Re: [xmca] Subject: Verb, Object

Here is Anna's paper, but I don't seem to have a copy of
Relational Interdependence Between Social and Individual Agency in Work and
Working Life, Stephen Billett, MCA, v13 (1) pp. 53-69.

In discussion I held in relation to both papers that the authors made an
individual/society dichotomy which then presents us with an unbridgeable
gap. An amalgam between activity and culture is as I recall one of the
issues I took with Anna's paper, and in Steve's case, I pointed to a naive
concept of the individual as a free agent. But my paper currently under
discussion takes up the issues in depth.

All three papers address themselves to the problem: are individuals in any
sense "free agents" rather than creatures of their times and their social
position? If so, how can we theorise this as social psychologists?

I can't go past trying to find an answer to this question.

Andy
At 12:12 PM 27/12/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>Fine idea to re-post, Andy. In fact, important to have all three articles
>collected as a "discussion note" on XMCA. But that will have to await the
>holidays.
>
>But meatime, if you or someone would be so kind as to post pdf files of
>the two articles
>to XMCA, we can perhaps all benefit by greater depth of vision. Seems like
>a precis
>of the narrative so far would be helpful as an "advanced organizer." :-)
>
>We will also need a lot of good luck to have people actually read all
>three articles to that
>people are not talking past each other!!
>
>mike
>
>On Dec 27, 2007 11:57 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > Mike,
> > Well I do feel that my paper has not been engaged with.
> >
> > It was written as a continuation of two previous discussions on this list
> > over MCA journal articles - Anna Stetsenko's of October 2005 and Steve
> > Billett's of December 2006 - concerning the "problem of the individual",
> > the problem that David so eloquently described as the subject being like
> > the "disappearing middle classes", squeezed between structuralism and
> > individualism,
> >
> > Perhaps if these first two statements in the dialogue were to be
> > re-posted,
> > the context of my article would be clearer?
> >
> > Andy
> > At 11:11 AM 27/12/2007 -0800, you wrote:
> > >Great help, David, thanks. And Andy and Paul.
> > >
> > >David- In Cultural Psychology I also level the charge of a focus on
> > >instrumentality - object oriented-ness at Leontiev. But you can find
> > places
> > >in his writing where the "object" is a
> > >person, a sujbect, and he talks about subject-subject relations. Yrjo
> > has
> > >some such quote
> > >in Learning by Expanding.
> > >
> > >I find Leontiev VERY difficult to read. I worked for serveral years on
> > the
> > >translation of his book
> > >on development and finally returned it to Progress. Defeated. I often
> > >struggle with what is
> > >there. I do know he labored under conditions where his close association
> > >with Jews and the
> > >charges of "signocentricism" thrown at LSV, idealism(!) put him in a very
> > >difficult position, to
> > >say the least. I have heard it said that he personally behaved badly at
> > >times. And who in those
> > >conditions did not "behave badly" who lived to tell about it?
> > >
> > >My reading is not either/or. It was an extraordinarily difficult time to
> > be
> > >decent, as Luria himself
> > >is said to have said. It is up to us, the living, to learn what we can
> > and
> > >make up our own minds.
> > >
> > >We do have the benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants. And time.
> > >
> > >Leontiev is incorrect in so far as he agrees to any simple version of the
> > >idea that human
> > >evolution REPLACES biological evolution, and it very possible to read
> > >Leontiev in that way.
> > >Here I see the influence of Stalinism directly on activity theory.
> > Leontiev
> > >handled it one way,
> > >Rubenshtein another. They both lived to an old age and died of what we
> > refer
> > >to as
> > >"natural causes." Andrei Brushlinsky, Rubenshtein's loyal student, when
> > he
> > >was head of
> > >the Institute of Psychology, argued fiercely with our Soviet-then-
> > Russian
> > >colleagues. He
> > >accused them (Leontiev in particular) because he under-valued the
> > subject.
> > >
> > >The evidence of biologically highly canalazed, million year old, forms of
> > >highly tuned
> > >"primitive circuits" that are activated prior to the cortex on the one
> > hand,
> > >and connect to pervasive
> > >features of the environment (variously called "modules," "skeletal
> > concepts"
> > >) is to important
> > >to ignore. Culture is our way of dealing with con-specifics and the rest
> > of
> > >the world,
> > >but is nOT outside nature.
> > >
> > >But this is a topic for another time.
> > >
> > >At THIS time, I'll stop this overlong note, say thanks again for
> > provoking
> > >interesting re-illuminations, and wish us all a productive and friendly
> > >2008. After all, it beats
> > >working for a living? Right?
> > >:-)
> > >mike
> > >
> > >On Dec 26, 2007 10:08 PM, Paul Dillon <phd_crit_think@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > A mythological metaphorical reflection:
> > > >
> > > > In the beginning was the Instrument/Word (Verb)
> > > > and so the Heavens (Subject)
> > > > and the Earth (Object)
> > > > were created.
> > > >
> > > > And isn't it notable that in subject-verb-object formulation, the
> > verb
> > > > is the only term that refers to a type of word, while both subject and
> > > > object aren't a type of word at all but necessarily nouns or their
> > > > palimpsests (pronouns). Such a difference, at least for me, casts
> > > doubt on
> > > > any claim that such a formulation constitutes a concept. Besides,
> > what
> > > > happens with SOV languages? Beyond that, haven't linguists abandoned
> > this
> > > > formulation for Topic-Comment and other formulations?
> > > >
> > > > Further, I must admit that I really loved diagramming sentences idn
> > 5th
> > > > grade.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Dear Andy and Mike:
> > > >
> > > > Here's what I've got out of the discussion so far (though I don't
> > expect
> > > > Andy to agree with any of this!):
> > > >
> > > > a) The "subject" is in bad shape, rather like the "hollowed out"
> > middle
> > > > class. On the one (extreme) hand, individuals appear to have virtually
> > no
> > > > agency. On the other (even more extreme) hand, the agency market as
> > been
> > > > well and truly cornered by large corporations and nation-states. There
> > is
> > > > almost nothing in between: movements, communities, neighbourhoods and
> > even
> > > > families have been either sublated or extirpated.
> > > >
> > > > India is a particularly horrible example of this: community, caste,
> > and
> > > > even religion have little meaning outside a "communalist" (really
> > statist
> > > > and corporatist) ideology. I'm not sure if "nation" ever meant much of
> > > > anything!
> > > >
> > > > b) The origins of CHAT lie in a concern for the subject because the
> > human
> > > > psyche is what we theorize. However, we theorize it by relating it to
> > > > "activity" (I have some problems with this bit, as you've probably
> > > noticed),
> > > > and of course ANL (but not LSV) theorized "activity" as chiefly
> > > > object-oriented. For this reason, there is an objectivist bent in much
> > > early
> > > > CHAT which leaves us somewhat at a loss to explain how individuals
> > might
> > > > exercise agency, particularly under capitalist conditions where the
> > market
> > > > has been cornered by corporatist, statist, or communalist entities.
> > > >
> > > > ANL's work on "Activity, Consciousness and the Personality" contains a
> > lot
> > > > of evidence of this. Notice how indignantly he rejects the idea that
> > what
> > > > children learn is to play "the role" of a son or daughter or student
> > (p.
> > > > 104). But it is very hard to see how else they could learn what their
> > > > "mission" is!
> > > >
> > > > c) The solution is to re-colonize social theory. In order to this you
> > go
> > > > back to Hegel. Here you remind us that that the subject can be seen
> > "from
> > > > above" (the universal), "from below" (the individual), but also "from
> > > the in
> > > > between" (the particular).
> > > >
> > > > Because I teach grammar, I think of this as three sentences, each
> > having a
> > > > different position on LSV's "measure of generality" (Chapter Six of
> > > > "Thinking and Speech"):
> > > >
> > > > 1) Do you like apples? (the universal)
> > > > 2) Yes, I'd like an apple. (the particular)
> > > > 3) That juicy red one, please. (the individual)
> > > >
> > > > We are not looking at three different apples or three kinds of apples,
> > and
> > > > we are certainly not three three different speakers or three different
> > > > hearers. The apples are the same, and so are the people; only the way
> > of
> > > > thinking about them has changed. In the same way "subject" can be
> > > individual
> > > > AND cultural AND social at one and the same time.
> > > >
> > > > But this is why I think it MATTERS that for ANL mediation was
> > objective
> > > > and external and linked to tool-using labour activity while for LSV it
> > was
> > > > two edged, external-internal, and linked to something that was
> > individual
> > > > AND social AND cultural, namely word meaning. It seems to me that
> > ANL's
> > > > version is ineluctably OBJECT oriented, but LSV's is not.
> > > > Subject-Verb-Object, the paradigm for ANL's unit of analysis, is
> > really
> > > just
> > > > ONE kind of sentence, and it turns out to be not a very common kind,
> > not
> > > > even in English.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that it is VERY interesting that Hegel tells us that there are
> > > > three paradigmatic kinds of mediation and not just two (tools, signs,
> > and
> > > > CHILDREN). I also agree that this shows a rather unusually materialist
> > > bent,
> > > > and it makes me believe that Marx really did find the old man standing
> > on
> > > > his head.
> > > >
> > > > But it's for precisely THIS reason I find ANL's apparent Lamarckianism
> > and
> > > > Lysenkoism so disquieting. Look at this:
> > > >
> > > > "The principal progress in development of the brain made snce the
> > coming
> > > > of modern man has apparently been that the function of fixing the
> > dynamic
> > > > structures built up has been gradually corticalized, i.e. the role
> > played
> > > > by subcortical centres in relation to the accumulation of species
> > > biological
> > > > experience has been transferred to the cortex, the organ of
> > ontogenetic
> > > > experience. (...) While one has to speak, first and foremost, of the
> > > > formation of hereditarily fixed constructions, these changes are not
> > > > produced by biological heredity at the level of man but in the process
> > of
> > > > assimilation described above, which also constitutes the mechanism of
> > > social
> > > > 'inheritance'. (...) Man's psyche is thus a function of the higher
> > brain
> > > > structures that arose in him ontogenetically in the course of his
> > mastering
> > > > of historically mouled forms of activity in relation to the human
> > world
> > > > about him; that aspect of man's development which is physicologically
> > > > expressed in the reportudction,
> > > > change, an complication of these structure in succeeding generations,
> > is
> > > > also the process of the psyche's historical development." (pp.
> > 324-325,
> > > > "Problems of the Development of Mind")
> > > >
> > > > I would MUCH rather leave the "dynamic structures" outside the brain
> > > > altogether (the "supercortical features" that Luria and Bella talk
> > about!)
> > > > than to have to subscribe to the idea that what we learn changes the
> > shape
> > > > of our cortexes and these cortexes get inherited by our children.
> > That's
> > > > objectivism made flesh.
> > > >
> > > > David Kellogg
> > > > Seoul National University of Education
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> > Search.
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>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