Re: [xmca] Honestly....

[ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org]

Andy:

That is as best an answer that I have heard, thank you.

I geuss I am falling into the same abyss of misunderstanding that Carol 
is.

Part of the issue for me is that I am not a researcher and therefore don't 
necessarily hold tight to one fundamental theory but rather read for the 
purpose of assisting me in my practice of assisting young adults move from 
instabiltiy to stability in their lives.  The greatest insights for me 
have come from LSV, Michael Cole, Sylvia Scribner and Valsiner as well as 
reading and writing to XMCA.  Now recently I was introduced to Peter 
Fonagy's concept of mentalisation and in the introduction to the following 
article:

Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., & Target, M. (2007). The parent-infant dyad and 
the construction of the subjective self. J
Child Psychol Psychiatry, 48(3-4), 288-328.

He outlines that intersubjectivity as discussed by Tomasello assumes too 
much of the infant.

So; i posted something last week that equated intersubjectivity with 
Piaget and wanted to correlate Fonagy's concept of mentalization with 
LSV's theory of human development.

what do others think?
eric




Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
04/26/2010 09:52 AM
Please respond to ablunden; Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, 
Activity"

 
        To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [xmca] Honestly....


Eric, I think it quite possible to hold at the same time 
different positions on intersubjectivity and on the question 
of innate/acquired. There is no doubt that there are social 
animals whose sociality is innate and who can therefore 
acquire new skills socially. But I believe CHAT is a current 
of thought which holds that becoming human is possible only 
through interaction with other people using culturally 
acquired artefacts (i.e., intersubjectivity plus artefacts), 
but even the tendency to engage in interaction is acquired 
only because other human beings around the child "summon" 
the child to interaction. There is no innate drive to 
sociality in human beings. A. I. Meshcheryakov's book is 
definitive on this question I believe.

Does that answer your question, Eric? I wasn't sure I got 
your meaning exactly.

Andy

ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> ....didn't realize equating Piaget with intersubjectivity would create a 

> conflaguration of misunderstanding.
> 
> Am I incorrect in my understanding of intersubjectivity?  I believe it 
to 
> be based on innate abilities rather than appropriated skills.  Perhaps 
> Bahktin did not write on this, I must admit I am shallow in my 
> understanding of Bahktin.
> 
> Initially in my study of LSV and the CHAT tradition I was a person who 
> prioritized innate abilities but as I have studied and practiced 
teaching 
> I have come to  realize that being human IS developed via interactions 
and 
> attachments.  Biological genetics must play into it but I have a hard 
time 
> believing that intersubjectivity is biological in nature.
> 
> Am I talking in circles or drowing in misunderstanding?
> 
> eric
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> 
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 
Skype andy.blunden
An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity: 
http://www.brill.nl/scss


_______________________________________________
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