Re: [xmca] Learning through peripheral participation in XMCA

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Hi David Kirshner and Carol

I thought I would try to ask a simple question which my post on
methods/methodology was circling around  Hayden Whyte wrote a book called
"The Content of the Form".  In the book he explored 3 forms of historical
writing.  The annals [a list of dates and an event listed beside each date.
The 2nd form was the chronicle and the 3rd form was the historical narrative
[with a beginning, middle and end.]  Hayden's question asks if the FORM
[irrespective of the events described] represents a particular type of
consciousness. In other words does the form generate particular types of
content irrespective of events or experience.  How we come to understand
particular experiences and events partially depend on the form of knowledge
which informs our inquiry.


I extended Hayden's question to reflect on the forms of knowledge/knowing in
Aristotle's 3 part framework as possibly historically specific distinct
types of knowledge as reflecting distinct forms.  Then I speculated on how
various scholars such as Marx, Vygotsky, Gadamar, and Stetsenko may be
exploring a topic with common roots in Ancient Greece and extending the
interpenetration of the 3 forms of knowledge  into our current debates.

Finally, I brought in Anna Stetsenko as she seems to be a scholar who is
asking similar questions and is deeply versed in dialectical methods but
also well read in  other sociocultural perspectives and also points to
ethical/moral or ideological forms of knowledge as the ultimate ground for
informing theory.

Finally, I've used David Kirsch's question about developing dispositions as
the purpose of education from a sociocultural perspective [and in particular
Anna Stesenko's notion of inquiry as grounded in a transformative activist
stance as a conscious change of form in our historical development.

Larry

I'm not sure if that helps to put in context where my reflections have been
wandering
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:

> Thanks, Carol.
> What a great topic for discussion: Learning through peripheral
> participation in XMCA.
> My sense, over time, is that the language and ideation of
> CHAT/sociocultural theory become more familiar and more comfortable over
> time--despite the limited number of threads I actually follow, and the
> limited opportunity I have to do side reading in this area. But I have
> to confess that it was co-authoring a piece with David Kellogg that
> really contributed most directly to my understanding. Meanwhile, the
> value of being awash in the language and structure of XMCA debate is
> largely an unknown quantity for me.
> David
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of Carol Macdonald
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 10:39 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Dialectical Inquiry as the method/methodology of
> CHAT
>
> 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
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca