[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[xmca] Lewin and Vygotsky
I don't think I ever actually suggested disestablishing MCA. For one thing, I'm not sure what that would mean. I know that Mike has sometimes expressed some nostalgia for the unreviewed days, and of course, as the proud recipient of six rejections and not a single "resubmit" from MCA reviewers, I can certainly see the advantages of open admissions.
Ironically, there's probably nobody else on this list as acutely aware, at this particular moment, of the advantages of a well established and respected journal as I am. Perhaps if I had been able to publish in MCA over the last decade I would be on holiday with the rest of you, instead of watching the monsoon rain bucket down here in Seoul because after ten years without a promotion I am at long last between jobs, and I am probably headed into a job that has nothing to do with Vygotsky and a lot to do with money.
As I see it, the problem with publishing in MCA (and also the problem with the voting) is really the same problem that poor Samuel Johnson had with the royal pension he received AFTER he published his best-selling dictionary (he complained it was like overturning in a small boat, swimming to shore in a tempest, crawling up the beach and getting hit in the head with a life jacket). It seems to benefit those who really don't need it very much, and it also seems to pass by people who are in need.
This isn't just bad for outsiders like me. I think it has a direct effect on what I would call the unpredictability factor of the journal. High impact factor journals tend to have predictable articles; you can pretty much reconstruct the whole article just by reading the abstract, looking at the refs, and maybe perusing the data in a minute. Unpredictable journals (and MCA in the early part of this century was definitely one) are the other way around; not only can you not predict the outcome of the article, you sometimes find that you can't predict the very next paragraph or sentence. Unpredictable journals demand that you read, and discuss, the article sentence by sentence.
That was why I got a little hot under the collar about the Poehner and Lantolf article we published and voted on and discussed. It was made of recycled data, it was written for a completely different audience, and it has very little to do with the discussion we were currently having. I think, though, people tend to vote for big names (and Lantolf is, rightly, a VERY big name), and I'm afraid our reviewers are not always as blind as they should be.
I would certainly not include Seth Chaiklin amongst those who do not write for this audience, and I wholeheartedly agree with Mike that the social engagement of CH/AT and action research is an important topic (and not, actually, irrelevant to the issue of how we help the outsiders in our circle, because a social movement which is not socially porous itself invariably transforms itself into an obstacle in development).
But I don't agree that xmca did not engage with Professor Chaiklin. Very early on in the discussion I raised what was (to me) a very troubling problem with the article. By positing a pre-existing category of socially-engaged research, Professor Chaiklin really robs the term of any radical content, and in fact when we see the various ways that Lewin really did socially engage, we notice that they were mostly about assisting the adventures of American imperialism in World War II.
By that standard, my father was involved in a much more ambitious and successful social intervention when he worked on nuclear weapons research during the war and immediately thereafter. To use a somewhat less personal example, Vygotsky's articles on fascism and psychoneurology become more important than his work on word meaning.
And I think it's Vygotsky's work on word meaning where we really see the difference between Lewin and Vygotsky. Zavershneva ("The Way to Freedom", JREEP 48 [1] p. 78) writes that Lewin was Vygotky's "most serious" opponent. "The debate with Lewin became one of the main engines of Vygotsky's thought in the final years of his life".
It's certainly true that "Tool and Symbol" is full of Lewinian terminology (e.g. "field", "vector", "action", etc.) while "Thinking and Speech" is almost devoid of it. But with other thinkers, Vygotsky was able to (mis)appropriate their terms and fill them with his own content, to exapt their terminology. Why didn't he do this with Lewin?
I think he tries to do this in "Tool and Symbol" and it just doesn't work. At the end of Chapter Three, Vygotsky and Luria give three "rules" for the construction of "neoformations" (by which they mean the higher psychological functions in general).
First, they say they are non-additive and non-evolutionary in their construction (the example they give is the "cross" of counters, which the child first perceives as a whole, and then learns to decompose into an upright and two arms, and then into individual counters). This is, of course, a classic, Gestaltist analysis, but it means the word meaning is only involved at the very last step.
Second, they say that they are not imposed as a 'second storey' over the elementary functions, but represent a "unity of a higher order", and that this is equally true of the lower higher functions and the higher higher ones: mechanical imitation (they refer to experiments by Bozhovich and Slavina) and concept formation (Sakharov, Kotelova, and Pashkovskaya here). Again, this looks Gestaltist--but it goes completely against what Vygotsky will later argue about concept formation in Thinking and Speech, where he explicitly argues that concept formation is unique process which cannot arise until adolescence.
Thridly, they say that in the case of the degradation of functions, we discover the elementary functions still intact underneath them (experiments with aphasics are cited here). This seems consistent with Gestaltist assumptions about part-whole relatoins,b ut it also seems to directly contradict the first two rules, both because it DOES seem to suggest that the elementary functions are not permanently transformed by being incorporated into higher structures and because it DOES seem to imply that the higher functions are simply an additional layer, which can be removed by pathology. It certainly contradicts what Vygotsky would later write about the independence verbal thinking, once developed, from words.
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education
--- On Mon, 7/11/11, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Mentoring
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Monday, July 11, 2011, 8:01 AM
How is your Thesis going, Patrick?
Andy
Patrick Jaki wrote:
> I hope together we can pull this off.
>
> On 10 July 2011 20:18, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Well, Andy, the catch to using xmca as a mentoring match up system is that
>> no matter who does the low tech version someONE has to do it (Tammy and I
>> spent a couple of sessions trying to figure out a rational way to do the
>> connecting up and it was quite difficult- we did not like the outcome) -- .
>> >From my experience trying, we really need a mini-market system that is
>> regulated in a very light handed way or we fail. Some open software social
>> networking app should do the job or be modifiable quickly to do the job.
>>
>> Tammy is not paid for the summer, and in general, looking to me to support
>> us going forward is prospect with diminishing returns. Over the coming
>> year,
>> we have to get leaner and smarter.
>>
>> So far, only David's suggestion of devolving MCA is on the table; otherwise
>> except for your suggestion that someone at LCHC do the work for connecting
>> writer-readers in a mentoring club, no one has responded to questions about
>> improving xmca. Perhaps after the weekend.
>>
>> I hope that Monday dawns beautifully over on your side of the world as
>> Sunday has here.
>>
>> mike
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> **
>>> Mike, I appreciate your efforts to mobilise clever people to get this
>>> system working on a proper basis. But everyone is always too busy. Would
>>>
>> it
>>
>>> be possible to ask Tammy to set up one of her Google/Excel shared
>>> spreadsheets with two lists: one of aspiring mentees and the other of
>>> volunteering mentors, with keywords, and a Google group listserv for
>>> messages between mentors, so that we can work together and allocate
>>>
>> people.
>>
>>> Very lo-tech, a little taxing, but I think it could be implemented by
>>>
>> Tammy
>>
>>> in 24 hours. It is just a matter of hooking up couples.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> mike cole wrote:
>>>
>>> With respect to dis-establishing MCA and going back to a newsletter:
>>>
>>> I did not want to start MCA in the first place. Yrjo urged its formation
>>>
>> as
>>
>>> a means to
>>> legitimate cultural-historical research, broadly conceived. To
>>> dis-establish it would
>>> mean that no longer could contributors use anything they published there
>>>
>> as
>>
>>> a warrant for getting promotions-- the situation in this regard has
>>>
>> become
>>
>>> markedly
>>> worse in the interim, but I would be perfectly contented to see such a
>>> devolution.
>>> And in the process, shift media and go purely electronic.
>>>
>>> That reverses the long push for respectibility, reached this year through
>>>
>> a
>>
>>> lot of Michael's effort focused primarily on getting materials in on time
>>> (!!). Now people
>>> can site all the ratings they need for their academic files and MCA is
>>>
>> just
>>
>>> fine. Part of the establishment.
>>>
>>> Is this situation peculiar in some way to MCA or is it a part of that
>>> increased acceptance and appropriation? Those who are present at ISCAR
>>>
>> might
>>
>>> convey
>>> the feel of that meeting. Maybe the entire push for cultural historical
>>> approaches
>>> that "take context seriously" by using the cultural-historical tradition
>>>
>> of
>>
>>> understanding "activity" is itself passe? (I personally do not think so,
>>> but, then, I would be the last to know!).
>>>
>>> Or maybe its brightest adherents have re-deployed into such ventures as
>>> "learning sciences" or "developmental science" (two movements I am
>>>
>> familiar
>>
>>> with)? Or maybe we miss opportunities for self-development when we see
>>>
>> them?
>>
>>> Personally, I was disappointed by the discussion of the special issue on
>>> Action Research and CHAT. What my colleagues at LCHC and I do as research
>>>
>> is
>>
>>> seen by some as action research, some as CHAT intervention research. To
>>>
>> us,
>>
>>> the issue of theory/practice relations is really important. Seth
>>>
>> Chaiklin's
>>
>>> article posed
>>> some issues in this regard that really never seemed to get discussed, let
>>> along answered. In this case the authors engaged, XMCA did not engage
>>>
>> back.
>>
>>> Perhaps we can return to it. Again, personally, there are articles in the
>>> current issue of MCA that seem worth discussing. Perhaps not. I have read
>>> none of them, and like you, have to depend upon the abstracts to make my
>>> bets.
>>>
>>> With respect to discussing articles of people from XMCA itself.
>>>
>>> This is really a matter that goes to the membership of XMCA. The webpage
>>> has not gone away
>>>
>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/index.html
>>>
>>> Use it or lose it. Or, help us develop a new practice that the group
>>>
>> finds
>>
>>> valuable.
>>>
>>> With respect to getting modern and more multi-modal digital to enrich the
>>> discourse
>>>
>>> I am all for it. With the resources at its disposal, LCHC is seeking to
>>> propose a kind
>>> of portal that would include a variety of modes of experssion. We thought
>>> we had
>>> this problem solved a year ago. We were wrong. Lets hope we have not been
>>> wrong again.
>>>
>>> I also always worry about the disenfranchised when those with lots of
>>>
>> bytes
>>
>>> at their disposal free start using higher end technologies that make
>>>
>> their
>>
>>> discourse richer. Who is being left out?
>>>
>>> Once open a time, it was a big deal to us that we could get a free,
>>> electronic, version of one article so that those far away who cannot
>>>
>> afford
>>
>>> MCA can participate in the discourse. Then it was free for a while. But
>>>
>> now,
>>
>>> guess what? Payment is back again and none the cheaper. Going electronic
>>> would solve that, but would it solve the ISI problems?
>>>
>>> As I see, the finances, the ideology, and the actual organization of the
>>> activities are all interconnected. Makes me very wishy washy.
>>>
>>> To end by repeating what I wrote in the note to Jaki: We are doing the
>>>
>> best
>>
>>> we can. If you can help, just up and offer. We all stand to learn from
>>>
>> such
>>
>>> collaboration.
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I can't say too much David, but I will just that it is only about now
>>>>
>> that
>>
>>>> we will begin to publish material in any way reflecting the new
>>>>
>> editorship
>>
>>>> as we inherited a couple of years of backlog. Secondly, our reviewers
>>>>
>> really
>>
>>>> are demanding a high standard from our authors. Since becoming an editor
>>>>
>> at
>>
>>>> the beginning of October I have overseen only one manuscript that made
>>>>
>> it
>>
>>>> through to acceptance, after revisions, though I think I am now close to
>>>>
>> my
>>
>>>> second. Aware of this, the editors are taking action to attract a good
>>>> quality of mss and we just have to see if our work is successful.
>>>>
>>>> Peer review is like democracy: it is a terrible system, but its the best
>>>> we've got.
>>>>
>>>> It may well be that if we want to do some genre bending then the lchc
>>>> website is the best way of doing it. Personally, I would like to see web
>>>> publication the norm and peer review used as a rating but not as a means
>>>>
>> of
>>
>>>> refusing publication. But it takes time. Many of our community rely on
>>>>
>> MCA
>>
>>>> publication for academic status and thus jobs and promotion, and this
>>>>
>> places
>>
>>>> an obligation on us work like any other academic journal.
>>>>
>>>> That is a personal view.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Kellogg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Your creaky memory serves you (and all the rest of us) excellently
>>>>>
>> well,
>>
>>>>> Bruce. Actually, we kept discussing papers on the LCHC site as recently
>>>>>
>> as
>>
>>>>> last year (I uploaded some stuff on the Psychology of Art, and there
>>>>>
>> have
>>
>>>>> been wonderful papers from Andy and many others).
>>>>> I recently downloaded the whole backlog of journals, and I am really
>>>>> distressed by how DULL and TEPID the writing has become. It's not
>>>>>
>> surprising
>>
>>>>> that the discussions we have often peter out after only a few
>>>>>
>> exchanges.
>>
>>>>> I'm not over-impressed by the abstracts on offer in this issue,
>>>>>
>> either.
>>
>>>>> Normally I would go ahead and vote for the article on second language
>>>>> teaching. But the abstract reads suspiciously like a washing-powder
>>>>>
>> style
>>
>>>>> methodological comparison, with "SCT-CHAT" on one side and a caricature
>>>>>
>> of
>>
>>>>> "SLA" on the other.
>>>>> Andy is right. Going outside the system of free articles for
>>>>>
>> discussion
>>
>>>>> is a good answer for the discussion list, but it does nothing to
>>>>>
>> address the
>>
>>>>> main problem, which is the quality of articles that appear in the
>>>>>
>> journal.
>>
>>>>> I guess I think that the editors need to be a little more interested
>>>>>
>> in
>>
>>>>> genre bending, the reviewers a little more open to "revise and
>>>>>
>> resubmit"
>>
>>>>> instead of outright rejection, and we writers need to be thick skinned
>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>>>> persistent. Contrary to what Andy says, rejections are not that bad. I
>>>>> think I'd much rather have a rejection than to have to put my name over
>>>>>
>> some
>>
>>>>> of the articles I've read lately. But then, that includes some of the
>>>>>
>> drafts
>>
>>>>> I submitted mysefl!
>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Fri, 7/8/11, Bruce Robinson <bruce@brucerob.eu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Bruce Robinson <bruce@brucerob.eu>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] The Polls are OPEN!!
>>>>> To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> Date: Friday, July 8, 2011, 2:14 AM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If my creaky memory serves, we did discuss non-MCA articles suggested
>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>>>> mainly written by list members for a long period in the late 90s /
>>>>>
>> early
>>
>>>>> 00s. There are or were indications of this somewhere on the MCA
>>>>>
>> website. Not
>>
>>>>> sure why or how it stopped.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce Robinson
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 2:28 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] The Polls are OPEN!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> David, I think there is a LOT of merit to taking articles posted on
>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>>> LCHC for discussion as the focus of XMCA discussion. We should not do
>>>>>>
>> that
>>
>>>>>> *instead* of the one MCA article per quarter though. There is plenty
>>>>>>
>> of time
>>
>>>>>> between the quarterly publication of MCA to discuss an article on the
>>>>>> website. We should do more of that, for the reasons you give.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Kellogg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike:
>>>>>>> I wonder if there is any way we could include "write-ins" on the
>>>>>>> ballot. People could upload manuscripts to the "Papers for
>>>>>>>
>> Discussion" at
>>
>>>>>>> LCHC and then these could be included in the vote.
>>>>>>> This might address several problems which seem to be dogging our
>>>>>>> quarterly discussions.
>>>>>>> a) It often happens that the articles on offer have almost nothing
>>>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>>>>> do with what people have on their minds and what is being discussed
>>>>>>>
>> on the
>>
>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>> b) It sometimes happens that the authors chosen for publication in
>>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>>>> journal turn out to be more interested in being published than in
>>>>>>>
>> being
>>
>>>>>>> discussed and do not take part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> c) It occasionally happens that people like myself clutter up the
>>>>>>>
>> list
>>
>>>>>>> with long posts which really ought to be articles but which have no
>>>>>>>
>> chance
>>
>>>>>>> of publication, at least not in their current form.
>>>>>>> It may also be a good way of getting the writing mentorship project
>>>>>>> off the ground, and it might even return us, one small but much
>>>>>>>
>> appreciated
>>
>>>>>>> step, towards that pre-MCA tradition of an unrefereed and unreviewed
>>>>>>> newsletter, with writing that is unafraid to walk on the wild side.
>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>>> --- On Wed, 7/6/11, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: [xmca] The Polls are OPEN!!
>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2011, 3:45 PM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A wide range of articles to choose from for XMCA discussion and
>>>>>>>
>> private
>>
>>>>>>> musings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Journal/poll.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>> __________________________________________
>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *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
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________
>>>> _____
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> 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
__________________________________________
_____
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