Re: [xmca] Rom Harre quote on acts and activity(tolman article)

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Nataliya
Apologies for how I spelled your name in my post
Larry
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 7:32 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Steve--
> You write: "contextualism relies on the statistical analysis of selected
> variables"
>
> There is more than one way to think about context, as you know i believe.
> It
> bothers me some that what Charles wrote about is THE contextualist approach
> to human development. But there you have it. These folks rule the roost.
> Nataliya and I have a chapter on "Vygotsky and context" in the Kirschner
> and
> Martin book that some of us have been discussing. He referred to our
> particular version of contextualism (or some such phrasing-- i do not have
> the msg in front of me. Happy to discuss if you like. Anyone interested can
> email me and I will send a copy with cc to Nataliya for discussion.
> Mike
>
> I appreciated his very interesting presentation of activity theory.  And I
> liked the way it contrasted the way contextualism relies on the statistical
> analysis of selected variables with the method of activity theory, which
> views phenomena as instances of social and historical processes
>
>  On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I really liked the Charles Tolman article, too.  I appreciated his very
> > interesting presentation of activity theory.  And I liked the way it
> > contrasted the way contextualism relies on the statistical analysis of
> > selected variables with the method of activity theory, which views
> phenomena
> > as instances of social and historical processes.  I also really liked the
> > article's clear, accessible writing style.  I always find Charles a
> pleasure
> > to read, and I always learn a lot.
> >
> > Thanks for putting this up, Mike.  I thought about the selection you
> quote,
> > which talks about the interchangeability (in principle) of humans in
> > activity, and concludes that not only is the individual human found
> **only**
> > in society, but individuality is only achievable in society.  What this
> > reasoning seems to reinforce among other things is the
> cultural-historical
> > claim that context for human activity and cultural behavior is always
> social
> > and historical. How do these ideas fit in with some of your recent
> thinking
> > on context?
> >
> > Commenting on the topic Larry brought up, if biological determinism and
> > radical individualism are two alternative ways to understand or define
> > context when compared to the cultural-historical approach, another might
> be
> > to try to separate the cultural and historical.  This approach might
> tend,
> > as an example, to view context in terms of lived social relations while
> > minimizing the role of historical processes.  Or vice versa - one could
> > counterpose the historical and downplay the lived social.  It is always a
> > very concrete puzzle to adequately account for both in a given instance,
> is
> > it not?
> >
> > - Steve
> >
> >
> > On Jul 29, 2010, at 8:31 AM, David H Kirshner wrote:
> >
> >  That clarifies, thanks Eric.
> >> David
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On
> >> Behalf Of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:10 AM
> >> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> Subject: Fw: [xmca] Rom Harre quote on acts and activity(tolman article)
> >>
> >> ----- Forwarded by ERIC RAMBERG/spps on 07/29/2010 10:09 AM -----
> >>
> >> From:   ERIC RAMBERG/spps
> >> To:     "David H Kirshner" <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
> >> Date:   07/29/2010 09:51 AM
> >> Subject:        RE: [xmca] Rom Harre quote on acts and activity(tolman
> >> article)
> >>
> >>
> >> Hey David:
> >>
> >> In the Tolman piece he uses the example of measuring students success
> when
> >> the variable of teacher 'leniency/strictness' is controlled and points
> out
> >> that controlling one action variable does nothing to impact the outcome
> of
> >> the entire activity and therefore to conclude lenient teachers result in
> >> unsuccessful students is an assumption resulting from a false premise.
> >> Does that clarify or not?
> >>
> >> I apologize for my passive writing, it is something that has plagued me
> my
> >> entire life.
> >>
> >> eric
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From:   "David H Kirshner" <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
> >> To:     <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>
> >> Date:   07/29/2010 08:37 AM
> >> Subject:        RE: [xmca] Rom Harre quote on acts and activity(tolman
> >> article)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Eric,
> >> Is the false premise that "measuring change based on variables doesn't
> >> really measure much at all," or that "measuring change based on
> variables
> >> does measure much?"
> >> David
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On
> >> Behalf Of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:06 AM
> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: Re: [xmca] Rom Harre quote on acts and activity(tolman article)
> >>
> >> From a methodological standpoint I really appreciated the Tolman piece.
> It
> >> provided great insight into the false premise that measuring change
> based on
> >> variables doesn't really measure much at all.  Rather it only parcels
> out
> >> actions when what really needs to be analyzed is the activity as a
> whole.  I
> >> also appreciate the emphasis on appropriation of societal traditions as
> >> being the crux of individual development.  Thank you for sharing mike, I
> am
> >> hoping that Charles (chuck, chaz, charlie?) could provide some words of
> >> wisdom that perhaps he has gleaned in the couple decades since
> publishing
> >> this article.
> >>
> >> eric
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From:   Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> >> To:     lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >> Date:   07/28/2010 09:58 PM
> >> Subject:        Re: [xmca] Rom Harre quote on acts and activity
> >> Sent by:        xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mike
> >> I agree about the ideal of "both/and" approaches.  However, when I see
> an
> >> account such as Rom Harre wrote that explores the historical roots of a
> >> particular movement such as "biolgical determinism" or "radical
> >> individualism" it helps me to situate particular discourse traditions
> and
> >> locate the historical evolution of the concepts within particular
> >> sociocultural traditions.
> >> This is also why I wanted to read "The Sociocultural Turn in Psychology"
> >> so
> >> I could differentiate historically the "discursive", dialogical",
> >> hermeneutical"', and "activity" approches as particular historical
> >> traditions.  By comparing and contrasting the various accounts [and
> seeing
> >> similarities and contrasts] I'm able to attempt to coordinate multiple
> >> perspectives, and ideally be able to imaginally construct linkages
> between
> >> the various historical traditions and thereby develop a deeper
> appreciation
> >> of the common themes within the various traditions.
> >> Mike, your response, and your bringing  Tolman into the conversation  is
> >> exactly the spirit in which I post these either/or reflections. I see
> them
> >> as steps in a process of differentiation of ideas as a first step
> towards a
> >> new synthesis. I also want to emphasize that on CHAT I recognize
> discursive,
> >> dialogical, and hermeneutical themes being engaged in lively debate with
> >> activity theory.  However, I am often confused as I try to differentiate
> >> between the approaches and therefore I appreciate articles which
> explicitly
> >> compare and contrast alternative perspectives on a common theme.
> >>
> >> I plan on reading the Tolman article in the next few days in the same
> >> spirit of inquiry as conversation.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:40 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Interesting, Larry-
> >>>   It would be interesting to gather up all the various attempts to
> >>> explicate the relationship between cultural-historical, activity
> >>>
> >> centered
> >>
> >>> theories and socio-cultural studies theories. There have been a lot!
> >>>   My personal preference is to work out the intricacies of an
> >>> approach
> >>>
> >> in
> >>
> >>> which the attempt is to understand the AND/BOTH of the two positions
> >>> you/Harre outline, not the either or of them.
> >>>   To pick up on just one point, which is discussed in the Tolman
> >>>
> >> article
> >>
> >>> I sent around: It is a tenet of AT that action and activity are of
> >>> different orders/levels of scale, and that actions could be parts of
> >>> other activities.
> >>> Here is how Tolman summarized the issues (this is only a fragments, as
> >>>
> >> is
> >>
> >>> Larry's note); perhaps more fragments will emerge here.
> >>>
> >>> So, Tolman writes:
> >>>
> >>> [A human being’s] sense of action lies not in the action itself but in
> >>>
> >> his
> >>
> >>> r
> >>> elation to other members of the group. As Leont'ev argues (in his
> >>>
> >> thought
> >>
> >>> experiment example of primal human hunting):
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The separation of an action necessarily presupposes the possibility of
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>> active subject's
> >>>
> >>> psychic reflection of the relation between the objective motive
> >>> [getting food] and the object
> >>>
> >>> of the action [driving it away]. ... [T]he beater's action is possible
> >>> *onl*
> >>> *y *on condition
> >>>
> >>> of his reflecting the link between the expected result of the action
> >>> performed by him and
> >>>
> >>> the end result of the hunt as a whole.... (1959/1981, p. 212)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The emergence of action as a coordinated part of social activity
> >>>
> >> performed
> >>
> >>>
> >>> by an individual must be accompanied by a shared meaning of the
> >>>
> >>> action that is reflected consciously by the actor. This is reflected
> >>> in
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>>
> >>> fact (among others) that the roles of beater and bagger in the hunt
> >>> are
> >>>
> >> in
> >>
> >>>
> >>> principle interchangeable. The role of each participant must be
> >>> decided
> >>>
> >>> beforehand. One participant may prove to be better in one role than
> >>>
> >> another
> >>
> >>>
> >>> and the assigner of roles may come to appear fixed, but this does
> >>>
> >>> not affect the underlying interchangeability. Although the situation
> >>> is
> >>>
> >>> immensely more complicated in our own society by the dependence of
> >>>
> >>> essential actions on training and education, the underlying principle
> >>> remains
> >>>
> >>> the same.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thus the necessary, conscious division of labor in human society is
> >>> the
> >>>
> >>> most obvious indicator of the individual human's *s**o**ciet**a**l
> >>>
> >> *nature.
> >>
> >>> The
> >>> individual
> >>>
> >>> is truly human *only *in society. Indeed, a still stronger conclusion
> >>>
> >>> can be argued: that human individuality itself is achievable only in
> >>> society .
> >>>
> >>> The *a**bstra**ct *individual of bourgeois individualism is a figment
> >>> of the ideological Imagination.
> >>>
> >>> There are also lots of ways of approaching the notion of context, as
> >>> you note, Larry. What are some others that we ought to put in dialog
> >>>
> >> here?
> >>
> >>> The one Tolman is contrasting to the position above is America's
> >>>
> >> dominant
> >>
> >>> view of contextualism in development, Richard Lerner, and his
> >>>
> >> colleagues.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> In particular, i wonder what sort of a contrasting notion of context
> >>>
> >> might
> >>
> >>> arise within the framework that Harre put in discussion with CHAT?
> >>>
> >>> mike
> >>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  Andy, this is a continuation of your thread on reading Kirschner and
> >>>> Martin's edited book.  Mike and Natalia Gajdamaschko elaborated a
> >>>> particular account of the term "context".
> >>>> My copy of the book "The Sociocultural Turn in Psychology" recently
> >>>>
> >>> arrived
> >>>
> >>>> in the mail and I've just read Rom Harre's article "Public Sources
> >>>> of
> >>>>
> >>> the
> >>
> >>> Personal Mind" and his perspective on persons in context within
> >>>> developmental psychology.
> >>>> He suggests that historically there have been  two distinct
> >>>> movements within sociocultural accounts of developmental psychology.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) A movement that could be called "psychologists against biological
> >>>> determinism".  The central question within this movement is "Whence
> >>>>
> >>> come
> >>
> >>> our
> >>>> cognitive skills, emotional propensities, and repertoires of
> >>>>
> >>> personality
> >>
> >>> displays?"  There are two kinds of constraints on the kinds of minds
> >>>>
> >>> that
> >>
> >>> Vygotskian processes can induce in a human being. The first
> >>>> constraint
> >>>>
> >>> is
> >>
> >>> that the embodied human brain has an inherited architecture.  The
> >>>>
> >>> other
> >>
> >>> limiting constraint is set by the history of sociocultural contexts.
> >>>>
> >>> These
> >>>
> >>>> constraints limit but do NOT determine the person.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2)There is another movement that Harre calls "Psychologists against
> >>>>
> >>> radical
> >>>
> >>>> individualism"  The central question in this movement is "Are
> >>>>
> >>> cognitive
> >>
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>>> emotional phenomena ALL and ONLY attributes of individual persons?"
> >>>>
> >>> Harre
> >>>
> >>>> points out that the roots of this movement are different from that
> >>>> of
> >>>>
> >>> the
> >>
> >>> Vygotskian developmentalist school.  This 2nd movement is attempting
> >>>>
> >>> to
> >>
> >>> "identify a domain of psychological phenomena that are neither
> >>>>
> >>> patterns
> >>
> >>> of
> >>>
> >>>> large-scale collectivities, such as revolutionary movements, nor
> >>>>
> >>> attributes
> >>>
> >>>> of individuals such as disloyal thoughts kept to oneself". [Harre
> >>>> references John Shotter as representative of this movement]
> >>>>
> >>>> Harre points out developmental accounts should embrace values and
> >>>>
> >>> normative
> >>>
> >>>> explanations of persons in contexts. "This means that psychological
> >>>> processes are to be interpreted largely as the result of the
> >>>>
> >>> management"
> >>
> >>> [and coordination] "of meanings in accordance with the rules and
> >>>> conventions of the relevant practice". Intentionality (meaning) and
> >>>> normativity (conformity to rules and conventions) not cause and
> >>>> affect, need to be
> >>>>
> >>> the
> >>>
> >>>> FRAMEWORK concepts of psychological studies. This recognizes the
> >>>>
> >>> centrality
> >>>
> >>>> of the root metaphor of cognition AS CONVERSATION. [discursive]
> >>>>
> >>>> Harre suggegsts persons form identities by following  particular
> >>>>
> >>> normative
> >>>
> >>>> storylines.  However Harre emphasizes that
> >>>>
> >>>> "the SAME sequence of actions, for which certain criteria of
> >>>> identity
> >>>>
> >>> can
> >>>
> >>>> be drawn on, may be the bearer of more than one psychological REALITY.
> >>>> ...Actions and ACTS are not in one to one correspondence. If
> >>>> meanings
> >>>>
> >>> -that
> >>>
> >>>> is, ACTS - are constitutive of social and psychological REALITY,
> >>>> then
> >>>>
> >>> the
> >>
> >>> same action sequence may be the bearer of more than one ACT
> >>>> SEQUENCE,
> >>>>
> >>> and
> >>
> >>> so
> >>>> of more than one social and psychological REALITY".(p.36)
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the above quote is central to Harre's account that
> >>>>
> >>> psychological
> >>
> >>> processes, though constrained and constituted within  particular
> >>>>
> >>> situated
> >>
> >>> ACTIVITY,  can generate MULTIPLE ACTS of intentionality [meaning]
> >>>> The recognition of the interplay between TACIT first order
> >>>> coordination of activity within traditions [which is not reflective
> >>>> but still communicative] and EXPLICIT 2nd order  meaningful ACTS as
> >>>> REFLECTIVE and volitional suggests the "psychological reality" of
> >>>> persons that emerge within normative sociocultural practices.  The
> >>>> emergence of this agentic
> >>>>
> >>> capacity
> >>>
> >>>> to reflectively  ACT within activity  [and not simply react to
> >>>>
> >>> activity]
> >>
> >>> is
> >>>> a central developmental dynamic process forming the personal mind.
> >>>> It is the formation of the psychological realm of 2nd order "acts"
> >>>> as volitional, reflective and coordinated [and the perceived
> >>>> relationship between 2nd order ACTS and 1st order tacit activity]
> >>>> that seems to be a central topic  of debate within sociocultural
> >>>> accounts of psychology.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do others agree with the way Rom Harre contrasts  the two
> >>>> historically separate traditions or movements within the emerging
> >>>> discipline of sociocultural psychology? Reducing the person to
> >>>> either biology or
> >>>>
> >>> radical
> >>>
> >>>> individualism is problematic and sociocultural accounts are
> >>>>
> >>> challenging
> >>
> >>> these reductive explanations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Larry
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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