[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] CHAT-AR: Seth's Table
To your comment Andy, it is not unusual in my interactions with this group
of girls to record audio/video --they record me, each other, and I record
them. Discrete was perhaps not the best choice of words, so much as quickly
while not disturbing the flow of talk. But, perhaps what you're getting at
is that a disruption of this kind (like a "breaching experiment", not to
mention a breach of trust) can bring out in the open what each participant
had taken to be (up to that moment) what the activity was about, or at least
that there were expectations about it--thereby showing that there *is*,
after all, at least an implicit notion of Activity as a thing with a more or
less definite direction. I have no trouble with this, but such a vague
sense of direction is hard to conceptualize as something like a goal --it
seems to speak more to interactionally enacted/remembered scripts whose
interruption can bring out what the script is about.
But, I don't think we need to imagine a disruption of this kind to then ask
about the degree of shared agreement about what we're doing: I think we (me
and the LadyBugs, as the girls refer to their friendship circle) often don't
have very much of a shared agreement of what we're doing, but we do agree
that we're moving "somewhere" (and I say "agree" loosely here).
Movie-making requires the use of cameras, but the use of cameras doesn't
entail making a movie --just like scribbling math symbols doesn't entail
doing math. In the research I'm alluding to here, which cannot even be
described as "after-school" so much as it is "at the pleasure of the kids
and the community center coordinator", it is much more often the case that
"fun" is the thing that has to be shared, not any clear sense of a goal. So
I guess I would say that fun/play can entrain participants in joint
interaction without necessarily entraining them in Activity (in the sense of
interaction with a goal) -- entraintainment?
Michael, your imagination is pretty good in this case. Many forms of
interesting interaction have taken place in this community center within or
following dance. I've been invited, for example, into one of my
participant's homes to play a PS3 kinect game in which we dance in pairs in
front of the TV to Michael Jackson songs. Another time I participated in a
small group (including a grandma, a mom, two teenagers, and a boy of 10
years of age) "rueda" dance, which is common in Cuba and which I learned in
Miami, FL. So, yeah, dance also, as a precursor to this moment of
reflection on ghetto names, is an important experiential/affective mediator
and entry-way. You will have to trust my memory when I say that the body
movements that accompanied the girls' drawn-out enunciation of the
"ghettoness" of the ghetto names are movements that, not surprisingly, are
iconic of rap videos. BUT, interestingly, the moves I showed them were
definitely not, I was dancing Salsa! So, to the extent that dance can
function to shape/prepare the context of interaction, it apparently can do
so, at least on one (base?) level, by getting participants "in the groove"
as it were, even prior to getting "on beat" with any particular style/genre
of dance.
So it is only a lateral connection from the point of view of "talk" vs.
"dance" as different genres of activities, but not lateral in terms of body
movement, which was quiet animated across both the dance and the talk
sequences. Or, rather, we were integrated at the level of body movement,
and talk about ghetto names was layered (with more ease than may have
otherwise been the case) on top?
Change is difficult to address here, because institutions are impatient. At
LCHC I've often remarked that we need units of decades to approach this
research that is only 4 years old so far in this community. One moment, one
"intervention", even when the goal is clear, does very little. Many moments
of mutual discovery and shared lived-trajectories, over many years, won't
guarantee change, but they do, I think, create richer ground for significant
change on both sides. How can I, as the titular researcher, hope to ever
engage the girls in discussions of things in the "large social system" --in
a meaningful, from an intersubjective and "significant change" point of
view-- without ground of this type to stand on?
Difficult stuff,
Ivan
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu>wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
>
> What interests me about the scene you describe (and I realize I may just be
> kind of imagining this) is that by dancing for the girls you actually
> transferred ownership of the situation so that it was no so much you
> controlling the situation as the three of you being in the situation
> together. The dancing that you were doing for the girls was a lateral
> connection, and even though they did not join in, it seems something that
> they could in some ways link to and understand in terms of who they were.
> The lateral connection perhaps then allowed the girls to bring you into
> their conversation of ghetto names and ghettoization, using the shared
> literacy (in a veeerrrry broad sense) of dancing to integrate you into the
> shared literacy of ghetto names I suppose. But the question Mary asks
> becomes important, how does change actually come from this? Are ghetto
> names a form of marginalization, or is the fact that I think the discussion
> might be a form of marginalization a form of marginalization. I don't know.
> But is it then incumbent on you, as the titular researcher, to help both
> yourself and the girls understand the roles that their discussion plays in
> the large social system. Don't know, just a really interesting scene you
> describe.
>
> Michael
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Ivan Rosero
> Sent: Mon 5/16/2011 11:13 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] CHAT-AR: Seth's Table
>
>
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I don't often comment here, but follow with interest.
>
> Since I've been thinking a bit lately about what Activity is, as Andy asks,
> and especially about what it is when engaged in "observant participation",
> as a number of us have been doing here in San Diego in a 4 year long
> LCHC-Community project, this question intrigues me.
>
> Most of the time, in my research in the community, I feel caught-up in a
> flow that is much more out of my control than it is within it, but still
> interesting things (from a research point of view) take place. For
> example,
> just last week, I was engaged with a number of girls in, ostensibly, making
> a movie. We were rehearsing a dance scene while waiting for a participant,
> but there wasn't really a "scene" to rehearse, only a vague idea that
> dancing should be taking place. So, I took the opportunity to engage the
> girls in some dancing (cause I like dance), but not the kind of dance
> they're used to. They tried a bit of the moves, but mostly sort of enjoyed
> watching me dance (what was this activity about?). So, OK, the missing
> participant was still missing, so we sat down for a moment, and
> spontaneously (probably cause it had been on their mind), the girls start
> discussing the nature of "ghetto names", giving examples of names that are
> and are not ghetto and enunciating with heavy accents and body gestures how
> ghetto names sound. I thought this was incredibly interesting, so I
> discretely recorded some audio for posterity, and was aware in the moment
> that this activity of discussing ghetto names (but weren't we doing a
> film?)
> was a very important one, and one in which I participated whole heartedly,
> asking about the qualities of ghetto names, and how to "ghettoize" (a new
> verb learned for the girls) my name, etc...
>
> So, I guess one does not need to know what an activity is even to do
> research, especially when that research turns often to the spontaneous
> appropriation on both sides of opportunities for mutual discovery and
> inter-subjective proximity.
>
> Ivan
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Denise Newnham <dsnewnham@bluewin.ch
> >wrote:
>
> > HI a quick reply. In the DWR approach time is taken at the beginning of
> the
> > intervention process to explain the activity system/s at play in the form
> > of
> > the triangle and its nodules to the participants.
> >
> > Denise
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On
> > Behalf Of vanderriet@ukzn.ac.za
> > Sent: lundi 16 mai 2011 16:20
> > To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] CHAT-AR: Seth's Table
> >
> > Mike- absolutely. Who initiates the interaction often determines its
> terms
> > (and outcome).
> > Andy- yes we need to know what an activity is. But in interventionist
> > research such as DWR is it not just defined within the/each engagement?
> > Perhaps those who have experience with the approach could respond.
> > Mary
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 22:57:55
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Reply-To: ablunden@mira.net
> > Cc: <lchcmike@gmail.com>; Mary van der Riet<vanderriet@ukzn.ac.za>
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] CHAT-AR: Seth's Table
> >
> > No, no, Mike, of course you don't have to know anything about AT in order
> > to
> > engage in joint activity, etc.. I am saying that if want to solve the
> > complex mix of problems around how to collaborate under the range of
> > difficult imbalances of power etc., and other problems raised by
> > interventions and participatory research, and so on, then, as theorists I
> > think we nee to clarify what we mean by "an activity." Otherwise I think
> AT
> > cannot help us in this situation. People outside of this reflective
> > framework, when posed with or posing "participation" are going to ask
> > questions like: "OK, what we are going to do then? What are you trying to
> > achieve?" and so on.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > mike cole wrote: Mary/Andy--
> >
> > Right, Mary. One has to include the question WHOSE moral imperative.
> >
> > Do you think that the issue of who initiates interaction is relevant?
> >
> > Andy-- Your comment about needing to know what an activity is in AT
> terms
> > in order to engage in joint activity among groups of the sort
> contemplated
> > here puzzles me. Why?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > PS- Locally we have been using the term, ,"observant participation" to
> > characterize involvement with the folks we work among and with.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> > <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> > wrote:
> > In my view Mary, this brings us to confront what "an activity" is.
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> > Mary van der Riet wrote:
> > The 'participation' component of PAR (participatory ACTION RESEARCH) is
> > what intrigues me. Emphasis on participation was a result of criticism
> > of
> > approaches in development and rural agricultural research by the World
> > Bank
> > and IMF which was extractive and ultimately exploitative.
> > They used approaches such as Rapid Rural Appraisal, which also developed
> > into Participatory Rural Appraisal. Robert Chambers has a book called
> > 'Putting the last first' and a chapter entitled 'Whose knowledge?'.
> > Both of these highlight the moral imperative behind participatory
> > research
> > approaches.
> > But for me what is lacking in these approaches is a theorization of what
> > 'participation' does, how it is the cornerstone of change on individual
> > and
> > social levels. I think that is what Vygotsky and CHAT approaches (and
> DWR
> > in particular) add to PAR etc., a way of understanding how it is that
> > participative processes are so significant in bringing about social
> > change.
> > A moral imperative is not enough to ensure change.
> > Mary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mary van der Riet; School of Psychology; University of KwaZulu-Natal
> > Private Bag X01, Scottsville, 3209
> >
> > email: vanderriet@ukzn.ac.za <mailto:vanderriet@ukzn.ac.za>
> > tel: 033 260 6163; fax: 033 2605809
> >
> >
> > Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> > 05/16/11
> > 04:19
> > AM >>>
> >
> > I think Vygotsky's absence of concern for ownership of a collaborative
> > research project arose from what we would see today as a naive acceptance
> > of
> > the Soviet Union as the inheritor a popular revolution. I am sure he knew
> > better, but it seems to have been a working assumption. It meant that he
> > could see himself as a participant in that revolution, exercising popular
> > agency. It doesn't look like that to us in historical
> >
> > retrospect and few of us on this list see it that way here and now.
> >
> > I have to say that we I first got interested in this stuff I saw it that
> >
> > way (like LSV). My activism was as an elected trade union representative
> >
> > and thinking about what I was doing was one of the responsibilities of
> > that
> > role. So also was maintaining a high level of participation in and
> > commitment to the work. Things have changed, both in the world outside
> and
> > my relation to it, and I now take these questions to be as relevant to me
> > as
> > they were to those academic researchers who would interview me as a
> subject
> > years ago.
> >
> > But apart from many experiences with change consultants brought in by
> > successive managers, I really know nothing of Lewin and AR or Mondragon,
> >
> > so I can't help with this issue any further, other than to affirm that I
> >
> > now believe that the dynamics of collaboration are a central problem for
> >
> > psychology, maybe even *the* central problem, and this question rightly
> > deserves attention. It tends to be hidden until class divisions or
> > neo-liberal atomisation of society, puts collaboration into relief
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > mike cole wrote:
> >
> > I am still trying to figure out the issue of theory and methodology in
> >
> > this
> >
> > CHAT-AR discussion but in the meantime, I am would like to know
> >
> > other's
> >
> > views of Figure 3
> > in Seth's article. Here is what I could capture from the pdf. (Hey!
> >
> > It
> >
> > worked!!).
> > "Proposition" refers to a set of analytic characteristics that Seth
> >
> > uses to
> >
> > compare Lewin and Vygotsky. I raise questions below.
> >
> > Proposition
> >
> > Lewin
> > Vygotsky
> >
> > 1. Direct consideration of improvement of
> >
> > societal practice
> > + + ?
> >
> > 2. Necessary to intervene into societal practices
> > + +
> >
> > 3. Explicit attention to societal values used
> > O O
> >
> > 4. Part of being objective is to consider
> >
> > societal values and interests
> > O
> > O
> >
> > 5. Advocacy and objectivity
> > O
> > O
> >
> > 6. Distinction between "basic" and
> >
> > "applied" is meaningless
> >
> > +
> >
> > +
> >
> > *Note. *+ indicates concordance; ? indicates uncertainty; O indicates
> > absence.
> >
> > I want to focus on propositions 3,4,5. I think that they might provide
> >
> > a
> >
> > rough pointer
> > towards some of the differences that appear to exist between different
> >
> > forms
> >
> > of research that claims some relation to some form off action
> >
> > research.
> >
> > 3 and 4 are closely related in that both presuppose that there is more
> >
> > than
> >
> > one social value and interest to be considered. Neither LSV nor Lewin,
> >
> > it
> >
> > seems, attended to these issues explicitly. Then, of course, they
> >
> > would not
> >
> > pay explicit attention to advocacy.
> >
> > I believe that in general people who participate in this discussion
> >
> > assume
> >
> > that there are in fact multiple societies in Society, we would point
> >
> > to
> >
> > socioeconomic class as fundamental, but however we do it, we would
> >
> > argue
> >
> > that those "for whom" the research is being done are not members of a
> >
> > single
> >
> > society with a single set of values and a single set of criteria of
> >
> > virtue.
> >
> > So we MUST raises these issues.
> >
> > When we do, the issue of agency jumps in our face. Whose interests
> >
> > are
> >
> > being served here, given that there are different social groupings
> >
> > involved?
> >
> > Who gets to decide what gets remembered out of these encounters and
> >
> > who does
> >
> > not?
> >
> > When conducting joint research with Soviet colleagues in the 1980's I
> > learned that the question of who initiates a proposed collaborative
> >
> > project
> >
> > is a central concern in human interaction. At the diplomatic level,
> >
> > my
> >
> > Soviet colleagues did all they could to be sure that it was the
> >
> > Americans
> >
> > who initiated any interaction. Why? Because they could go to their
> >
> > bosses
> >
> > and say, "We have been asked to engage in these activities, what
> >
> > should we
> >
> > do?" Once they were told to do what they wanted to do in the first
> >
> > place,
> >
> > the could perceive. They were absolved of the crime of exerting
> >
> > agency.
> >
> > When working with local communities, the balancing of responsibility
> >
> > for the
> >
> > joint activity is an ongoing and major concern. I take Yrjo's focus on
> >
> > the
> >
> > method of dual stimulation in the Change Lab as a way of providing the
> > "other" (postal workers, medical workers, etc.) with agency.... to
> >
> > become
> >
> > their instrument.
> >
> > I like the phrase I learned from Olga Vasquez, "reciprocal relations
> >
> > of
> >
> > exchange." Sounds like the definition of non-profit capitalism, but
> >
> > when one
> >
> > achieves such reciprocity, good things happen.
> >
> > What do others think about the absence of these concerns shared by
> >
> > Vygotsky
> >
> > and Lewin that we do not, I am surmising, share with them? (Judging
> >
> > from
> >
> > Seth's account.)
> >
> > mike
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > Joint Editor MCA:
> > http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
> > <http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g932564744 <
> http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744> >
> > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <
> http://home.mira.net/~andy/> >
> > Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> > MIA: http://www.marxists.org <http://www.marxists.org/>
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ----------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > Joint Editor MCA:
> > http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
> > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> > <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
> > MIA: http://www.marxists.org <http://www.marxists.org/>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > 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