RE: [xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF

["Glassman, Michael" <glassman.13@osu.edu>]

There is, it seems to me, a really big problem, or divide, that has been haunting the issue of communicative discourse and action.

Which is primary?  And I don't think this is a frivolous question - and the idea that it is in a constant cycle has a difficult time working because the question always comes up where do we as researchers enter this cycle?

Does communicative discourse drive our actions?  And do we change our actions by changing communicative discourse?

Or does action drive our communicative discourse?  And we change our communicative discourse through changing our actions.

Do we change racism in America by getting people to change their communicative discourse about Treyvon Martin?

Or do we get people to engage in more just actions and allow this to lead to a change in communicative discourse.

One of the difficulties with Vygotsky, at least from my view, is that he can be interpreted both ways, depending of course on what you are reading and level of confirmation bias.

Michael
________________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Larry Purss [lpscholar2@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 2:02 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF

Greg,
Your inquiries into *communicative* discourse and action as a possible
framework seems to be one possible way we are moving through [and possibly
beyond] the psychological and social theory circles into novel formations.
Have you read Calvin Schrag's notion of *transversal* which cuts across the
vertical modernist ideal [universal truth] and the postmodernist ideal
[horizontal fragmented dispersed opinion].?

Larry





On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Greg Thompson
<greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>wrote:

> A description of the problem by S. Nadel:
> "*Psychologists will overstate their claims and pro-duce, by valid
> psychological methods, spurious sociological explanations, or the student
> of society, while officially disregarding psychology, will smuggle it in by
> the backdoor; or he may assign to psychology merely the residue of his
> enquiry-all the facts with which his own methods seem incapable of dealing.
> (1951, p. 289) *"
>
> That seems to ring true to my ears - much as it did to Mike's in 1974 and
> to Nadel's in 1951.
>
> Do others disagree?
>
> And maybe more importantly, is this just circling or is there some way in
> which we might instead be spiralling movement that might suggest that we
> are not back exactly where we were?
>
> -greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > I suspect your plaint is part of your answer -- the willingness to
> address
> > problems concomitant to the conceptual development of (variations of)
> > genesis & ecology.
> >
> > I've added a few thoughts, below.
> >
> > Best,
> > Huw
> >
> >
> > On 22 July 2013 07:10, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > To clarify my previous question, I was referring to the article that
> Mike
> > > sent around which mentioned that his post at Rockefeller University was
> > as
> > > a Professor of Experimental Anthropology and Ethnographic Psychology. I
> > > thought these both sounded like fascinating names for academic units
> and
> > > was wondering about what ever happened to them since I don't recall
> > having
> > > come across either of these juxtapositions of terms.
> > >
> > > I should clarify that I ask the question as someone trained in Cultural
> > > Psychology/Psychological Anthropology. And the word on the street is
> that
> > > the trend in Anthropology over the past 15 years or so seems to have
> been
> > > towards not re-hiring psych anthro people for positions in Anthro
> > > departments that have been held by psych anthro people. In other words,
> > > psych anthro seems to be losing momentum. (but perhaps this is more
> > > pendulum swinging than it is a slowing of forward motion?).
> > >
> > > Along these same lines, anthropologists seems to often have hostility
> > > toward psychologists. I have watched a number of attacks on psychology
> by
> > > anthropologists. A favorite was a rather eloquent talk given by an
> anthro
> > > grad student about how the field of psychology assumes an "hypostatized
> > > subject". I happen to agree with her argument, but don't agree with her
> > > takeaway - to banish psychology from the social sciences. I see this
> kind
> > > of critique as one side of a two-sided stupidity, where each side
> > > criticizes the other side without seeing that the other side has
> > something
> > > that their side lacks. (and American politics is dominated by the same
> > type
> > > of thinking).
> > >
> > > I'm a little less familiar with the other side - that of Psychology,
> but
> > > from what I've seen, the idea of an Ethnographic Psychology would
> really
> > be
> > > appreciated only by a small number of fringe Psychological researchers.
> > > Just thinking of it would make most psychological researchers run and
> > hide
> > > at the thought of poor internal validity and reliability.
> > >
> >
> > Psychology itself is multi-disciplinary.  Developmental psychologists
> are a
> > minority.   Many academics who work in psychology have not even heard of
> > Vygotsky.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It seems that these academic fields develop a center of gravity that
> > makes
> > > it very difficult for anything not in close orbit to be considered to
> be
> > > real and worthwhile. And so sure, disciplines have their value as a
> means
> > > of specialization of methods and such, but what I am objecting to is a
> > > different kind of discipline - the kind that excludes combinations that
> > > appear to core researchers in the field to be unrecognizable.
> > >
> >
> > Apropos to of the thesis of implicit mediation.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Mike has two early pieces that speak directly to this problem and,
> imho,
> > > make these points quite nicely (much better than above). The first is a
> > > chapter titled "Ethnographic Psychology of Cognition - So Far" in
> George
> > > Spindler's book The Making of Psychological Anthropology. Here is a
> long
> > > url to the google book (which is worth looking at solely for the
> picture
> > of
> > > Mike in it circa 1975!):
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://books.google.com/books?id=8NAh8MqAO_8C&pg=PA612&lpg=PA612&dq=rockefeller+university+ethnographic+psychology&source=bl&ots=IUbReJGeiL&sig=fEqik0Wptm0VMu9w0DR6UYm19NU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=R8PsUYm2C8mzyAHloIGgBQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rockefeller%20university%20ethnographic%20psychology&f=false
> > > And the second is titled "Toward an Experimental Anthropology of
> > > Education":
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3195588?uid=3739928&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102483831431
> > >
> > > Sorry for the long urls (haven't figured out tiny url yet). (and
> > > maybe someone else can make the pdf's available? I didn't want to
> > infringe
> > > on copyrights).
> > >
> > > So let me re-ask my question a bit more directly:
> > >
> > > Mike, what happened to the departments (committees? groups?) that were
> > > called Experimental Anthropology and Ethnographic Psychology?
> > > And maybe they had a less certain existence to begin with; so, in what
> > ways
> > > did they exist in the first place? Were these departments or
> > > sub-departments or committees or working groups? And were they funded?
> > >
> >
> > Apropos to a theme in Mike's 5D projects and elsewhere, i.e. the ecology
> of
> > these projects/activities.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And what followed from these two pieces you authored? Both pieces
> suggest
> > > that they are only preliminary, did either of these concepts/fields get
> > > picked up anywhere else? (I assume that they did in other guises, but I
> > > feel that, despite running in the circles where one would expect to
> find
> > > these combinations, I haven't seen/heard these terms used - but this
> may
> > be
> > > due to my ignorance...).
> > >
> > > Very curious.
> > > -greg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Greg, I think that the answer is that these disciplines exist, but
> > exist
> > > > alongside a myriad of other such specialised disciplines,
> contributing
> > to
> > > > the fragmented image of the fragmented world we live in, which is
> > > presented
> > > > by academia. What Vygotsky and Luria and Leontyev were offering was a
> > > > General Psychology, as a foundation for a general,
> *interdisciplinary*
> > > > science of human life. Nothing wrong with specialisation of course.
> > > Science
> > > > is impossible without it. But Psychology, as the founders of CHAT
> > > imagined
> > > > it, was interdisciplinary, I believe, rather than a discipline which
> > > > defended its boundaries against encroachment, and carved out a niche
> > for
> > > > itself.
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Greg Thompson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> What ever happened to Ethnographic Psychology or Experimental
> > > >> Anthropology?
> > > >> In today's intellectual climate in Psychology and Anthropology, they
> > > feel
> > > >> like oxymorons, or even impossibilities (and perhaps to some very
> > > >> few, "cutting edge").
> > > >> Seems like we're just going around in circles...
> > > >> -greg
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 4:34 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Here is a review I wrote some years ago about Luria's Nature of
> Human
> > > >>> Conflicts. It summarizes and provides illustrations of some of the
> > > issues
> > > >>> we have been discussing while introducing others.
> > > >>> Note that a few years ago, the book did appear in Russian based on
> > > >>> reconstruction of the original
> > > >>> manuscript by Victor Belopolsky. It is my impression that the book
> is
> > > >>> little known or appreciated in Russia but I might be mistaken.
> > > >>> For what its worth
> > > >>> mike
> > > >>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 3:28 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Hi BJ-- I will get the article reviewing luria referred to in
> > earlier
> > > >>>> message next.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> There is an attachment here.  Call it, Cole Review of Nature of
> > Human
> > > >>>> Conflicts and put it under the Nature of Human Conflicts on the
> > Luria
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Pubs
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> page and on the page "about" luria.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > >>>> From: Brittany Loy <brittanyloy0217@pointloma.edu**>
> > > >>>> Date: Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:02 AM
> > > >>>> Subject: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF
> > > >>>> To: Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> attached
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> > > > ------------
> > > >
> > > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > > > Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> > > > http://marxists.academia.edu/**AndyBlunden<
> > > http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > > Visiting Assistant Professor
> > > Department of Anthropology
> > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > > Brigham Young University
> > > Provo, UT 84602
> > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Visiting Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>