I am not familiar with Wegerif, and my knowledge of Merleau-Ponty and
Bakhtin leaves room for improvement, Larry, but Merleau-Ponty and
Bakhtin I don't see as having the blind-spot I refer to: they certainly
do notr represent a postmodern point of view. Your posts remind us of
how many different ways there are of seeing the world. The writers I
particularly had in mind were Axel Honneth and Robert R Williams. My
analysis is found at http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/williams.htm
The problem with the fad for "intersubjectivity" which these two
writers are part of is that they try to analyse social life as just
interactions between individuals, like billiard balls just bouncing off
each other. Culture is invisible from this point of view. It is
basically the same view Margaret Thatcher expresses when she said
"There is no such thing as society." Williams promotes an
interpretation of Hegel based exclusively a reading of the recognition
relation in which the relation between subjects is unmediated: subject
and object are absolutely outside each other. He was President of the
Hegel Society of America at one point so he represents a significant
current of Hegel-interpretation. Honneth is Director of the Institute
for Social Research, a.k.a. the Frankfurt School, so obviously
represents a significant current in Critical Theory. Personally, I
think they both misrepresent and misunderstand the very first word in
Hegel: mediation.
Andy
Larry Purss wrote:
Hi Andy
Yes that helps, and recognition may have its roots in early
Hegel. You mention that MOST of the discussion of recognition is
postmodern and leaves out mediation.. You state
More recent trends of recognition readings or Hegel -
"intersubjectivity" - just don't know or care about the notion of
mediation. The self is not split as it is for Hegel and Mead, but body
and soul are merged into one integrated subject. IMHO the whole process
relies on some mysterious interpsychic process, and is simply
reflective of the postmodern condition of individual powerlessness.
Andy, I'm new to the ins and outs of the various ways scholars
are constructing and deconstructing notions of mediation and dialogue.
But I do sense that these themes and how they intersect are central
topics as we go forward. Martin's article locating "desire FOR
recognition" as one of the six themes as we articulate a sociocultural
perspective is giving me the "permission" [I give myself in
recognition that "recognition" is a viable topic on this forum] and how
it intersects with mediation.
I want to bring in an author, Rupert Wegerif" into the
conversation. I met him on line [reading his articles] in a dialogical
"space" as he engages with notions of recognition. In the section to
follow he is linking up Merleau-Ponty with Bahktin. [google scholar
lists many of his articles]
Merleau-Ponty has developed the notion of CHIASM. The word
chiasm is borrowed from grammar where it refers to the reversibility of
the subject and the object in a sentence. This term is extended by
Merleau-Ponty to refer to the mutual envelopment and reversibility
BETWEEN two total perspectives on the world. There is an UNBRIDGEABLE
gap or "hinge" which is also an OPENING of meaning.
This concept of chiasm is linked to Merleau-Ponty's visual
[perceptual] account of the difference BETWEEN figure and ground, the
idea that bounded things or objects stand out from and are DEFINED
against an implicit background [fly-bottles, horizons,] As a person
stands forth in a landscape a horizon instantly forms around them but
at the same time as the person's gaze precipitates THIS horizon they
also experience themselves PLACED as an object within their horizon AS
IF the unsituated gaze of the horizon was looking at them and locating
them within it.. Merleau-Ponty refers to these two sides, LOOKING in
and LOOKING out as a "chiasm" in a figure/ground ontology.
Rupert then links Merleau-Ponty's notion of chiasm to Bahktin,
quoting Bahktin:
"Thought ABOUT the world and thought IN the world. Thought
striving to embrace the world and thought experiencing itself in the
world AS PART OF IT. An EVENT in the world and participation in it.
The world as an event (and not as existence in ready-made form)"
[Bahktin, 1986, p.162 my emphasis]
Andy, Bahktin's notion of voice where my voice [perspective] is
in the others voice and the others voice [perspective] is in my voice
AS DIFFERENCE that requires a "space" or "landscape" of BETWEENNESS
that contains or holds the differences [and never finds identity [ A=A]
linked with Merleau-Ponty's figure/ground notion of chiasm is the
theme of recognition I'm playing with. I'm not sure if these notions
are "postmodern" and reflect some mysterious "interpsychic" ideality
but they are food for thought going forward.
Larry
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Andy
Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
Larry, as I see it, the idea of desire for
recognition originated in the Young Hegel's master-slave dialectic, but
that was of course just the beginning.
Hegel's original version dealt with the confrontation between two
subjects for which there exists no mediation at all. This is a very
strange circumstance, but a scenario Hegel needed in order to expound
his idea of modernity and the state. It could refer to two peoples
coming into contact for the first time, e.g. colonialism, or a brand
new social movement confronting the establishment. The two subjects
manage to mediate their interaction by each splitting in two, their
needs and the means of their satisfaction become differentiated, and
mediation happens by the needs (or labour) of one mediating between the
needs and labour of the other. One or another vesion, successively
attenuated appears in every version of Hegel's system.
In a 1805 version of his system, he envisage the circulation of the
products of labour on the market as a form of recognition. But both the
fire-and-brimstone version in the Phenomenolohgy and the commodity
version are attenuated in later works. In the Philosophy of Right,
recognition happens via self-organised professional associations, the
family, local quasi-state organisations and so on - some kind of
participatory democracy. He explicitly warns against taking the
master-servant relation as relevant to life within a nation-state. But
in his Subjective Spirit, he takes the relation of Recognition as the
foundation of self-consciousness and the emergence of intellect.
GH Mead based his I/Me dialectic explicitly on Hegel's master-slave
relation, in as much as it relies on the self-sundering of the person
into subject and object, but without all the fire and brimstone.
More recent trends of recognition readings or Hegel -
"intersubjectivity" - just don't know or care about the notion of
mediation. The self is not split as it is for Hegel and Mead, but body
and soul are merged into one integrated subject. IMHO the whole process
relies on some mysterious interpsychic process, and is simply
reflective of the postmodern condition of individual powerlessness.
Hope that helps Larry.
Andy
Larry Purss wrote:
Gregory, thanks for this reference on the topic of
desire for recognition.
My question to Martin was my attempt to understand our fundamental need
for
recognition, [self/other], and how this fundamental need is transformed
by
cultural-historical institutional arrangements. As I read Martin's
article
he located the need for recognition as one of the 6 foundational
[ontological?] GROUNDS of the sociocultural perspective.
If the desire for recognition is foundational , then the
dialogical understanding of communication as the relation BETWEEN self
and
other is primary [not the dialectical resolution of tensions into a new
cognitive synthesis which may be derivative from a more
primary intersubjective relational foundation] I'm wondering, reading
scholars such as Merleau-Ponty, if mediation of dialogical relational
intersubjectivity, is prior to mediation by material artifacts.
This question is probably expressing my ignorance of the relation
between
the notions of tool use and intersubjectivity but how else to get
clarity?
In actual practice it may be impossible to separate these two
mediational
means BUT it seems that the dialogical perspective emphasizes the
mediation
of self/other intersubjective relational being/becoming while mediation
via
tool use emphasizes internalization and cognitive synthesis through
cultural-historical object usage.
The notion of biosocial niches can accomodate both mediation through
other
persons AND mediation through artifacts, so really it is not an
either/or
question but rather a matter of emphasis. The practical question in
school
settings is how to be aware of the profound desire for recognition of
all
the persons [students and teachers] which teachers may loose sight of
in the
focus on developing and internalizing scientific concepts. [which comes
at a
cost of transmuted desire for recognition]
The focus on the intersubjective relational "betweenness" of the
dialogical
perspective seems to emphasize the "desre for recognition" more than
the
language of mediated tool use.
Hesitant to press "send" as I expose my ignorance
Larry
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Gregory Allan Thompson <
gathomps@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Larry,
Merleau-Ponty is certainly a good direction to go with desire and
recognition.
For writings on desire and recognition in the more sociological
tradition,
you might want to check out W.I. Thomas' The Unadjusted Girl. Section 4
of
Chapter 1 (p. 31). Check it out at:
http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Thomas/Thomas_1923/Thomas_1923_1.html
Best,
-greg
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:30:16 -0700
From: Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
Subject: [xmca] Six key points on sociocultural models of development
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimb+b7VV14eCr75T-eZj+sOwhst-g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Martin, Mike,
Mike, thanks for the Sinha article on language as a biological niche and
social institution. I'm working my way through the article.
The concept of affordances within niches draws attention to species
specific
forms of meaning AS ...... Gibson on p. 8 of Sinha's article says
affordances are DIRECTLY PERCEIVED as it potentiates the activation of
perception-action circuits which form objects as directly perceived
PARTS
of
gestalen [meaningful wholes] or niches.
Martin, I now want to bring in one of the key themes of the six you
outline
in your article [I would recommend others read the article Martin
posted on
the ontology of the sociocultural turn] This is the theme of "desire
&
recognition" You suggest that the first 3 themes are familiar to
scholars
working within the sociocultural framework but the last 3 themes are
more
outside their horizon of understanding. Andy recently mentioned
engaging
CHAT with Critical theory around the specific topic of recognition.
I'm wondering how central you see the theme of "desire
&recognition" as
being to our fundamental human nature that must be theorized within all
models of development. Your article points to the COSTS of schooling as
"students" acquire the dispositions to slice the world into parts as
"analysis" comes to colonize how modernity incorporates lived direct
experience into cognitive formations that are DERIVATIVE. You also
mention
that most of "us" on this listserve accept the costs as the price of
admission into our communities of practice. We have developed skill and
facility with dicing and slicing and living within derivative cognitive
spaces as "students", "professors", "therapists", and other successful
members of educationally oriented institutions.
I also wonder how Luria and Vygotsky viewed "desire & recognition"
as Luria
was interested in psychoanalysis.
Martin, you mentioned six key themes grounding sociocultural models and
this
framework seems to hold promise for teasing out the dialectic between
the
first 3 themes [widely shared within sociocultural oriented communities]
and
the last 3 themes [recognition, being fundamentally split, &
resulting
search for identity]
Going back to my fist paragraph, how is "desire & recognition"
conceptualized as emerging and developing within biocultural niches
within
Vygotsky, Luria, and others?? With Andy, I sense this is a central
topic
for helping us understand how we OUGHT to proceed.
Larry
PS Mike, I believe Merleau-Ponty may have something to add on "desire
&
recognition" when we discuss his ideas on phenomenology as a form of
reflection that does not slice and dice in analysis. [analysis as one
powerful and legitimate FORM of consciousness BUT with costs]
Can authors such as Merleau-Ponty help pay more attention to the
inevitable cost to become members of our communities of participation
and
to
the cost of our institutional formations. The Felder article in the
latest
issue of "Theory & Psychology" was well written as Felder attempts
to
ground
the practice of psychotherapy in Merleau-Ponty's theoretical
perspective.
__________________________________________
_____
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
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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
MIA: http://www.marxists.org
|