Jay:
Thank you for echoing my thoughts on individualism being an aspect of
development. My interest certainly does lie in the deviance from the norm
because of my work with severely emotionally disturbed adolescents and
young adults.
Specifically what I am interested in in human development is Vygotsky's
continuum of sycretic/complex/concept development and its relation to
heterochronic development as it pertains to the zone of proximal
development as Seth Chaiklin defines it.
Wow! three developments in one sentence. Makes me view it as a poor word
choice. Don't know any others in the english language that work though.
eric
Jay Lemke
<jaylemke@umich. To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
edu> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] On Roth's "On Mediation"
xmca-bounces@web
er.ucsd.edu
10/25/2007 02:16
PM
Please respond
to "eXtended
Mind, Culture,
Activity"
A useful notion from developmental theory in biology is that types
(species) evolve, while individuals (tokens) develop, and their
developmental trajectories fall within a range or "envelope" of
development that is typical for their species, but within this
envelope they individuate or differ from each other.
The width of the envelope is a measure of the plasticity of the
species for adapting to a range of conditions, and when conditions
change so as to favor say one extreme of the envelope over the other
"side", then the average (median) trajectory shifts statistically,
and this is one component of species (micro-) evolution.
Correspondingly, we could imagine that the type here is the typical
habitus of some (perhaps sub-) cultural group, capable of reproducing
its habitus (dispositions, beliefs, etc.). Individuals develop within
the envelope of group-habitus, but with unique twists or extreme
degrees, and the culture of the group as a whole statistically
evolves when many individuals all tend to one side or another of the
norm, so that the position of that norm itself shifts.
While this is largely a quantitative difference model, one can also,
I think, apply it more qualitatively, to include discontinuous jumps,
and across different time-scales, more radical macro-evolution of cultures.
Given Eric's examples, it's not clear if he is especially interested
in "outliers", in a-typical members of groups. I've said something in
another recent post about how individuals, operating within a habitus
but across different fields, might embody the tensions or conflicts
between the valuations within fields, so as to upset a field
(originality, creativity, deviance). But only when a lot of other
people follow their deviant lead, do we get something that is
macro-socially significant.
Sometimes we pay a lot of attention to the deviant individual, and
less to the question of why their deviance became influential with
many more people. Surely all persistent cultural systems generate
deviance ... deviance is necessary to keep plasticity for response to
unpredictable new conditions. It's interesting to understand how they
do that. And a lot of change probably starts with some deviant model
of alternative possibilities. But then what happens? there are,
presumably, a lot of deviant individuals whose alternative ideas and
practices simply vanish and of whom we have never heard.
An interesting area of inquiry that I once considered, but never
followed up on, is to try to see how much variability there is in a
social system or social group, over time, in terms of how much
deviance it generates, and how tightly it polices it. Is that
variability responsive to some collective, unconscious perception of
the need for change? or the level of risk? "Survival" means something
very different for populations or species or societies and cultures
than it does for individuals. Everything that happens in individual
development is also, potentially, an element of population-level processes.
JAY.
At 02:28 PM 10/25/2007, you wrote:
>It has everything to do with mediation, because it constitutes the
>resident culture, and, reflexively, contributes to discussing what is
>being discussed on this list, Watson, fires in California, etc. In
>the discussion so far, we have had little if any comment about how
>our ideologies mediate what we do here and how we do it. And this
>absence of the topic makes sense to me in terms of what I wrote,
>namely, it is structural but unavailable to consciousness. So it does
>not enter the kinds of discussions we have, unless someone points it
>out. So does it mediate consciousness and the CHOICE OF ACTIONS? No,
>the agent does not take it into account so that the decision is not
>mediated from that point of view. Michael
>
>
>
>On 25-Oct-07, at 10:38 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>
>
>Michael:
>
>Truely, what does this have to do with mediation and the question of
>individual development?
>
>eric
>
>
>
> Wolff-Michael
> Roth To: "eXtended
>Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> <mroth@uvic.ca> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca]
>On Roth's "On Mediation"
> xmca-bounces@web
> er.ucsd.edu
>
>
> 10/25/2007 12:08
> PM
> Please respond
> to "eXtended
> Mind, Culture,
> Activity"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>You are right, collective U.S. needs are satisfied AT THE EXPENSE of
>people in Micronesia, Iraq, etc.
>
>Derrida suggested, after doing a long analysis of "democracy," that
>the first rogue state may well be (is) the US. It does not guarantee
>human rights, it does not submit to the court in The Hague, it
>aggresses other nations, etc.
>
>Michael
>
>
>On 25-Oct-07, at 7:37 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>
>
>Michael:
>
>I put "shift" in quotes to emphasize that I did not view that word to be
>the proper word to describe the process involved. Surely something
>happens
>because as your article states, if a golfer starts using different
>equipment then they move away from the immediacy of operations to
>mediated
>actions. Levels of saliency? Political statements? Collective
>needs are
>fulfilled in the U.S in a way that is different then Micronesia. How is
>this to say one way is better then the other. Michael, I am not a
>politician. I am simply trying to wrap my tiny brain around the view
>that
>individuals do not develop as individuals? Of course culture plays a
>role
>in this development. But how does a person develop into an Einstein, a
>Nelson Mandela, a Cascious Clay, a Yo-Yo Ma, a Bach, a Bobby Fisher, a
>Charles Schultz, a Mike Cole, a Vygotsky, a Tensing Norgay, a Pol Pot, a
>Lenin? The collective of their growth was important for their growth
>but
>at some point they do become individuals apart from the collective.
>
>eric
>
>
>
> Wolff-Michael
> Roth To: "eXtended
>Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> <mroth@uvic.ca> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca]
>On Roth's "On Mediation"
> xmca-bounces@web
> er.ucsd.edu
>
>
> 10/25/2007 09:09
> AM
> Please respond
> to "eXtended
> Mind, Culture,
> Activity"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Hi Eric, we don't "shift", especially not between operations and
>activity. Most often, the activity is not salient to us either,
>especially not how it is interconnected with other activities to
>provide a societal network and meet collective needs. (A
>consciousness of the collective needs fulfilled in our individual
>participation is notably ABSENT in much of U.S. culture and its
>rampant individualism----exploiting much of the world for its own
>growth,.)
>Michael
>
>
>On 25-Oct-07, at 6:24 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>
>
>Michael, Mike, Gordon, Tony and all:
>
>I am in complete agreement of the immediacy that tools and signs
>present to
>fully developed (haha a can of worms for debate) adult humans for the
>purpose of "shifting" between operations and activitiy. My interest
>is in
>the developmental stages of fetus, newborn, infant, toddle, child,
>adolescent, young adult. Would it be helpful to introduce the word/term
>heterochrony into the discussion at this point?
>
>Or would that be an illegal shift ? ; ->
>
>eric
>
>
>
> Wolff-Michael
> Roth To:
>mcole@weber.ucsd.edu, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <mroth@uvic.ca> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent by: cc:
> xmca-bounces@web Subject: Re: [xmca]
>On Roth's "On Mediation"
> er.ucsd.edu
>
>
> 10/24/2007 07:51
> PM
> Please respond
> to "eXtended
> Mind, Culture,
> Activity"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Hi all,
>I think we can find similar kind of thinking in a number of works and
>traditions. For example, with respect to CHAT, Klaus Holzkamp
>distinguishes between the world as available to people everyday, and
>other aspects only available through critique of ideology, structural
>analysis.
>
>Similarly, Dorothy Smith (sociologist) writes about the world as
>available to us, and determinations that are not apparent. If I use a
>concept such as Standard North American Family or Single Parent, I am
>generally not aware of the political work that has gone on behind the
>scenes--from my current perspective---and I am importing into my
>lifeworld ideologies. Only critical analysis (ethnography, sociology,
>critical cultural studies) will allow me to make these hidden
>structures/determinations apparent.
>
> From a consciousness perspective, only those things mediate my
>decisions that are apparent to me; but from an analytic perspective,
>there are structural determinations or mediations.
>
>Michael
>
>
>
>
>On 24-Oct-07, at 3:57 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
>
>Gordon--
>
>A position in Michael's paper that seems crucial to me is that between
>functional and structural
>perspectives with respect to mediation of CONSCIOUSNESS (not necessarily
>behavior, although
>sometimes I get confused on this score).
>
>So, while I may be unconcious of the fact that a gear box/stick etc are
>mediating my interaction with the world
>while driving, e.g., functionally for consciousness the operation of
>gear
>shifting is unediated, structurally, the
>operation IS mediated.
>
>This is sort of like Don Norman's "first person" versus "system" view of
>mediated human action and the use of
>artifacts in action.
>
>Not sure how we can zero in and be more precise, lets see what
>michael says.
>mike
>
>On 10/24/07, Gordon Wells <gwells@ucsc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Michael,
>>
>>I too had some difficulty with the non-mediating operation issue. I
>>agree with your analysis of speaking and Mike Cole's explanation of
>>Leontiev's example, but I still think that the operation (of
>>gear-shifting or fish feeding with the scoop) act as mediational
>>means in the action in focus. Using Mike's explanation, it would
>>seem that having to attend to gear-shifting - or to how to use the
>>scoop - means that those are actions - or probably sub-actions -
>>rather than operations.
>>
>>Taking this general discussion a little further, wouldn't it also be
>>necessary to recognize that, just as there are sub-actions, so there
>>are sub-operations that are even further from conscious awareness?
>>
>>Gordon
>>
>>>Hi Eric,
>>>thanks for your note.
>>>
>>>>How does the immediacy of operations develop into the mediated
>>>>actions of a goal directed activity?
>>>
>>>Operations do not "Develop" into mediated actions, they are produced
>>>in response to current conditions, which include the present state
>>>of the action. I am thinking about talking in everyday situations as
>>>a paradigm. We don't go and search for words, they seem to appear in
>>>our mouths. The type of words is a function of the current state,
>>>including what we have produced thus far, and we stop not BECAUSE of
>>>grammatical rules but because of a stop order (remember, most people
>>>and especially children don't know formal grammar and yet produce
>>>grammatical sentences), which tells us that what we have produced is
>>>somehow complete. We can make salient operations, which usually
>>>happens when something goes wrong, and the reverse happens as we
>>>become familiar with actions that they disappear from our
>>>consciousness. When this happens precisely normally is not available
>>>to consciousness, because it precisely involves the disappearance of
>>>being conscious of the action. (I once studied it when I was
>>>teaching in Newfoundland, taking also a course, and doing a study of
>>>tying shoe laces with a child that had trisomy 21. What are
>>>operations to us had to be made explicit, involving something like
>>>18 steps in my case. With time, 2 actions combined, leading to the
>>>disappearance [becoming operations] of its predecessors)
>>>Michael
>>>
>>>On 24-Oct-07, at 9:25 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Woff-Michael:
>>>
>>>Firstoff: great read! I so enjoy an article that places a "real-
>>>world"
>>>context for the reader to negotiate the scholarly "words". The
>>real-world
>>>context being the fish hatchery. Also, for once I believe I have
>>>a firm
>>>grasp on how Leontiev was negotiating the avenue of activities,
>>>actions
>>and
>>>operations. Your examples clearly indicate the differences and I
>>>am able
>>>to better understand the history and development of Cultural-
>>>Historical
>>>theory as a result of your article. Thank you. Here is my
>>>difficulty.
>>>Perhaps it is in the paper and I am not deciphering it correctly,
>>>perhaps
>>>not. How does the immediacy of operations develop into the mediated
>>>actions of a goal directed activity? Where is the explanation of the
>>>process that allows actions to become operations? Vygotsky viewed
>>>the
>>>transition of speaking aloud to problem solving to inner speech for
>>problem
>>>solving as the process. Valsiner similar but more intricate in his
>>>explanations. The difference obviously being that Valsiner has
>>>enjoyed
>>>much more time in the research arena. Using your example of
>>>learning how
>>>to feed the fish could you possibly walk me through your thoughts
>>>on how
>>>you transitioned from using the scoop as a mediating device to the
>>>point
>>>where feeding the fish was an operation and you were able to move
>>>into an
>>>'everydayness' of feeding fish.
>>>
>>>eric
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>>
>>
>>--
>>Gordon Wells
>>Department of Education
>>University of California, Santa Cruz
>>http://people.ucsc.edu/~gwells
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
Received on Fri Oct 26 07:28 PDT 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 20 2007 - 14:25:43 PST