RE: [xmca] The family tree of CHAT

["Nektarios Alexi" <NEKTARIOS.ALEXI@cdu.edu.au>]

Hi Robert,

Actually if you will go back to the discussion at the beginning, Andy, posted that chart already, and it is from there that this discussion have developed.

I have just stated after that genealogical chart, my personal impression on what CHAT  is, after reading the last couple of years some basic books and articles that they are considering to be the latest foundations of CHAT. The reason that CHAT seemed so appealing to me is because it resonates with the common sense, it is based on observation and it tries not to be dogmatic. Which i think it is something that Philosophy as a discipline and ''orthodox science'' havent really managed to do that yet.But however, the origins of scientific thought are much more CHAT than it is ''orthodox science'' today. Neverthless using CHAT as a conceptual paradigm to understand the dynamics of different disciplines and somehow to map the simultaneous microcultures that are arising each time that a concept becomes an idea (or when every concept sets up the basis for a new paradigm to arise)  or as Andy puts it ""Every problem, when captured in a concept, becomes the foundation of a new science and system of practice'' it is something that have happened for first time if i am not wrong in the History of the academic world.

I might be totally wrong on my understanding of CHAT, i am not claiming that i have understood the depth and the breadth of that theory, these are just personal impressions of someone who is just getting into it.

Nektarios


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Robert Lake
Sent: Fri 11/9/2012 11:09 AM
To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] The family tree of CHAT
 
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

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