Re: [xmca] Subject: Verb, Object

As Luisa, I think that cultural psychology is exactly what are you
referring to, Andy. And I totally agree wit mike that social
psychology refers to a different intellectual domain than the one you
aspire to contribute!
david

On Jan 1, 2008, at 10:32 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:

> I was hesitant in responding to Luisa, and settled for a one-word
> response because I think as the title of a book by Mike Cole, the
> words "Cultural Psychology" have become associated with one
> (Mike's) tendency within the family of tendencies from Symbolic
> Interactionism to CHAT to "Non-classical Psychology". And I didn't
> want to narrow the field prematurely. That's all. But also, yes,
> I'd like to hear what the author of a book with that title meant by
> it! That's for sure.
>
> Andy
> At 07:55 PM 1/01/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>> I take it that Andy's asking why this would not be discussed
>> within the framework of Mike's book "Cultural Psychology," in
>> which the meaning of that terminology, within his framework, is
>> elaborated.
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008, Paul Dillon wrote:
>>
>>> great, but would someone please tell me exactly what "culture"
>>> means.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>> Sure.
>>> Andy
>>> At 10:43 PM 1/01/2008 +0000, you wrote:
>>>> Andy
>>>> ... why not "cultural psychology"?
>>>>
>>>> Luísa Aires
>>>>
>>>>> Good question Mike. I never thought about that, and it is
>>>>> certainly in
>>>>> ignorance of how these terms are used in academia generally.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose by 'social psychology' I mean a current of psychology
>>>>> which
>>>>> utilises a concept of 'extended mind' as its foundational
>>>>> principle. It is
>>>>> always the case that other currents contribute insights which
>>>>> are not so
>>>>> easily accessible from one's own (so to speak) - even if you
>>>>> don't accept
>>>>> the principles of Psychoanalysis, there are still things to
>>>>> learn from it;
>>>>> and the same goes for all currents and schools of psychology.
>>>>> But by
>>>>> 'social psychology' I mean a real psychology, that is practical
>>>>> and useful
>>>>> in dealing with psychological problems and copes with the
>>>>> reality of
>>>>> individual difference and so on. A 'social psychology' which sees
>>>>> individuals as purely and simply instances of their social
>>>>> position does
>>>>> not warrant the name in my opinion. And 'social psychology' in
>>>>> the sense
>>>>> that Max Horkheimer (I think) used it, which deal only with the
>>>>> phenomena
>>>>> of crowds and so on, is also 'not worthy' of the name.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I am looking for a tool which can give me a way of
>>>>> understanding how
>>>>> the
>>>>> Zeitgeist is formed, how it is changed, practically how to
>>>>> intervene in
>>>>> it.
>>>>> I do not expect a 'social psychology' to go further and provide
>>>>> me with a
>>>>> social or political theory as such, but it need to be able to
>>>>> bridge the
>>>>> gap, so to speak. Let's face it! If we can change the Zeitgeist
>>>>> which gets
>>>>> people like George W Bush and John Howard elected in democratic
>>>>> countries,
>>>>> into one in which genuinely good people get elected, then the
>>>>> rest will
>>>>> look after itself and I can enjoy my retirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not a meta-psychology? Apart form my idiosyncratic dislike
>>>>> of "meta" I
>>>>> don't want a metapsychology, I want a psychology which has a
>>>>> metapsychology
>>>>> which is sound and able to cope with the sociality of
>>>>> consciousness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not a "science of human nature"? "Human nature" is such a
>>>>> problematic
>>>>> term, it carries such a lot of unwanted 19th century baggage.
>>>>> And I am
>>>>> interested in consciousness, not "nature" in general.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, social psychology is a sub-discipline within psychology.
>>>>> There are
>>>>> things which belong to psychology which are not centre-stage
>>>>> for me. Sure,
>>>>> brain injury or other defects are a serious topic, as is child
>>>>> development,
>>>>> etc., etc.. I guess I am talking about a psychology whose
>>>>> central thread
>>>>> is
>>>>> a social psychology rather than a neurobiology, for example.
>>>>>
>>>>> I need a social psychology which recognises that social
>>>>> movements are not
>>>>> just large numbers of people with the same feeling, but
>>>>> subjects, and
>>>>> individuals are neither passive victims of social processes nor
>>>>> absolutely
>>>>> free agents. But a *real*, practical, living school of
>>>>> psychology, with
>>>>> people using it in designing curricula, healing depressed
>>>>> people, running
>>>>> half-way houses, training teachers, organising self-help
>>>>> groups, etc.,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>> and doing real, experimental science with it, critiquing and
>>>>> improving its
>>>>> concepts down the years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that make sense?
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> At 05:14 PM 30/12/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>>>>>> Andy-- This is the second time you have declared your goal to be
>>>>>> answering
>>>>>> questions within the framework of social psychology. Why do
>>>>>> you use this
>>>>>> term? Why not a
>>>>>> meta-psychology? Why not a "science of human nature"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ask because I am used to social psychology being viewed as a
>>>>>> sub-discipline within psychology.
>>>>>> The only dept of social psych I know of that takes on your
>>>>>> questions
>>>>>> seriously is at the LSE. One branch of cultural psychology in
>>>>>> the US
>>>>>> comes
>>>>>> out of experimental social
>>>>>> psychology here, but I do not think you have that in mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This query is not to distract from the main line of
>>>>>> discussion, but
>>>>>> rather
>>>>>> to locate what you are striving for better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2007 4:34 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think David and Peg's messages were out of sync., yes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This all raises that most difficult of questions for a social
>>>>>> psychology
>>>>>>> that wants to deal with the tasks I am asking it to deal
>>>>>>> with, how do
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> deal with the knock-on effect of an action, which is
>>>>>>> predictable from
>>>>>>> on-high, but unknown to the actors themselves? We rely on the
>>>>>>> basic
>>>>>>> insight
>>>>>>> that what goes on in the head first went on between people -
>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> form given to it by Fichte, Hegel, Marx, CS Peirce or
>>>>>>> Vygotsky. What
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> Hegel's Logic about? About the underlying "logic of events",
>>>>>>> how this
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> that policy or statement or whatever ultimately leads to this
>>>>>>> or that
>>>>>>> problem which was at first invisible. Life experience will
>>>>>>> tell you
>>>>>> this,
>>>>>>> but if you don't have life experience, it will happen
>>>>>>> according to the
>>>>>>> logic of events anyways and you should learn. Basically, I
>>>>>>> think we
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> only make sense of this if we get right away from the idea of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> "individual-as-subject" but remember that no subject exists
>>>>>>> other than
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> and through individual human beings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the ANL example of the child and the father, I have
>>>>>>> always had
>>>>>>> trouble
>>>>>>> with "examples" and methods which presuppose a leader or a
>>>>>>> father or a
>>>>>>> facilitator, a person who knows what the experimental subject or
>>>>>> student
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> self-help group really needs to do, and organises things
>>>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>>> Of
>>>>>>> course, I understand that all you teachers and teacher-
>>>>>>> trainers, child
>>>>>>> psychologists, etc., work and have a responsibility to work in
>>>>>> precisely
>>>>>>> that circumstance. But I do not think this is the paradigmatic
>>>>>>> relationship. The father can only do his bit in "leading" the
>>>>>>> child
>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> activity where its "best interests" will be served if the
>>>>>>> father can
>>>>>> act
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> a kind of transmitter of life experience, and kind of short-
>>>>>>> cut the
>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>> for the child. So it is not the father's technique which is the
>>>>>> paradigm,
>>>>>>> but the bitter life experience which the child may or may not
>>>>>>> have as
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> result of choosing to do this or that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At 07:54 AM 30/12/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear Andy and Peg:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's some stuff from my notes; I happen to know that Andy
>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>> ahold of a copy of ANL's Problems of the Development of the
>>>>>>>> Mind. I
>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>> I don't get those funny marks that always show up when I
>>>>>>>> paste in...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> p. 402 ANL points out how 'only understandable' motives for
>>>>>> homework
>>>>>>>> such as wanting to get a good mark can be replaced by 'really
>>>>>> effective'
>>>>>>>> motives such as doing it so you can go out to play. However,
>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> weeks of really effective motives, it is also possible that the
>>>>>> child
>>>>>>>> will find that the only understandable motives become really
>>>>>> effective,
>>>>>>>> e.g. the child will leave off doing homework because it¡¯s
>>>>>>>> untidy
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> child is now afraid of getting a bad mark.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> p. 403: ANL writes: 'It is a matter of an action¡¯s result
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> significant in certain conditions than the motive that actually
>>>>>> induces
>>>>>>>> it. The child begins doing its homework conscientiously
>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>> wants
>>>>>>>> to go out quickly and play. In the end this leads to much
>>>>>>>> more not
>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>>> that it will get the chance to go and play but also that it
>>>>>>>> will get
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> good mark. A new "objectivation" of its needs come about
>>>>>>>> which means
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> are understood at a higher level.'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'The transition to a new leading activity differs from the
>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>> described simply in the really effective motives becoming in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>> case of
>>>>>>>> a change of leading activity, those understandable motives that
>>>>>> exist in
>>>>>>>> the sphere of relations characterizing the place the child can
>>>>>> occupy
>>>>>>>> only in the next higher stage of development rather than in the
>>>>>> sphere
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> relations in which it still actually is. The preparation of
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>> transitions therefore takes a long time because it is
>>>>>>>> necessary for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> child to become quite fully aware of a sphere of relations
>>>>>>>> that are
>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>> for it.¡±
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ANL compares a child¡¯s performance in a school play with the
>>>>>> child¡¯s
>>>>>>>> learning of study as an independent activity. The child
>>>>>>>> begins the
>>>>>>> school
>>>>>>>> play as an assignment, and later continues for the
>>>>>>>> approbation the
>>>>>> child
>>>>>>>> receives during a successful performance. As with learning
>>>>>>>> to study
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> good mark instead of just studying for the opportunity to go
>>>>>>>> out and
>>>>>>>> play, a ¡°merely understandable¡± motive has now become ¡°
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> effective¡± and a new activity is established.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But only in the case of independent study (according to ANL) is
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>> activity developmentally significant (¡°objectively¡±)
>>>>>>>> because the
>>>>>> child
>>>>>>>> is not going to become a professional dramatist (if the
>>>>>>>> child were,
>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> the performance in the play would be study). Thus only in
>>>>>>>> the latter
>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>> can we say there is a new leading activity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's what I make of this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a) ANL really does NOT interrogate the subject as to the object
>>>>>>>> orientation of the activity: the object (study, the
>>>>>>>> completed play)
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> indeed given in advance. As far as ANL is concerned, ONLY
>>>>>>>> Chaiklin's
>>>>>>>> "objective" ZPD exists, and there is NO subjective ZPD. But
>>>>>>>> Andy's
>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>> of "immanent critique" is NOT an objective critique; it has
>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> following up (just like Sarah's) the subject's way of seeing
>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> seeing where it leads.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> b) In the development discussion (San Diego-Helsinki) Dr. Olga
>>>>>> Vasquez
>>>>>>>> raised the question of whether "leading activity" is the
>>>>>>>> same as
>>>>>>>> "neoformation", and Dr. Pentti Harakarainnen really did not
>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> instead talked about Dr. Engestrom's even more general
>>>>>>>> concept of
>>>>>>>> activity. But here we can see that "leading activity" and
>>>>>> "neoformation"
>>>>>>>> are quite different: LSV used "neoformation" to talk about
>>>>>> transitional
>>>>>>>> structures during crisis periods that COMPLETELY disappear (for
>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>> the child's autonomous speech at one and the child's
>>>>>>>> "negativism" at
>>>>>>>> three) as well as neoformations which become the leading
>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>> normal growth. Only the latter is a "leading activity" for ANL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> c) There is still a STRONG behaviorist streak in ANL's
>>>>>>>> reasoning:
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> difference between the "really effective" and "merely
>>>>>>>> understood"
>>>>>>>> reasoning can very easily be described, in ALL of ANL's
>>>>>>>> examples, as
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> simple lengthening of the time distance between the behavior
>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>> positive reinforcement. Bruner, in a quote that I have long
>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>> lost,
>>>>>>>> suggests that development can be described this way, but I
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> LSV ever would have done so: for LSV the key thing about
>>>>>>>> humans is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> they are dogs that can ring their own bells.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------
>>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>> Tony Whitson
>> UD School of Education
>> NEWARK DE 19716
>>
>> twhitson@udel.edu
>> _______________________________
>>
>> "those who fail to reread
>> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
>> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

David Preiss, Ph.D.
Subdirector de Extensión y Comunicaciones
Escuela de Psicología
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
Av Vicuña Mackenna 4860
Macul, Santiago
Chile

Fono: 3544605
Fax: 3544844
e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
web institucional: http://www.epuc.cl/profesores/dpreiss

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Tue Jan 1 18:33 PST 2008