>they contain any specific data on language-using or other
> >>sign-using practices in concrete joint-action activities where the
> >>norms and practices of one or more communities are being brought
> >>together (uneasily? or too easily?).
> >>
> >>Heracleitus wrote that 'the road up and the road down are the same
> >>road', and maybe in triangle-land the way across runs through such
> >>up-and-down roads. I sure know that my own research does!
> >>
> >>JAY.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>At 12:36 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
> >>>In a discussion with Gordon that was mostly about other matters I
> raised the
> >>>issue of the extent to which it is appropriate to think of the
> mediations in
> >>>Yrjo's expanded triangle as only occuring through the apex, and where
> >>>subject-subject mediated interaction (including discourse) was not also
> >>>represented there. Don't social rules mediate the activity and
> person-person
> >>>interactions. Are there not pathways of mediations from subject to
> community
> >>>AND to mediators at the top?
> >>>
> >>>I have been thinking how important it is when using these highly
> abstract
> >>>representations to rise to concrete examples and, having done so, to
> compare
> >>>the ways in which different representation highlight different features
> of
> >>>the overall system in a way that is more complentary than
> contradictory.
> >>>
> >>>Are people about done with a focus on Gordon's article? There are a
> couple
> >>>of people who might benefit from having their work read and discussed
> on
> >>>XMCA and want advice.
> >>>I am happy to stay with Gordon's piece which has been a rich source of
> >>>discussion, but if people want to put it into the store of
> >>>to-be-returned-to-when-needed contributions, we might put up something
> new
> >>>where junior folks are seeking critique and advice.
> >>>mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 10/13/07, Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > After a way-too-busy last several weeks, I've finally caught up with
> >>> > reading a lot of xmca posts, and especially those about Gordon
> Wells'
> >>> > article on discoursing as an operational mediation of activities.
> >>> >
> >>> > I generally agree with Gordon's point of view, but with some
> >>> > exceptions and a few shifts in conceptual framework. As this was
> >>> > obviously a very complex topic, I'm just going to make a few points
> >>> > here and attach the notes I wrote to myself to articulate my own
> >>> > position in more detail.
> >>> >
> >>> > We surely do need better ways to talk about both the similarities
> and
> >>> > the differences in how activity is mediated by talk vs. artifactual
> >>> > tools. Both are indeed material, and both are, I believe, also
> >>> > potentially (though tools not always so in practice) semiotic. The
> >>> > ways in which they are mediational for an activity may be more
> >>> > constitutive (the activity unthinkable apart from them) or more
> >>> > optionally instrumental (the activity may be clumsy or fail without
> >>> > them, but can be imagined without them). Signs are one kind of tool.
> >>> > Or better said, I think, material objects or material processes
> (like
> >>> > phonation) can be used-as-tools-in-activity, and are not
> >>> > tools-as-such except when used-as-tools-in-activity, and likewise
> for
> >>> > tools that are (or are also) used-as-signs-in-activity. The special
> >>> > character of sign-use distinguishing it from non-semiotic tool-use
> >>> > has to do with the difference between the material
> >>> > affordances-for-use of tool-qualities as such and the possible
> social
> >>> > meanings of those qualities and ways-of-using. This is key and
> >>> > complex, and it's the main subject of the attached notes.
> >>> >
> >>> > I am not so clear about Gordon's proposal to take talk-in-activity
> as
> >>> > operation-level in Leontiev's sense. I've always thought that there
> >>> > have to be more than just three levels in the analysis of an
> >>> > activity, even if the relations between operations and actions, vs.
> >>> > the different kinds of relations between actions and activities, are
> >>> > key to understanding the possible types of relations among the many
> >>> > levels. Within talk, there are already many levels, articulating
> >>> > among themselves in both the sound-to-word way and in the
> >>> > sentence-to-paragraph way (cf. 'double articulation' in classic
> >>> > linguistic theory). And between talk and larger activities in which
> >>> > it is embedded and for which it is constitutive or instrumental to
> >>> > some degree, there are also multiple levels of (or links in a chain
> >>> > of) interpretance, ala Peirce. More on this in the notes.
> >>> >
> >>> > I've always appreciated Gordon's dialogical version of Engestrom's
> >>> > triangles, based on his reading of Bakhtin (with which I mainly
> >>> > agree). But I wonder if in this formulation we don't somewhat
> >>> > background a key element of the top triangle -- that the use of
> >>> > mediational means is a digression, or displacement, from direct
> >>> > subject-on-object or here subject-on-subject action? It's a
> different
> >>> > activity with the mediation of tool or sign than without it, even if
> >>> > the same goal is reached. In the subject-on-subject version, while
> we
> >>> > can and should pay attention to the emergence of joint goals and
> >>> > outcomes, or on the conflict of goals, etc., I think the core issue
> >>> > is linguistic manipulation and control as a displacement from direct
> >>> > physical manipulation and control (though clearly we often do both,
> >>> > and this may be especially important in early development, as it is
> >>> > in learning/teaching bike riding, etc.). But we also need to think
> >>> > about how language, or sign-use in general, serves to directly
> >>> > influence the Other, and how it differs from, say, pushing them
> >>> > bodily or hitting them with a stick (tool). Differs both for the
> >>> > better, and for the worse, in terms of power and control, or
> >>> > resistance. My sense is that there is a lot in this more
> >>> > uncomfortable aspect of linguistic mediation to help us understand
> >>> > how and why signs are used in joint activity. Historically, not all
> >>> > joint activity has been voluntary.
> >>> >
> >>> > I apologize for the occasional opacity of the attached notes where
> >>> > they reflect my inner-speech.
> >>> >
> >>> > JAY.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > 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
> >
> > Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380
> > 9435, mobile 0409 358 651
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
Received on Tue Oct 16 19:41 PDT 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 20 2007 - 14:25:43 PST