Charles, Andy, Mike, and others reflecting on concepts.
I am finding this line of conversation generative and so I want to continue
a little further down this path. I want to pull out a fragment from 5 days
ago when Charles watched Andy's video on vimeo and then answered with
further reflections on the concept of *ideal paths of development of
concepts". I will add a few comments or reflections of my own interspersed
with Charles' fragment . Charles wrote wrote:
"However, to understand the social circulation and historical development
of conceptual terms we need to understand a different (though intersecting)
set of processes of lines of social development of concepts. Although
Vygotsky opens the door to this world, he was not explicit in developing
the ways in which concepts emerge and gain currency in an evolving
socio-communicative world.
Some of those social historical mechanisms have to do with the loosely
structured semantic worlds of languages that provide orientations for our
experiences, but other parts have to do with more specific language
practices within specific social groupings, both in their core form and
their penumbra of cultural infusion into other domains. And other parts
have to do with the built environment or the intentional rearrangement of
the environment, which also organizes our experience and provide the
occasion for naming things. These different communicative and material
practices each have their own sets of expectations that make them more or
less "disciplined" in different ways.
[LP] This last sentence focuses on *each* and *different* ways of
idealizing paths of development. Each path has its own *sets* of
expectations, that makes them more or less *disciplined* in DIFFERENT
ways. Andy has articulated a position which suggests that as a person
becomes more *expert* and *skillful* at using tools and concepts the
boundaries actually become more *fuzzy*. In other words by becoming more
*disciplined* by entering a discipline the trajectory is toward developing
awareness of the *fuzzy* boundaries of ideal paths of development. For
example, as Charles categorized *socio-communicative action* [as an
abstract concept] into 3 distinct ways of understanding THIS concept, [EACH
as a different *type*] the boundaries of each type are moving towards
*closure*. The socio-communicative *world* is forming ideal paths of
development through disciplines which *constrain* with rules of
organization.
However, as Andy documents, this ideal path of theory construction [with
its tendency towards *closure*] is ideal and therefore while focusing on
SOME ideal aspects of the socio-communicative *world* other aspects which
INEVITABLY will contradict the move towards closure will create *fuzzy
boundaries* For example the boundaries between the ideal types [each with
its own *set* of characteristics] will come into *question*. It with
developing expertise and skill, as one navigates this terrain that the
boundaries become fuzzier and more ambiguous."
[CHARLES] (BTW, I agree that spectrum was the wrong term as the variation
is much greater than on a single dimension--rather each has its own set of
characteristics.)
[LP] See above comment
Further, the action and communicative worlds are not purely of either ideal
type and our lines of development are not either of those idealized typical
paths. For the purposes of my article, you could say that I worked from two
idealized typical paths of social development--first the open social
processes of language development and then the more restricted ones of
academic disciplinary discussion. But then I put the first idealized path
aside to focus on the other as the more easily analyzed, and then focused
in an even more idealized way on the emergence and circulation of highly
visible "concept terms." That was a heuristic move.
[LP] This reflective analysis of HOW to proceed comes with developing
expertise and aquiring a *dis-position* to proceed with THIS type of
practice. As CHARLES stated, the "action and communicative worlds are NOT
PURELY of either ideal type". The boundaries are more ambiguous and *fuzzy*
[CHARLES] In any event what I am attempting in this piece to do is to set
out some of the social, historical and communicative mechanisms for social
lines of conceptual development, and then locate the individual experience
within these social, historical, communicative trajectories.
[LP] In setting out the social, historical, and communicative *mechanisms*
is the term *mechanism* code for *causal*? I'm in over my head at this
point, but I want to explore further if *causal* or *mechanical* genres are
just that -- genres?? However, the term *mechanisms* does invite this
question. The other fascinating concept is *trajectories*. This implies
FROM a previous position towards an anticipated position in the future. Now
is this trajectory causal or is it an interpretive process?? What is moving
this trajectory into the future. Charles, my bias is to say the movement
develops within effective history as this INTER *play* of theory and
discourse we are discussing in this thread.
[CHARLES] Finally, before I go back to my paid work, the reason I did not
use the word projects for the work of academic disciplines is that
disciplines involve institutional histories and structures that may at any
time include people with a variety of objects and projects, though the
disciplinary field does align them to some degree.
[LP] The word *some* degree once again circles back to *fuzzy* boundaries
within socio-communicative *worlds* implicated within effective history.
In summary, the question of how central to "ideal" lines of development*
within PARTICULAR SITUATIONS is the concept of *genres* or *literacy* as
the process underlying concept formation? The relation BETWEEN *ideal
types* and *genres* may not be a *strict* dialectcal process and may
actually be an *interpretive* dialectic with *fuzzy boundaries* that
involve *fictional" AS IF structures.
Charles, thank you once again for allowing me listen in to your
conversation with Andy and then think out loud as I try to interweave the
dialogue between you and Andy within my ZPD on this fascinating theme. My
inquiry is circling around the notion of *romantic science* as impicating
*fuzzy* boundaries which become MORE ambiguous as we become more *expert*
in our uses of concepts. EACH particular ideal type moving towards
*closure* and the contradictions embedded in the *nature* of this movement
which are then *openned* for further dialogue.
Andy uses the term *overflowing* to capture this dance of conceptual
development. OVERFLOWING as the NATURE of concepts [and theories and
methods] when they are used in the wild.
Larry