Re: [xmca] The family tree of CHAT

[Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>]

Hi Mike,
The title of your posting reminded me of this interesting genealogical
chart that Andy created in 2009.

http://ethicalpolitics.org/chat/Genealogy-CHAT.htm

Robert Lake

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:28 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andy's response to Nektarios's characterization of CHAT set off a
> discussion that seems too
> important to passover. So I am seeking to rename it in the spirit that I
> think underlies David Ki's approach inquiring about the intellectual goal
> of the sociocultural enterprise.
>
> The extra context for the way David formed his questions socio-cultural
> theory helped a lot
> as did the additional questions & comments from interlocuters. I started
> another thread with the
> intent in giving a name to the topic under discussion that others may wish
> to change. I'll put David's
> text into this message and seek to answer briefly in-situ. I hope it is
> helpful. If so, we can go into
> more detail, if not, someone can put us on the right path.
> ------------
>  David:
>
> Furthermore, Vygotsky and his contemporaries offered their theories as
> scientific explanations of learning and development.
> So, somewhere in the intervening decades the scientific aspirations that
> cultural-historical theorists held for their theories seems to have eroded.
> My question asks after this change:
>
> *I believe we should be cautious in our interpretations of what it meant
> for Vygotsky and his contemporaries (I assume you include luria, leontiev
> assuming we are talking about the specifically*
> *Vygotskian thread), to "offer their theories as scientific explanations."*
> *
> *
> *Its not that I do not believe that there was a time in his career when he
> had visions of solving the crisis in psychology theoretically. In the
> context of his time he HAD to claim it as a scientific theory of he was an
> even deader man walking even sooner. Jim Wertsch argues was an ambivalent
> figure in this regard.*
> *
> *
> *In any event, SO MUCH has happened in this regard, between the 1920's and
> now that there are likely to be a lot of competing stories out there. And
> Anton is busy unraveling further uncertainties about who wrote what when
> and why for an entire history. *
> *
> *--Have cultural-historical psychologists, overall, abandoned scientific
> aspirations for their theories?
> I have sometimes argued, never in print up to now, that if there were such
> a thing as an integrative theory that combined phylogenetic, cultural
> historical, ontogenetic, and microgenetic scales of time/process would be
> the metapsychology. But I also thought that any attempt to formulate such a
> meta-theory the ring bearer would end up in a lot of turf squabbling in bad
> will. Better to spend one's time with a discipline which might seriously
> tackle the problem, Communication for example. :-)
> --Have some abandoned those aspirations, but other maintain them?
> Not sure who maintained them in the first place, in practice so cannot
> judge. It there have been changed views over generations, as there have, do
> they involve such aspirations? Hard to say.
> --Are cultural-historical psychologists ambivalent about this issue, unsure
> of how to frame their aspirations?
> I have not been able to make much progress since the mid 1990's when I
> adopted my own, odd, version of my interpretation of "romantic science."
> Its the last chapter of Cultural Psychology, so people who
> want to see text can read on Amazon unless someone has circulated a pdf I
> do not know about.
> There I argue for a theory/practice methodological "solution" the crisis in
> psychology.
> --In a poststructural frame, are the aspirations of cultural-historical
> theory indexed to particular discourses, in some of which theories are
> clearly scientific, in others, clearly not?
> I have to confess that I am too uncertain about what you mean by a
> post-structural change to be of help here. I woke up this morning worrying
> that I was caught between the two David's arguing Polanyi and modern
> philosophy of
> science.
>
> My own thinking in this regard leads along the lines of engagement in
> valued social issues/goods, including moral goods. I think that in somewhat
> different languages this this is what you and Andy are both gesturing
> toward.
> The fact that Andy got me going back again and more deeply to the
> wellsprings of this mode of thought to Goethe
> has been essential in this regard.
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> If any of the above is helpful, we could pick up from there. But if I have
> misinterpreted, back us up to what you think that the germ cell of this
> mode of understanding and inquiry are. I am not sure what we can resolve,
> but we might learn a lot and perhaps even resolve some issues of current
> uncertainty.
>
> mike
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>



-- 
*Robert Lake  Ed.D.
*Associate Professor
Social Foundations of Education
Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
Georgia Southern University
P. O. Box 8144
Phone: (912) 478-0355
Fax: (912) 478-5382
Statesboro, GA  30460

 *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
midwife.*
*-*John Dewey.
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca