Re: [xmca] Finding common ground across sociocultural frameworks

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Maybe because I am upside down these days, I get the point now, Larry.  :-))

historical in place of ahistorical sure helps at the front end.

I think the second point clearly follows, as you say. Active and passive are
not absolute anythings, stances included, and they are in constant tension
for sure. In the beginning was the deed, but we enter the world late and
leave early, on the species time level of analysis, so there are sure a lot
of words there that we might feel as if we had to respond to,
ontogenetically and microgenetically speaking.

But I get lost after that in talk of the more inclusive sociocultural
perspective.

I am still in search of some empirical examples of this perspective in
action (including action research!). I have not had time to look at the
books that Peter pointed us to when I asked about this issue before. I would
think that classrooms would offer special challenges with respect to the
passive/active stance.

mike

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike
>
> First a clarification of a typo I wrote "ahistorical" when I meant "a
> historical" with a radical change of meaning.
>
> The question of "spectator"  or  "passive" stance in contrast to an active
> stance  is Anna's suggestion of two alternative ways to understand the turn
> to sociocultural relational models.  Anna's central point is that the common
> ground which these two alternatives share [viewing the relational ontology
> as foundational] is the more general sociocultural perspective [which
> includes BOTH passive and active stances]  Anna then suggests that the built
> in dialectical tension within the general sociocultural turn has led to a
> further level of analysis in which the more passive and more active models
> are contrasted.  However, her main point is that the shared ground in a
> relational framework should be embraced in order to challenge the other 2
> dominant paradigms that implicitly frame our knowledge, practices, and
> ontology.  My understanding of Anna's project is to help bring into
> existence a collaborative activist stance that has the potential to
> transform subjectivity and the world as a single unity with no gaps.
>
> I read Anna's project as consciousness raising and a paradigm shift which
> has the same power to shift perspectives as Darwin's metaphor of adaptation
> had for biology.
>
> I wanted to direct attention to the level of common ground rather than the
> level of contrasting passive and activist models WITHIN the sociocultural
> turn.  Focusing on the common ground allows us to link up with other
> discourses such as discursive, dialogical, hermeneutical, as well as CHAT in
> embracing the general sociocultural turn to relational ontology.
>
> Larry
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:28 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Valerie-- Are your comments about articulation and loose coupling a
>> response
>> to Larry account of Anna's ideas about NO GAPS?
>>
>> Larry-- I worry about the account of spectators. Are spectators really
>> passive? In a relational ontology? Relatedly, so to speak, I have this
>> gnawing idea that teoria in Greek referred to spectators at a civic event,
>> like a play.
>>
>> How should we be mapping the activist stance on to the concerns about
>> whose
>> interests are being served in AR research?
>>
>>
>> mike
>>
>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  > Mike, you asked us to reflect on our understanding about questions of
>> > values
>> > and agency in the discussion of action research and CHAT.  In searching
>> for
>> > common ground, between various forms of action research I want to
>> continue
>> > to bring Anna Stetsenko into the conversation.  The reason why I am
>> > referring to her work is because she locates action and activity as
>> > ahistorical development within a more inclusive sociocultural
>> perspective
>> > which exists at a more general level of analysis.
>> >
>> > She suggests that in our contemporary psychological perspectives there
>> are
>> > three big frameworks or meta-theories to explain or understand
>> development
>> > and learning. The majority of teachers, psychologists, policy makers and
>> > others in the educational arena are mostly operating implicitly within
>> the
>> > first two meta theoretical perspectives  and the third sociocultural
>> > framework is less represented in psychological and educational
>> discourse.
>> > The 3 BIG frameworks are:
>> >
>> > 1)The traditional empiricist one according to which humans know the
>> world
>> > through the input generated by information passing from the environment
>> > into
>> > the brain via sense organs.
>> > 2) The Kantian framework of rationalist metaphysics that posits
>> knowledge
>> > is
>> > generated through processes in which the mind imposes its pre-existing
>> > structures on the sensorial input rather than merely detecting or
>> recording
>> > incoming external input.
>> > 3) The sociocultural or socio-historical framework which posits a
>> > relational
>> > ontology as the ground within which knowledge is produced.
>> >
>> > Anna is suggesting that the first two frameworks are much more united in
>> > articulating and presenting a coherent framework which results in the
>> > dominance of the current testing and control framework within the public
>> > school systems. [as a result of the dominance of the first 2 frameworks
>> > highlighted.
>> >
>> > Anna believes if we are to challenge the 2  big meta theoretical
>> frameworks
>> > currently controlling how we organize our school practices we need to
>> find
>> > common cause within the third sociocultural framework. She suggests the
>> way
>> > to find this common ground is to understand what all the various
>> > sociocultural approaches (phenomenology, poststructuralism,
>> hermeneutics,
>> > American pragmatism, Marxism) share in common.  Her answer is they share
>> a
>> > relational ontology.  One way Anna suggests we capitalize on and
>> strengthen
>> > this relational ontology is to recognize that the 3 major frameworks of
>> the
>> > 20th century, by Piaget, Dewey, and Vygotsky, all embodied strong
>> > relational
>> > thinking.  At THIS level of analysis relational ontology offers a shared
>> > perspective and common ground among the various sociocultural turns in
>> > psychology.
>> >
>> > At the next level of analysis the common ground of a shared relational
>> > ontology has a dialectical tension within the shared relational
>> ontology.
>> > This tension is expressed as a tension between the passive spectator
>> stance
>> > and the agentive activist stance [within the shared relational ontology
>> as
>> > common ground].  According to the spectator stance, the world, though
>> being
>> > profoundly relational is also essentially passive with phenomena and
>> > processes co-occuring and BEING together with no agency posited at the
>> > fundamental level of existence.  Co-being comes about through
>> co-presence
>> > but existence is passive.  In contrast  the activist stance posits human
>> > action as agentive and constitutive of the RELATIONS between persons and
>> > the
>> > world.  Development and learning as co-being and co-presence is
>> > dialectically superseded by the agentive stance of acting in or engaging
>> > the
>> > world.  What is central to this dialectical perspective is that the
>> > emphasis
>> > on acting agentively DOES NOT and is not meant to eliminate the
>> > relationality of co-being and action which is always and irrevocably
>> > relational. The activist stance posits the relational becoming is
>>  always
>> > crossing and eliminating the boundaries between the knower and the
>> known.
>> > Relationality is not eliminated but instead entailed in activity that
>> now
>> > becomes the supreme ontological principle.  Anna suggests this NOVEL
>> form
>> > of
>> > the activist stance is a moment in development that transforms the
>> > biological and posits the coming into being of subjectivity and agentive
>> > activity as BI-directional. Learning becomes an active endeavor and
>> actors
>> > learn by doing by acting in and on their world. In this novel form of
>> > becoming activities are not complementary to development and learning
>> but
>> > instead are the very realm that development and learning belong to and
>> are
>> > carried out in.  Activities are the very "matter" development and
>> learning
>> > are made of.
>> >
>> > Anna suggests the collaborative activist stance is the "matter" of the
>> > human
>> > sciences in a way similar to "adaptation" is the central organizing idea
>> > within the biological realm.
>> >
>> > What I appreciate about Anna's project is her attempt to embrace the
>> > sociocultural [sociohistorical] turn in education and psychology which
>> > posits development and teaching/learning as ontologically relational
>> [and
>> > therefore attempts to share common ground and posits CHAT as a further
>> > elaboration within this common ground.  It is this spirit of searching
>> for
>> > common ground which I believe is essential to talk back to the first 2
>> > perspectives mentioned above.
>> >
>> > What I find so radical in Anna's writings is how she is attempting to
>> > connect ontology, epistemology, agency, subjectivity as a single unity
>> > {gestalt, whole] with NO GAPS.  Her writings in this area is helping be
>> to
>> > understand the concept of "bi-directionality" within this unity.  The
>> > concrete & abstract, cases & types are a single process or unity with NO
>> > GAPS and it is only one's stance [perspective] which raises to awareness
>> > the
>> > concrete or abstract.  From her perspectives "examples" "events"  or
>> > "cases"
>> > if explored deeply lead to the abstract while the abstract is grounded
>> in
>> > examples, events, and cases.
>> >
>> > I've summarized what I currently understand of Anna's project and I
>> believe
>> > it has been very helpful for my development/learning.
>> >
>> > 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