Some accounts emphasize dynamic emergence and others emphasize how we are
implicated and constituted [and constrained] by historical traditions.*
I have been thinking about this issue quite a bit lately, based on other issues recently on this list concerning the internet and the use of the internet vs. books. I wonder if it works to say that both are part of development. Are both really part of development, thhinking as dynamic emergence and thinking as constrained by historical traditions. This is emerging as a major flash point in our society (not for the first time), but before dynamic emergence has often been beaten back by historical traditions. I was recently talking to a colleague and she was talking about the two "phones" that are moving to dominate our market, the iphone and the Droid. It is representative of the larger issues that I think we face either covertly or overtly. Are we looking to create an open society based on lateral interconnectivity or a more closed society with a more hierarchical tree structure approach to thinking. First you have to get rid of your baggage about open and closed and the idea that one somehow greater semantic worth than the other, because it creates a situation where people want to protect their systems as open - and there are plusses and minuses to both. Instead maybe think of it as open information systems that move according to a web of trails, that follows free association of ideas, where information has no monetary worth but infinite value (for instance did you know that Wikipedia does not claim any copyright to their work. Any person can take anything from Wikipedia and use it in any way that they wish - so be careful before you accuse a student of plagiarizing - and any time you use any google application any information you put up is free use). By closed it sort of means that information is protected, that is has a certain sanctity and those who hold it should be considered as holding some type of commodity (the idea that there are experts whom we can turn to as the final arbiters). In many ways the two largest players in this are Apple (iphone) which looks to create a closed system and Google (Droid) which aggressively promotes an open system of information. Emergence by its nature tends to be based on a more open approach to information while constraints a more closed approach.
Which was Vygotsky?
Michael
________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole
Sent: Sun 6/6/2010 4:34 PM
To: Larry Purss
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] The Non-modular Mind
I *think* the conversation is contiguous, Larry. Tomorrow it will be at the
archives and we can double check, or someone who has not posted in it can
tell us.
Guess I better find the Kirschner and Martin book! I was discussing a
version of the following issue with a colleague while running errands just
now:
*Some accounts emphasize dynamic emergence and others emphasize how we are
implicated and constituted [and constrained] by historical traditions.*
In our conversation this issue came up in terms of the question of why Luria
was so interested in Freud and the question of the role of cultural
mediation in cultural-historical and freudian theories. Musing over this
issue some time ago, I came to the tentative conclusion that for Freud
culture operates as constraint/inhibition of impulses while in general the
Russians emphasized the tool-like nature of culture and cultural mediation.
But I think this one sided interpretation of the Russians in correct, and
perhaps wrong in the opposite way for Freud-- perhaps you can enlighten me
on that side.
But for the Russians there are many very clear statements that mediated
action requires the individual to subordinate themselves to the tool (the
"freudian" side, *in order* to realize the instrumental potential of action.
There are many expressions of this idea that self control and control of the
environment (including others) are part of a single process. This in turn is
closely linked to their ideas about "will" -- we learn to "control ourselves
from the outside."
Applied to the two emphases in your summary of K&M my current view is that
the two positions are only emphases, not difference in principle, but two
sides of the same coin. Withoutout the constraints of tradition (culture as
the accumulated resources for acting in the world) humans would be helpless,
but such resources, never being entirely adequate or even adequately
understood, emergence is ineluctable, unless, of course, the social group is
to die out.
I associate these ideas also with Giddens and others who adopt the mantra
that constrains are both constraining in the usual sense and enabling.
Nicolas Bernstein, whose focus was on movement, argued strongly for the
reduction of degrees of freedom as essential to coordinated action.
Thanks for letting me know that the mandelstam translation piece got
through.
mike
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mike
> One more quick question on using gmail.
> I'm responding to your email and I don't know if only your last message
> plus my response is getting sent to CHAT or if all the previous threads
> starting with David's email 24 hours ago also are trailing behind. I'm
> trying to be conscious of not clogging up the listserve archives with
> redundant emails.?
>
> You asked the question about our response to having read the Mandelshtam
> post. My personal reaction was to be fascinated with the
> narrative structure and imaginative interpretative depth of historical
> understanding required when "translating". As I read the article I was
> reminded of the power of historical CONTEXT and Martin's reminder that
> every time we encounter a text something NEW EMERGES. The translation, from
> a hermeneutical framework, was adding layers of CONTEXT [especially
> historical traditions] to the reflective process of translation.
> Translation is more than a process of "uncovering" or "discovery". It is
> also a collaboration between the text [and its historical context], the
> translator [and his/her historical context], and the reader [and the
> reader's historical context].
> Reading the article I was immersed in the emergence of a deeper
> appreciation of how we are historically implicated. It was a wonderful
> piece of writing.
>
> That leads to the question of how profoundly we are CONSTITUTED by
> TRADITIONS [as discussed in hermeneutical accounts]. Kirschner's and Jack
> Martin's edited volume point out this is one of the major debates in
> sociocultural theory. Some accounts emphasize dynamic emergence and others
> emphasize how we are implicated and constituted [and constrained] by
> historical traditions. In their introduction to their book [excerpted at
> google books] they point out the various sociocultural accounts take
> different positions on this emergence/tradition conversation.
> How I view this tension makes a difference in how I position my self in
> school settings. I personally take the view that the more I can reflect on
> how determined and constituted I am by traditions, the more I can take a
> perspective on these real constraints and in the process of becoming more
> reflective I actually become more agentive in my capacity to be somewhat
> more self-determined and free to imagine alternative futures. It is this
> developing capacity to be reflective on how we are constituted within
> sociocultural traditions that creates an opening to be other than I am
> now.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 9:34 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Combining Mead and Vygotsky makes a lot of sense, Larry. See the Edwards
>> article in Cambridge Companion to LSV. (I have got the Reddy and Stern
>> books
>> now-- I would love to see a discussion of the very opening of Stern and of
>> course we all are interested in the early infancy/sociality issue). I also
>> REALLY would like to see a discussion of the Zinchenko article on Word and
>> Meaning in the Companion. Lots of key issues raised there.
>>
>> David-- I wanted to call *Cultural Psychology*, "culture in mind" but
>> Brad's book came out about two months before CP went to press and the
>> marketer at Harvard called me on the phone and told me, on the spot, to
>> come
>> up with a new title. So I took an old title with a question mark at the
>> end,
>> put a period in its place, and the rest is the rest. I have not really
>> interacted with him around the substance of his ideas.
>>
>> I do not think I have gotten a copy of the Kirschner and Martin edited
>> volume, Larry. But maybe I have and it is on the periously high stack of
>> must reads. My problem is that i feel a strong compulsion to re-re-read
>> ch6
>> of T&S right now and contibute to Andy's electronic symposium project. And
>> I
>> spent last evening with Zinchenko, thinking (actually, truth be old, Zinky
>> had to share time with Moll Flanders -- now there is an interesting
>> couple!).
>>
>> Did anyone get that article about translating Mandelshtam? I thought it
>> worth discussion but maybe that because I have spent so much time with
>> Fernando Rey struggling to find a way to navigate Russian-Spanish-English
>> quotations in a way that did not bog the reader down in all the
>> complexities, which would detract attention from the point he is trying to
>> make. Still, Mandelshtam is a major inspiration for LSV and Zinchenko, and
>> the multi-lingual travails of translation.
>>
>> mike
>> PS-- I will add the Zinchenko article to the list of "to scans" although
>> the
>> entire Companion turned out to have several interesting articles in it.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Andy
>> > Your little shift with the term "My only objection" is what I've learned
>> > ......
>> >
>> > is actually the core issue of evaluating the "common good" or "common
>> > dread"
>> > of this powerful tool.
>> >
>> > I also struggle between the power of the internet as a forum of EMERGING
>> > DYNAMIC IMAGINARIES [emerging traditions] that challenge any
>> > presuppositions I have [what I at the moment take to be "normal"] and
>> the
>> > power of a book to consolidate and anchor these emerging ideas. My
>> hunch
>> > is
>> > that the emerging "tradition" of CONSTITUTIVE sociocultural psychology
>> is
>> > partially emerging as a developmental consequence of the internet [which
>> I
>> > believe has the power to radically change our notions of "education" and
>> > "psychology" and also has the power to develop new psychological
>> accounts
>> > and new KINDS OF PERSONS]
>> >
>> > Michael mentioned he is trying to get a PDF of the Sluencko and Hengl
>> > article from the "handbook of Sociocultural Psychology"
>> > In the spirit in which that book was written, I want to recommend a new
>> > book
>> > which I believe will draw us away from the internet to consolidate these
>> > emerging ideas. The book "The Sociocultural Turn in Psychology" by
>> SUZANNE
>> > KIRSCHNER and JACK MARTIN" seems to bring together in one volume most of
>> > the
>> > various theories in the new CONSTITUTIVE sociocultural psychology.
>> > If you go to goggle books and read the EXCERPT of the book published on
>> > line
>> > it gives an excellent summary of the last two decades of work in this
>> > tradition.
>> > The book suggests their are 4 theoretical accounts that are
>> interconnecting
>> > in this developing tradition.
>> >
>> > 1] Discursive and social constructionism
>> > 2] Hermeneutic realism
>> > 3] Dialogical
>> > 4] neo-Vygotskian CHAT
>> >
>> > Its interesting that they discussed social relational psychoanalysis as
>> a
>> > tradition within this tradition but left it out of this book because
>> this
>> > account is being developed outside of university settings.
>> >
>> > Michael Cole has a chapter in this book as a representative of the 4th
>> > tradition.
>> >
>> > A brief comment on JACK MARTIN, one of the editors of this volume. He
>> has
>> > recently co-published an article with Alex Gillespie and both these
>> authors
>> > are ELABORATING a NEO-MEADIAN account of development that I personally
>> > believe is a coherent account of how "agency" and "self" emerge through
>> > levels of social participation {MEAD'S SOCIAL ACTS}. I have not seen
>> > Mead's
>> > CONSTITUTIVE SOCIAL RELATIONAL account of development throughout the
>> > lifespan [as articulated by Jack Martin and Alex Gillespie} discussed on
>> > CHAT. Having their chapter in this book will bring this particular
>> > developmental account into wider discussion within the developmental
>> > community. It is written withiin a historiogenetic as well as
>> ontogenetic
>> > account.
>> >
>> > The book that Jack Martin and Suzanne Kirschner have written seems to
>> have
>> > promise to make more coherent the various themes and threads that are
>> > currently developing a taprestry called "constitutive sociocultural
>> > psychology"
>> >
>> > I'm curious how others view these competing notions of development and
>> what
>> > are common themes and where they need further analysis. I was excited to
>> > learn about this book as I see the many ideas that often keep me up
>> nights,
>> > collected in one anthology.
>> >
>> > Have any of you already got a copy of the book?
>> > Both the authors have previously been the president of the "Theory and
>> > Philosophy" section of the APA so have the recognition of their peers.
>> >
>> > I'm hoping to track down this book and try to remember how to read for
>> > hours
>> > at a time or is my mind now an "internet mind?"
>> > As a personal evaluation, this format leads be to books such as Jack
>> > Martin's which I would be ignorant of without this tool.
>> >
>> > Larry
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 3:19 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Enjoyed the "Google is rotting your brain" article. There is no doubt
>> > that
>> > > I suffer from this syndrome. The only way I can get through a decent
>> book
>> > > nowadays is by taking myself right away from the screen. And I then
>> miss
>> > it.
>> > > My only objection would be that if it weren't for everything that I've
>> > > learnt via the internet (like with xmca) then I wouldn't be able to,
>> or
>> > even
>> > > want to, read these good books in any case.
>> > >
>> > > Andy
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > mike cole wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I heard the book written about below discussed on NPR earlier this
>> week,
>> > >> and
>> > >> your note induced me to dig out and send along. Seems relevant to
>> your
>> > >> comments.
>> > >> mike
>> > >>
>> > >> http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2010/05/09/the_shallows
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > 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
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca