Re: [xmca] Radius of Subjectivity

What I was trying to get at is to do with the individual/structure problem:
intuitively we know that "agency" is a real thing, but social science
teaches us that history is governed by laws, not the will of individuals,
we know we can make certain choices about the path we take in our own
lives, but do we have any say over which roads are available? can we change
the landscape? We have a "mind of our own", but are we not simply
expressions of this or that aspect of the Zeitgeist?

So putting the ability raise our arm on the same scale with overthrowing
capitalism, with maybe changing attitudes about teaching maths in San Diego
somewhere in the middle, it changes things. Instead of having 2 or 3
different questions that seem to belong to different worlds, one has a
continuous scale. We see that one person can change EG the attitude of
people in a whole city to gays by agitating and getting a new laws passed,
which for someone else is just an unchangeable fact of life. But there is
no sharp line. People can expand their radius of subjectivity.

Practical example: 15 months ago my partner had a stroke and is now quite
disabled. Formerly she would be out of the house every day doing this or
that. For 15 months she has been outside only if I drive her to rehab or
something. The government has offered to buy her an electric scooter (which
she is competent to drive BTW) but she says: "What do I need that for?
Where would I go?" So my problem is, how do I expand her "radius of
subjectivity" in the sense of having an interest again in the world
outside, so she sees a point in getting agency in that world outside the
front door? So I am thinking agency, knowledge and identity are
interconnected here. If she is no longer "tied up in" things happening
around town, she doesn't need agency; if she *can't* participate in that
big world outside due to lack of mobility, she loses interest in that
world. Vicious circle.

Andy
At 04:16 PM 13/11/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>Andy, Eric
>
> I'm not sure that Vygotsky's ZPD is at all similar to what Lewin had in
> mind . It seems that Giddens microspaces -- that eclectic stew of
> Bourdieu's fields and Garfinkel's ethnomethodological frames are the
> already elaborated concepts that encompass what is being proposed in the
> various terminologies being discussed in this thread.. . But, as far as
> I understand, these theoretical constructs, have a totally abstract
> relationship to Vygotsky's ZPD: the notion of a boundary, a very
> abstrract notion at that, something limiting individual agency (which
> doesn't have a whole lot to do with subjectivity in any event).
>
> It seems to me that the learning process at the core of Vygotsky's ZPD
> isn't a key factor in Lewin, Garfinkel, Giddens, or any other
> formulations of "radii" I've read in this thread. In all of these
> micro-sociological frames, the boundary has nothing at all to do with a
> learning relationship between someone competent in a task and someone
> gaining competency. Lewin's idea was almost geometrical. Do you think
> Vygotsky's was? From what I understand the ZPD is not a boundary that
> can be reduced to a metric any more than can the feelings of blossoming
> wonder or or monstrous terror.
>
> What d'ya think>
>
> Paul
>
>Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> Thank you Eric. You and David have given me the kind of pointers I
>suspected were out there.
>Andy
>At 11:58 AM 13/11/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >Andy:
> >
> >Radius of subjectivity is not new but providing different language for
> >social situations can help introduce new thinking about the age old
> >question, "Why and How are humans what they are?"
> >
> >Consider the following quote regarding Kurt Lewin:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > For Kurt Lewin behaviour was determined by totality of an individual's
> > situation. In his field
> > theory, a 'field' is defined as 'the totality of coexisting facts which
> > are conceived of as
> > mutually interdependent' (Lewin 1951: 240). Individuals were seen to
> > behave differently according
> > to the way in which tensions between perceptions of the self and of the
> > environment were worked
> > through. The whole psychological field, or 'lifespace', within which
> > people acted had to be
> > viewed, in order to understand behaviour. Within this individuals and
> > groups could be seen in
> > topological terms (using map-like representations). Individuals
> > participate in a series of life
> > spaces (such as the family, work, school and church), and these were
> > constructed under the
> > influence of various force vectors (Lewin
> > 1952).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >this was taken from the following website:
> >http://wilderdom.com/theory/FieldTheory.html
> >
> >or consider Jaan Valsiner's Zone theory that suggests people develop based
> >on their zone of free movement, society's zone of promoted action and the
> >specific zone of proximal development ( as defined by Seth Chaiklen).
> >
> >I for one appreciate your input and believe if you were to extrapolate
> >further you may be onto a successful philosophical tool Andy!
> >
> >eric
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Andy
> > Blunden
> >
> >
> > et> cc:
> >
> > Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] Radius
> > of Subjectivity
> > xmca-bounces@web
> >
> > er.ucsd.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 11/08/2007
> > 06:44
> >
> > PM
> >
> > Please
> > respond
> >
> > to
> > "eXtended
> >
> > Mind,
> > Culture,
> >
> > Activity"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >My reason for splurting the thought on to the list was the suspicion that
> >it was not original.
> >There are differences though. The idea of "radius" as a measure unites, for
> >
> >example, both "society" and the "individual", which people regularly talk
> >about as two distinct levels needing some kind of bridge between them, and
> >you have people talking about "agency" in quite contradictory ways, using
> >the same word for what appears as two different things, but actually
> >involves different radii which has a continuous scale. Plus you mention a
> >trichotomy, but a quite different trichotomy to identity, agency and
> >knowing.
> >Andy
> >At 03:17 PM 8/11/2007 -0800, you wrote:
> > >Andy--
> > >
> > > Great! But wait....
> > >
> > > What's the relationship between your "radii of subjectivity" (and my
> > > "event horizon" and Mike's and LSV's "social situation of learning"...how
> >
> > > the terms proliferate!) and the trichotomy (if that is what it is)
> > > "operation", "action", and "activity"?
> > >
> > > That's my question!
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > > Seoul National University of Education
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > >Do You Yahoo!?
> > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > >http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try
>it now.
>_______________________________________________
>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 Nov 13 16:56 PST 2007