[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xmca] ISCAR Newsletter?
What an interesting genealogy!!
So the father of CHAT was Aristotle?:) Is ike the Abraham of Bible?:)
But i think in terms of dialectical materialism CHAT it is all them interrelating to each other,and one theorists complementing each other and very often the fruit of it is a qualitavely different theory than the other but neverthless the fruit of the previous theories.. So it means that CHAT it is not a close system, it is not an absolute theory, it is more like a method that because of its not teleological morphology it always create the appropriate space to integrate anything relevant that helps us to understand us (humans) in relation to society and culture and vice versa?
Nektarios
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
Sent: Thu 11/8/2012 12:36 AM
To: Nektarios Alexi
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] ISCAR Newsletter?
Others can probably enlighten us more than I can, Nektarios, but I think he was a very erudite person. Clearly from a young age he was hungry for knowledge and read widely in many languages. But specifically, he was coming of age in Russia right in the midst of the Russian Revolution. This revolution threw literally millions of people into all kinds of "social criticism" (Luria describes the tumultuous scene in his University at the time, in his Autobiography). New movements in Art, literature, Linguistics, natural science, social theory, philosophy, technology, social organisation,... sprung up spontaneously on all sides. Vygotsky was a part of that. That is the main thing. But for geopolitical reasons it was a short-lived "Spring."
In particular, I think, Vygotsky came from Art Criticism (in a milieu where drama theory, linguistics and aesthetic theory were making world historic advances in Vygotsky's immediate social circle. Then his intellectual disposition (as exhibited in his Psychology of Art) took him into education and scientific psychology. At that time, prior to and independently of the Revolution, Russia was already in the forefront of Behaviourist research in Psychology. Vygotsky was in an ideal position to bring the social criticism he learnt as a student into the scientific establishment around Pavlov, Bekhterev, etc. Add to that his close study of Marx's Capital, Lenin's philosophical works, and Engels' popularisation, is the broth which produced Vygotsky.
See http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/chat/Genealogy-CHAT.htm
Andy
Nektarios Alexi wrote:
Hi Andy,
My question is how Vygotsky could tackle such subtle problems in the theories of Piaget but also others in his book Thought and Language? What kind of intellectual or theoretical backgorund did Vygotsky had that allowed him to see the human nature in such a depth and not just that but also find the precise language to describe it, but not just describe it but describe it in scientific terms and also with evidence? Can we say that it was his comprehensive knowledge on arts and especially of classic literature that helped him to see that deep and notice such subtle details and errors in so many other important psychological theories of his time? Just saying..
Nektarios
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Larry Purss
Sent: Thu 11/8/2012 12:02 AM
To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] ISCAR Newsletter?
Andy
I just finished reading your article in the newsletter.
It is a clear statement of ways to expand the conversation.
I have recently re-read the 1st chapter of Raymond Williams book *Marxism
and Literature* on the concept of *culture*. It is a wonderful history on
the shifting flowing transforming meanings of various uses of the concept
*culture*
I noticed at the beginning of the article you are affiliated with a group
with the title *continental philosophy*
I often wonder if this umbrella term could be more explicitly brought into
the conversation to illuminate the multiple streams of sociocultural theory
and how CHAT is situated within this umbrella term.
It would possibly assist in engaging deeply with philosophy as you advocate.
I would like to bring in a distinction that Charles Taylor uses between
what he refers to as *strict* dialectics and *interpretive* dialectics.
Strict dialectics assumes each side of the dialectic [for example
individual and social] are interactive but the essence of the objects
interacting is determined. Interpretive dialectics in contrast puts in play
the interpretive nature of the objects which are then joined in interaction.
I am attaching the first two chapters of Raymond Williams book *Marxism and
Literature* which I believe is an example of *interpretive* dialectics as
described by Charles Taylor.
The contrast between the notions *strict* and *interpretive* may be helpful
in illuminating different notions of *interaction* and *activity* within
mediated worlds.
Andy, I hope others read the ISCAR newletter and join with us in a friendly
CHAT.
Larry
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> Strangely enough, Ron, my first contacts with Vygotskyan theory was with
> academic colleagues at the University of Melbourne, with whom I was
> interacting in the project of creating collaborative learning spaces. I
> knew about social constructionism, which I took to be Berger and
> post-modern critical theory (having only the vaguest knowledge of these
> things) but then from my colleagues, who were van der Veer and Valsiner
> types, I was surprised to find out that Vygotsky (whose name I knew from
> Ilyenkov) was also a constructivist (I have never properly separated the
> way those two words are used). So I then got a book out of the library on
> constructivist epistemology which said that there were dozens of varieties
> of constructivism, but that Vygotsky was a constructivist who took the
> collaboration of carer-child dyads as the basis for the social construction
> of knowledge, rather than the wider culture .... took me quite a while to
> find my bearings in all that mess.
>
> I just think that we always have to allow a lot of latitude in
> understanding what people actually mean when they use a word in a given
> context. A word meaning is not a concept.
>
> Andy
>
>
> Ron Lubensky wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> I too thought the ISCAR newsletter interview article was very good. I
>> especially liked your comparison of CHAT to interactionist approaches,
>> which you and I have discussed before. One area that continues to be messy,
>> as you suggest, is the relationship of CHAT to social constructIVism and
>> social constructIONism.
>>
>> Since CHAT's first home is developmental psychology, it is out of the
>> work of Piaget and Papert that these terms are usually defined, and so
>> closely that they are often conflated. While these theories acknowledge the
>> social and perhaps cultural influences on learning and interpretation, they
>> centre on a cognitivist, mental model view of knowledge. There is also the
>> normative aspect of giving control to the learner to construct his or her
>> individual world-view.
>>
>> The other social constructIONism comes out of communications and
>> sociology (e.g. Berger and Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality,
>> 1966), that challenges the inevitability of categorisations that are taken
>> for granted in common discourse, and which form the bases for many
>> institutions. This post-modern constructIONism generally places knowledge
>> in discourse and interaction, but in more recent scholarship focuses on the
>> cultural situation of the individual. This isn't a learning theory but
>> rather a critical, meta-theoretical stance. To complicate matters, there
>> are different strands with various accounts of what should be treated as
>> real, true, essential, scientific, etc. and how communication should relate
>> to action. It also challenges academic research standards with advocacy for
>> interventionist approaches to practice. For an interdisciplinary expansion
>> of CHAT, I think this constructIONism offers a rich field for comparison.
>>
>> --
>> Ron Lubensky
>> http://www.deliberations.com.**au/ <http://www.deliberations.com.au/>
>> 0411 412 626
>> Melbourne Australia
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> ------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> http://ucsd.academia.edu/**AndyBlunden<http://ucsd.academia.edu/AndyBlunden>
>
> ______________________________**____________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>
--
________________________________
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
http://ucsd.academia.edu/AndyBlunden
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca