[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CHAT and the 'macro-social' Was Re: [xmca] adverbial qualified movement, action, being

Thanks Bruce.
It is perhaps a declaration of faith but not only that because it is also my work. My motivation as been for many many years social change and fighting capitalism and it was that which brought me to CHAT. It is true that in order to discuss prospect for popular struggle in Iran one must know about the nature of the state in Iran, its history and so on, but it is equally true that in order to talk about schooling one must know about education systems and learning theory. I take CHAT as a theory which underlies these phenomena.
The exchange with Haydi reminds me that one reason for CHAT not talking about such things as much as it might is that to talk about politics and revolution presupposes a degree of political agreement and this we don't have on xmca. Some correspondents may be pro-Israel, others are Marxists, others middle-of-the-road progressives, and yet we can civil conversations so long as we stay off politics. I don't know the solution for that. The unique qualifications for CHAT to understand political and social movements is a personal opinion. I take CHAT as continuous with Marxism, though I accept that it is not so for others. 

Andy

Bruce Robinson wrote:

Andy,
I obviously can't answer for Haydi but I have also recently been feeling that some of the major issues facing CHAT don't really get discussed on this list, perhaps because of the disciplinary concerns of the majority of participants or perhaps because the conceptual apparatus of CHAT doesn't readily lend itself to such discussion. I'm talking about something that relates to the issue Haydi raised, which has been raised at odd times before and has long been a question in my mind: how or whether CHAT can be used to understand the global (in two senses) social structures, institutions, groupings such as classes, forms of power and other paraphenalia which I'll call in shorthand the 'macro-social'.
It seems to me to be perfectly respectable and defensible to say that those things fall outside the scope of CHAT, which therefore has to be - an important and complementary - part of a broader social theory. I suppose this has more or less been my position though I'm open to being convinced otherwise. But in your response, you state "What are the factors which were missing which allowed all the sacrifice by young people a year (or so) [in Iran] ago to fail to lead to the downfall of the regime? I don't know. But these questions can only be solved by CHAT or something like CHAT. Because it is about people's feelings and thoughts as well as about cultural and historical changes affected masses of people."
That sounds to me like a declaration of faith rather than an explanation of why CHAT is *uniquely* able to explain these things. The fate of the movement in Iran is not just a matter of 'feelings and thoughts' or of consciousness more generally as I'm sure you'd agree. I don't see the problem as solely one of the psychology of mass movements, for which CHAT does provide tools. Rather there are issues such as the nature of the state, which, in a particularly clear form in Iran but also more generally, involves institutions with a formal existence, material grounding and 'a life of their own'. Obviously, to anticipate being accused of reification, they are ultimately dependent on human activity but, I would argue, cannot be adequately understood purely in those terms.
Oh dear, I have rather trailed my coat but some long-felt issues have tumbled out on a Friday afternoon perhaps because I do also sometimes feel frustrated at the questions that do seem to get asked on XMCA and those that don't. 

Bruce R




----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: [xmca] adverbial qualified movement, action, being


Haydi, I'm not sure if I quite understand you, so forgive me please if
my response misses the point. I think maybe you are frustrated at the
emphasis on personal deevelopment in a time when mass action and
transformation is urgently required for the survival of the world. Let
me pose the question I was asking about (though really I was just
seeking to better understand vivencia and perezhivanie) in terms of
problems in Iran. About one year ago there were huge demonstrations in
Iran and many young people were killed or bashed by thugs supporting the
regime. Sometimes experiences like this harden people's resolve and the
resistance gets bigger, further repression only increases the people's
anger. The 1979 Revolution was like that, until the air force refused to
fire on the people any more. We are hoping that this will happen in
Syria, and the Arab Spring will blossom there too. But sometimes it
doesn't. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Sometimes it does
kill you. What are the factors which were missing which allowed all the
sacrifice by young people a year (or so) ago to fail to lead to the
downfall of the regime? I don't know. But these questions can only be
solved by CHAT or something like CHAT. Because it is about people's
feelings and thoughts as well as about cultural and historical changes
affected masses of people.

Marx said: "Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist
consciousness, and ... the alteration of men on a mass scale is,
necessary, ... a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore,
not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way,
but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution
succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to
found society anew."

What do you think, Haydi?
Andy

Haydi Zulfei wrote:

Andy,
[[you ask if it is what we "make" of an experience that is determinative if it
is "vital". I would suggest that the term how we "participate" rather than
"make" is central to exploring "vital experience". Making is one particular 

approach to engaging vital experience.  This is a vital experience that
transforms the individual person's orientation within the world. This is an
agentive response that has the quality of being a "personal" decision. I 

would like to suggest this is one particular way to intergrate "vital
experience in our proceeding along pathways. I would even suggest this may
be the particular way forward that is biased as an approach within modernity 

as an ethical way of life.
>From this perspective "vital experience" can be personally "undergone" >and
through struggle and courageously exploring of personal inscapes the person 

can change direction and "make" something different of their lives

[develop] ]]

Dear all
This is part of a message by dear Larry . I've been to this forum for long . i get confused reading the passage . i ask myself where the reason lies . one reason might be my ignorance . but that's not all to it . one thing i think about is we do not take into account the politics of the time . i don't say this should be a political forumn ; no , but if politics says who governs , who is governed by , then everything differs . On the whole , we reached a conclusion that Vygotsky has , at least , a half-glance at Marxism . The other seven of his disciples , too . Activity Theory has its roots in Marxism . My experience tells me when discussions approach a concrete stance , even our weaker ones could make a sense of the discussion . Four of our dears I can name as exemplars are : Mike , Andy , Martin , David . Let's follow their suit . I should be forgiven if I claim I curse this word "any" . In two articles , Andy Blunden and Peter Jones , long ago , discussed that by "work" , they didn't mean "any" "work" . They and Marx meant "valorization" Process ; the work which creates "value" . It's that "value" --surplus--which is appropriated by capitalists . Our friends say Freire talks about oppression in education but one cannot get the idea how this oppression could be eliminated . Within capitalism or outside of it ? and if outside of it , how and by what means ? Being at it , one good researcher Julian Williams , using the content of Lave and McDermott's article of 2002 , had her debate on comparing Labour alianation and educational education . This good Lady referred us to a response Peter Jones had had to her article . Everybody were silent about this important matter . 

[[I would suggest that the term how we "participate" rather than

"make" is central to exploring "vital experience".]]
If I claim that I want to go further than "individual" or "persoanl" , what could be my today's "vital experience" ? I'm wrong if I say ? : the recession in the capitalist world , the hasty William Hague who wants to put an end to every bitter taste in the impoverished , oppressed , backward Middle East so that His treasury might not get exausted sooner and earlier than predicted and to this end even people's lives are not important for Him , the Air Bombardments of the Evil Nato , the natural and social mishaps quite afresh to the mouths of our noble westerners ? Then where do you want to participate ? and in what ? did you join the demonstrations in the American streets for the quite genuine serious class differentiations / exploitation ? Here people are killed when they demonstrate but that's not for you there . 
[[This is a vital experience that

transforms the individual person's orientation within the world.]]
I think and you know for certain that this is not the "any" individual who is orientated within the world . It is , you say more emphatically than I do , the COLLECTIVIZED individual person , all along with His co-partners of the same rank and class , who are orientated and then are destined to enter battling with the not yet transformed ?? world of oppression , genocide , slaughter and cruelty . An individual does not sleep one especial night and does not awake the next day with social justice at her bosom . Transformations WITHIN requires a calling on the WITHOUT . How is it that a new-born needs socialization but adults could live on her own , agentively as you say or at most with the dead experiences internalized and , true , if vital , ones need be , where should we be orientated / stationed so that "vitality" could be secured and gauranteed ? 
 [[This is an

agentive response that has the quality of being a "personal" decision.]]
I seek your forgiveness if I say this yet smacks of a "gone with the wind only not to return" world of capitalistic struggle against feudalism , fraternity , equality and ... . This means "individual" decision not "personal" decision in the sense of Vygotsky and Leontyev's "SENSE" . I remember Leontyev somewhere saying : an instinct of hunger just raises the animal to its feet , the rest remains for her to orientate within the surrounding and environment . you need a decent life ; then in the social milieu , the environment , the objective field , the object world , many things are located and contiguous . You have to choose one / some to satisfy your need . That thing or things becomes/become the "motive" of the activity you're going to fulfill . You've , then , gone to a world of decision making , agency as you remind us of . An exploiter seeks an instrument of murder ; an exploited seeks a means of emancipation . For the explited , the general social meaning of "any" and "every" equality in the AIR has been vanished . 
might continue ...

All the best
Haydi

















































________________________________
From: Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, 6 October 2011, 16:25:49
Subject: [xmca] adverbial qualified movement, action, being


The discussion of vivencia has me pondering
The turn to discussing "vital experience" or being as qualified being [not 

qualia] seems to be an opening with potential and possibility.


Andy,
you ask if it is what we "make" of an experience that is determinative if it
is "vital". I would suggest that the term how we "participate" rather than
"make" is central to exploring "vital experience". Making is one particular 

approach to engaging vital experience.  This is a vital experience that
transforms the individual person's orientation within the world. This is an
agentive response that has the quality of being a "personal" decision. I 

would like to suggest this is one particular way to intergrate "vital
experience in our proceeding along pathways. I would even suggest this may
be the particular way forward that is biased as an approach within modernity 

as an ethical way of life.
>From this perspective "vital experience" can be personally "undergone" >and
through struggle and courageously exploring of personal inscapes the person 

can change direction and "make" something different of their lives

[develop]
However, alternatively, the person could possibly be "met" [alterity] and
in this "I-YOU" meeting "vital experience" is transformed and new pathways
open. I wonder if this alternative way of engaging "vital experience" is 

through "witnessing" [as I explored recently] This is another way of
engaging "vital experience" that does not emphasize the personal courageous
aspect of transformation [as making] but rather points to "being met" within 

the "vital experience".


I've contrasted and made distinct two possible openings of development
[transformation or in*formation] One emphasing a journey through inscapes,
the other through intersubjective "holding environments". In actuality there
may be multiple flow-forms and interweavings of these multiple strands of 

"vital experience"  What I'm pointing to is our socio-cultural biases in

modernity  to validate the "inscapes" as legitimate [good] pathways of
transformation while invalidating the inter-subjective witnessing pathways
to transformation. [as dependency and defended against] In other words we
don't really "trust" the other will actually respond to the calling of "vial 

experience".
Andy, I grant that after being "met" [which I believe may be developmental
in its own movement] there follow other phases or levels of transformation 

that bring us back to "spaces of reason" "propositional language games"

"agentive stances of *making* ones way in the world", etc.

This becomes a cultural-historical narrative of projects and objects and
activity. I also grant "meeting" as I'm discussing it is "normative" and an
ethical stance towards alterity [including one's own alterity]. However as 

a particular form of participation it may have as much validity and

legitimacy as the moe courageous form of turning towards inscapes for

transormation.


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







--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857

__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca