At 09:38 PM 16/10/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>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
"thingking" - was that a freudian slip or a neologism?
Andy
>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
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
Received on Tue Oct 16 20:59 PDT 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 20 2007 - 14:25:43 PST