Re: [xmca] Dialectical Inquiry as the method/methodology of CHAT

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Hi Carol

I want to emphasize that I have a sense of myself as a little fish in a very
big ocean of ideas and am often pulled by the currents in one direction or
another.  In fact I often have a sense of inferiority about my lack of
background in the various knowledge frameworks and also am aware of my lack
of using a conventional writing style.

My writing style is probably so idiosyncratic because I have not gone
further in university and become properly disciplined in the best approaches
to express my ideas to others.  I sense that I am piggy-backing on others
ideas as I pick up one lead or another from my readings [which I approach as
conversations] and that is why I so liberally have been using scare quotes.
It's actually a result of my having had years of internally reflecting and
trying to construct notions to understand the encapsulated self but not
participating in peer reviewed critique.  I'm often unsure about not being
on firm ground and so continue to piggy-back and link my thoughts to
others.  I've hoped that this listserv would be a format that would allow me
to continue question and think out loud.

Carol, I appreciate your reflections on my writing style as I do want to
become a better conversationalist and continue thinking out loud with others
in a dialogical spirit of inquiry.  However, rest assured it takes courage
on my part to just jump in and express myself [as a RESPONSE to others ideas
and not as self-expression].  I believe this courage comes from being near
retirement age and so willing to take a chance at making a fool of myself.
Maybe I've moved past the stage of work and am returning to a stage of play
[as turn taking]

On the particular issue of my most recent post,  I also very unsure of how
my trying to link up dialectical and hermeneutical accounts will be received
by others.  Therefore I'm qualifying my thoughts as an attempt to BRIDGE or
link others ideas because I have not integrated these ideas as mine.  In a
sense I feel more like I'm feeling my way in the dark but am appreciative of
writers like Anna Stetsenko who have thought deeply about these matters.

Carol, you mention that you don't fit in with these kinds of postings.  Its
probably more accurate to say my postings don't fit in with the CHAT
conversational style and I am going to have to attempt to alter my style to
be more inclusive.  My final thought is that I sense I am grasping at these
huge and deep ideas but share with others a notion of inquiry as the way to
transform the world.  I also experience myself as having a great deal of
difficulty understanding "my" own thoughts.  The reason I'm writing so much
on this topic is because I'm trying to clarify my own thoughts as an
internal/external/internal dialogical form of inquiry on participating in
transforming the world.


On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>wrote:

> Larry
> Mike told me not to be intimidated by some of you big guns on XMCA, but I
> have to be frank that I have great deal of difficulty reading your work.
> Usually it's too long for me to follow, or maybe too arcane, but right here
> in 16 lines of text you used "scare quotes" 13 times. (They come out as
> asterisks) Is there not perhaps some way you can be more inclusive in your
> style?  I supervised a splendid PhD which used AR, and know the literature
> reasonably well, but don't feel I fit in with these kinds of postings.
> Colleagially yours
> Carol
>
> On 15 May 2011 15:04, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael
> >
> > Your thoughts on the different roots of US Action Research and Friere's
> PAR
> > is an excellent example of Anna, Gadamer and Aristotle's central point
> that
> > *episteme* that is not INFORMED by phronesis [as *a* or maybe *the*
> central
> > question of inquiry]  can lead the epistemologically FORMED *system*  to
> > PRODUCE radically different transformations.
> >
> > I want to add that this orientation with its particular bias or prejudice
> > [as a *right* relation]  can be seen as a DISPOSITION that can be
> > *acquired*
> > within communities of inquiry where this FORM of awareness can attempt to
> > *reflect* [phronesis] on the historical and developmental roots of our
> > *habits* of somewhat predictable behaviour.  It was Bellah who wrote
> about
> > changing the *habits of our hearts* through changing *common sense*
> within
> > communities.   My reflections and exploring Stetsenko's writings can be
> > viewed as an attempt to participate in developing *better* habits of the
> > heart.  The term disposition and the term *stance* used in Anna's
> > dialectical framework point to a particular TYPE of *agentic* capacity
> > which
> > develops case by case within *right relations*.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Larry and Christine and others,
> > >
> > > Larry what you write about Anna Stetsenko's approach is particularly
> > > interesting to me right now.  The other day I was talking with a
> student
> > who
> > > wanted to use Participatory Action Research in her dissertation.  We
> > talked
> > > a bit about Lewin and Argylis but she argued she wanted to use Friere's
> > PAR.
> > >  She claimed that while the two types of AR wind up with a number of
> > > similarities (the biggest difference being US AR wants to change
> > > organizaitons through relationships, while South American AR of whom
> > Friere
> > > was an important founding voice, wants to empower individuals by
> allowing
> > > them to recognize the effects of corrupt relationships through
> > > knowlege/information) they both came from two very different origins.
>  It
> > is
> > > true I think that you can't really find any deposit of Lewin in
> Friere's
> > > writing.  The student made the argument that Friere's PAR comes almost
> > > completely from his use of Marx.  It is ironic because the PAR in the
> > United
> > > States was developed primarily by business consultants who would
> probably
> > > become upset at the mention of Marx.  Having two groups doing almost
> the
> > > same thing, with exactly the same name, but a few very, very critical
> > > difference certainly makes things confusing.
> > >
> > > But reading what you say about Anna Stetsenko is gave me greater
> insight
> > > into what this student was trying to say.  There does seem to be a
> strong
> > > Marxist aspect to what Friere was trying to say (or in the case of
> Friere
> > is
> > > is more what he was trying to do).  It seems like Friere's PAR (and
> > Martin I
> > > think already made this point) might be much closer to Vygotsky in
> > origins
> > > and spirit than the AR and Action Science that emerged out of Lewin's
> > work
> > > and the whole business consultation movement.  Were there any Friere
> > based
> > > articles in the special issue discussing AR and Vygotsky.
> > >
> > > But as far as general laws, I don't think Lewin was speaking
> > > paradigmatically, at least as Kuhn describes it.  He was I think
> instead
> > > talking about habits systems develop that become part of cultural
> > > intelligence without the participants even realizing it.  It is the
> > > underlying systems relationships that would lead to real change (and I
> > would
> > > suppose one of the impetuses behind Argylis' double loop learning).
> > >
> > > I'm thinking about Christine's question about environmental education.
> >  The
> > > melt down at Fukushia Dai-ichi is an extraordinary ecological disaster.
> >  I
> > > read where a Japanese woman wrote to a friend and asked, "After what
> > > happened to us how can you in the U.S. not be having a very serious
> > > conversation about nuclear power in your country." - the U.S.  I am
> sure
> > > some people on this list live near a nuclear power plant, some near a
> > fault.
> > >  And yet after a short burst of enery all conversation about nuclear
> > power
> > > has pretty much been blacked out.  Just as conversation of global
> warming
> > > has become blacked out after a short conversation related to Al Gore's
> > work.
> > >  Why can't we talk about these things, what are the relationships that
> > make
> > > it unallowable and for even people in danger to acquiesce to the
> silence?
> > > This I think is what PAR gets to.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Larry Purss
> > > Sent: Sun 5/15/2011 1:13 AM
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: [xmca] Dialectical Inquiry as the method/methodology of CHAT
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This months discussion is about method/methodology as contrasted in
> > Action
> > > Research and CHAT. I may be wandering off topic but this topic has left
> > me
> > > perplexed about the larger context of this question
> > >
> > > I have re-read a chapter  "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants A
> > Balancing
> > > Act of Dialectically Theorizing Conceptual Understanding on the Grounds
> > of
> > > Vygotsky's Project" by Anna Stetsenko .  The chapter is in the book
> > > "Re/Structuring Science Education: Reuniting Sociological and
> > Psychological
> > > Perspectives" edited by W.M.Roth. Anna is offering her interpretation
> of
> > > the
> > > dialectical *method* and outlook on reality.
> > >
> > > To put her reflections in context I want to bring in Jay's thoughts on
> > > paradigm assumtions and *general laws*  He wrote,
> > >
> > > But I am rather conflicted about some of the paradigm assumptions. I
> > don't
> > > happen to believe that there are useful general laws about social
> > systems.
> > > They are not the kind of objects of study about which such laws are
> > > possible, primarily because what usually turns out to matter about them
> > are
> > > more their differences rather than their similarities (as opposed to
> the
> > > ways in which natural science's objects are defined, so that
> similarities
> > > matter more than differences). Social systems are in this sense a bit
> > more
> > > like literary texts. So there are ways of not having to start from
> > scratch
> > > in understanding a new one, but not ways that rely on general laws of
> > their
> > > behavior. More like check lists of things to pay attention to, and of
> > > possible or frequent kinds of connections seen before. Weak
> similarities,
> > > embedded in strong differences (the uniqueness, individuality, and
> > > unpredictability of real complex systems).
> > >
> > > The methods of controlled research depend on predictability, and on the
> > > dominance of similarity over difference. They have their uses in social
> > > science and psychology, but they don't get one very far, and in
> > particular
> > > they don't enable social engineering. Which may be a good thing! As
> > someone
> > > like Latour might note, academic disciplines, and indeed all organized,
> > > historically long-lived institutionalized activity systems work at
> making
> > > things seem and sometimes even be more predictable and regular than
> they
> > > would be "in the wild". But when their norms are violated, when objects
> > of
> > > study are defined in new ways, when systems under study combine things
> > that
> > > do not normally combine, or combine them in new ways (e.g. combining
> > > researcher culture and practitioner culture), the predictability and
> the
> > > illusion of control and regularity quickly evaporates.
> > >
> > > The pursuit of general laws is not a good route to the practical
> > knowledge
> > > and wisdom needed to make our way toward a better society. We cannot
> > afford
> > > to be misled by superficial generalizations when we are dealing with
> > real,
> > > particular comm and their problems. We need particularist research that
> > > adds
> > > to our capacity to help out in the next particular case.
> > >
> > > END OF QUOTE
> > >
> > > Jay is questioning the value of pursuing *general laws" in our search
> and
> > > encourages inquiry into practical knowledge and wisdom [phronesis] as
> we
> > > pursue the value of developing a *better* society.  This perspective
> > values
> > > the practical as a *higher* good than searching for general laws.
> > >
> > > I now want to contrast this standpoint with Anna Stetsenko's
> perspective
> > > towards dialectical methodology.  She states,
> > >
> > > "Within Marxism, there has been a considerable debate as to WHAT KIND
> of
> > an
> > > approach the dialectical method represents and whether the term
> > dialectics
> > > refers to the core outlook on REALITY and its phenomena and processes
> or,
> > > alternatively, ONLY to the ANALYTICAL METHOD itself.?  Anna points out
> > that
> > > neither Marx or Vygotsky's positions are clear on this question. (p.70)
> > >
> > > Anna suggests that
> > >
> > > "the true hallmark and condition sin qua non for the dialectical method
> > is
> > > the notion that *practice* serves as the ultimate ground for advancing
> > the
> > > verifying theories as well as for providing warrants for knowledge
> > claims.
> > > Unlike the skepticism of social constructionism and other postmodern
> > > approaches that acknowledge no grounds for falsifying theories or
> > > adjudicating among various theoretical standpoints and claims, the
> > Marxist
> > > method provides warrants for such adjudication.  These warrants have to
> > do
> > > not with applying some abstract, fixed principles that lie outside
> > > knowledge
> > > claims but instead, are derived by discerning the (often implicit but
> > > always
> > > ineluctably present) ideological and ETHICAL underpinnings and
> > > potentialities of a given theory as a form of practice."
> > >
> > > I introduced Anna's quote as it seems to parallel both Aristole's
> notion
> > of
> > > phronesis and also Gadamer's notion of philosophical hermeneutics [as
> > well
> > > as Jay Lemke's position as I understand it]
> > >
> > > Episteme as a particular *theoretical* form of practice, and also
> techne
> > as
> > > a particular *productive* form of practice, are legitimate ways to
> engage
> > > with the world IF they are INFORMED, not by general laws or *systems*
> of
> > > scientific prediction, but rather by re-cognizing *practical wisdom*
> > > [value-knowledge] which serves as the ULTIMATE ground for warranting
> > > knowledge claims.
> > >
> > > The relations between episteme, techne, and phronesis, as various FORMS
> > of
> > > knowledge as expressed within the methods of dialectical materialism,
> > > philosophical hermeneutics, or Aristotle's  knowledge framework may
> bias
> > > episteme, techne, or practical wisdom [value-knowledge] as more or less
> > > central and the other forms as more or less peripheral, [different
> > > hierarchical perspectives] but all 3 perspectives emphasize that we
> must
> > > reclaim a central role for practical ethical wisdom in our knowledge
> > > frameworks.
> > >
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Visiting Lecturer
> *Wits School of Education
> *Research Fellow*
> Linguistics Dept: Unisa
> -----------------------------------------
> HOME (please use these details)
> 6 Andover Road
> Westdene
> Johannesburg 2092
> +27 (0)11 673 9265   +27 (0)82 562 1050
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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