[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] The Interpersonal Is Not the Sociocultural
Jay
your translation
"meaning-making AND feeling-attuning"
as a dynamic process of mutual participation is an excellent way to imagine our human situation historically developing. The language of attunement is a discourse which is developing and being elaborated in "attachment theory" [which is a topic which includes Bowlby, but is now a discourse crossing disciplinary boundaries.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu>
Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010 4:04 pm
Subject: Re: [xmca] The Interpersonal Is Not the Sociocultural
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Yes, the notion of "attunements" strikes me as a nice
> metaphorical way in to the issues of meaning-and-feeling being
> context-sensitive but not context-determined. And also
> recognizing that there is a certain degree of "negotiation"
> going on -- though I tend to reserve that term more for dialogic
> situations where interests are conflicting and getting both
> goals is not easily done. I might say instead that there is an
> active process of meaning-making and feeling-attuning that is
> never entirely satisfying, always still-in-process, until we
> move on to something else.
>
> As in the discussion with Michael R. about Derrida, Rorty and
> meaning, this is where I think Pragmatism in its more
> sophisticated, Peircean forms and continental "deconstruction"
> can live productively together. For Peirce the "interpretant" or
> the semiotic process as a whole, dynamically viewed, is endless,
> it always keeps driving itself forward, there is no stable,
> final, definitive meaning. And clearly also for Derrida meanings
> cannot be stable, because in interacting with them, or in
> framing them in terms of differences and deferrals of
> alternatives, we get caught up in a process in which
> interpretation, or elaboration of meaning never stops.
>
> This seems to be quite upsetting to people who have low
> tolerance for ambiguity and absence of closure. It hardly means
> that life is impossible, because it would seem to be the very
> essence of being alive that there is always something next, and
> it always arises in part from our now. Time makes itself move
> forward. What it does make impossible is certainty and Truth,
> absolutes and essences. The strongest objections to this
> approach that I've heard are the political ones: that you can't
> beat the rhetoric of certainty with a discourse of open-
> endedness. Or even, that you can't decide to pull a trigger
> without the kind of certainty that I would claim is impossible.
>
> But I don't think either of these objections are more than
> fears. People do get drawn to dogmatics, but they just as surely
> rebel against them and seek the freedom to re-attune, re-
> imagine, re-invent. And I think it is quite possible to pull the
> trigger while remaining very unsure of the consequences. People
> do it all the time. Certainty cannot be the sine qua non of
> moral judgment, else we choose between moral paralysis and
> fanaticism. In fact in many ways our modernist emphasis on truth
> and certainty seems to be leading to just this dichotomy. The
> wise hesitate, while the fools take action.
>
> The moral implications of our theories of meaning are not often
> enough explored with sense.
>
> JAY.
>
>
> Jay Lemke
> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
> Educational Studies
> University of Michigan
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>
> Visiting Scholar
> Laboratory for Comparative Human Cognition
> University of California -- San Diego
> La Jolla, CA
> USA 92093
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 1, 2010, at 11:20 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
>
> > Well
> > the interpersonal is not the sociocultural seems to be a
> fascinating topic.
> > I'm on a role on reading Martin Packer's articles off the internet.
> > Martin, I know these articles are a decade old but I'm a
> decade behind on my historical development of ideas so for me
> they are very current. And I do appreciate your systematic
> and coherent ways of linking ideas that are dancing in my (I'm
> hesitant to say "head")
> > I'm now reading your article "Sociocultural and Constructivist
> Theories of Learning: Ontology, not just Epistemology" IN the
> journal Educational Psychologist, 35(4). p. 227-241.
> > I appreciate your historical lens for viewing sociocultural
> theory from Hegel to the dialectical materialists,
> phenomenologists, postmodernists, poststructuralists, and
> pragmatists.[I would add relational psychoanalysis is very much
> engaged with these themes]
> > You mention 6 themes of these nondualist ontologies
> > 1.The person is constructed
> > 2. In a social context
> > 3. Formed through practical activity
> > 4. Formed in RELATIONSHIPS OF DESIRE AND RECOGNITION [my emphasis]
> > 5. these relationships can split the person [tension]
> > 6. Motivating the search FOR IDENTITY. [my emphasis]
> >
> > Martin, in your excellent elaboration of each point I pay
> particular attention to themes 4, 5, and 6. They move us into
> themes of learning as ontology and not just epistemoloy [how we
> developmentally come "to know and understand"
> >
> > I want to amplify one specific quote on these 3 themes. The
> reference is from Greeno and TMSMTAPG (1998) as elaborated in
> your article.
> >
> > Individuals operate not with schemata and procedures 9as
> cognitive science models human behavior0 but through ATTUNEMENTS
> to constraints and affordances. Attunements are 'regular
> patterns of an individual's participation' (p.9 Greeno) they
> support but do not determine activity, for 'activity is
> continual NEGOTIATION.' 'Learning in this situative view, is
> hypothesized to be BECOMING ATTUNED to CONSTRAINTS and
> affordances of activity and becoming more centrally INVOLVED in
> the pracices of community" 9p. 11 Greeno as quoted Packer p.230)
> >
> > To Martin, Jay, Andy, Mike, and everyone else the CONCEPT
> "attunement" I believe captures the centrality of e-motion and
> affect in all negotiations of affordances and constraints.
> Tension [splits] must be navigated "feelingly" as one's identity
> "forms" "emerges" "develops" in sociocultural communities.
> >
> > This is my attempt to bring Martin's notion of nondualist
> ontology into the conversation and link it with my theme of e-
> motions AS ATTUNEMENTS.
> >> From this perspective I agree with Jay's responses on this theme.
> >
> > All the various discourses on social "recognition" [especially
> when connected to the theme of "response to recognition" [see V.
> Reddy's book "How Children Know Minds" which Rod P. recommended]
> also is elaborating the e-motional realm.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu>
> > Date: Thursday, April 1, 2010 9:25 pm
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] The Interpersonal Is Not the Sociocultural
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >
> >> Just another small note on the basic "interpersonal is not
> the
> >> sociocultural" theme --
> >>
> >> It used to be my responsibility in a phd program to teach
> about
> >> Vygotskyan and sociocultural approaches to teaching,
> learning,
> >> development, etc. And to ask the questions for either the
> >> written or oral qualifying exams related to these themes.
> >>
> >> In the course, and on the exams, I found it necessary to push
> >> students very hard to understand that "social" did not simply
> >> mean interpersonal, but also cultural. Whether talking about
> ZPD
> >> or scaffolding or any sort of social theory of learning,
> >> students, even good, bright, phd students, unless previously
> >> trained in anthropology (rare) and even if with some training
> in
> >> sociology or political science, simply saw the social as
> always
> >> the interaction among individuals. (Non-American students
> seemed
> >> to have less of this problem.)
> >>
> >> Many had taken a lot of psychology courses, all
> individualistic
> >> and mentalistic in orientation ("old" cogsci). Even with
> >> political science backgrounds, as some had, they were
> equipped
> >> with the (to me complete nonsense of) rational actor theory.
> And
> >> in sociology, somehow Durkheim seemed never to register (and
> >> Marx of course does not get mentioned much).
> >>
> >> I usually found I needed to give them a good dose of cultural
> >> anthropology, and a little systems theory, and I was not
> above
> >> reifying sociocultural systems a little more than I normally
> >> would, to make the point and get them over the hump. There is
> a
> >> profound sense in which individual human beings are simply
> NOT
> >> the primary unit of analysis for phenomena like learning,
> >> meaning, and even feeling.
> >>
> >> I like to think I succeeded a little more than half the time.
> >>
> >> JAY.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jay Lemke
> >> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
> >> Educational Studies
> >> University of Michigan
> >> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> >> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> >>
> >> Visiting Scholar
> >> Laboratory for Comparative Human Cognition
> >> University of California -- San Diego
> >> La Jolla, CA
> >> USA 92093
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 1, 2010, at 2:17 PM, peter jones wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello, As an aside to your discussion on this, I would just
> >> like to provide a very high-level view:
> >>>
> >>> Within Hodges' model the interpersonal is not the
> >> sociocultural.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In previous blog posts I've referred to the 'interpersonal'
> >> domain as 'intrapersonal' being concerned with individual
> >> thoughts, beliefs, experience.
> >>>
> >>> I'm wondering increasingly about all the 'holistic bridges'
> or
> >> 'disciplinary highways' of which psychophysical, psychosocial
> >> are examples:
> >>>
> >>> http://hodges-model.blogspot.com/2008/06/physio-political-
> >> musings-songs-and.html
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Peter Jones
> >>> http://hodges-model.blogspot.com/
> >>> Hodges' Health Career - Care Domains - Model
> >>> http://www.p-jones.demon.co.uk/
> >>> h2cm: help2Cmore - help-2-listen - help-2-care
> >>> http://twitter.com/h2cm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> > S
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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