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

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

Well depending on how broadly you look to define action I suppose communicative discourse can be considered action.  Perhaps I should have said goal directed action, but I guess communicated discourse could be even that depending on how far you wanted to stretch the meaning of both.  But communicative discourse, at least the way I am thinking about it is more reflection than action.  Perhaps we see action as what we do.  Communicative discourse is a type of reflection  on what we are going to do and it is a reflection on that we have done.  But the actual action, the actual doing of something is the action.  So you are walking across the street.  You are engaging in an action.  I tell you that you should not cross the street in that spot, you ask why, I tell you it is against the rules, you agree or disagree with me, and then engage in action based on this discourse.  I might ask you why you didn't follow the rules.  You say because you don't have to.  We are engage in another communicative discourse that will lead to an action.

Now let's take Phillip's interesting example.  I am teaching in a classroom.  If I use an open question I am perhaps going to get a very different response than asking a closed question.  I think this is really true.  But my question is do we make the decision of what type of question we ask based on what we believe works or based on that actions that we are engaged in?  For instance does my communicative discourse come from my desire to get a certain type of response or from engaging in an action, teaching students who I don't believe can really understand an open ended question and choosing my discourse based on that.

Perhaps that is not so clear.  But that's the best I can do right now I think.

Michael
________________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Greg Thompson [greg.a.thompson@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 2:53 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF

Schrag sounds interesting, but I don't know if I can take on too many
transversals at the same time - although I'm guessing that I'd agree with
the project.

As for communicative discourse and action, I'm a little confused at the
split. Isn't communicative discourse action? Michael, maybe you can flesh
out the difference for me with an example? When we talk about the Treyvon
Martin case, isn't that an action? (a "speech act" as Austin calls it, or a
"social doing" as Goffman and other sociologists term it).

Introducing that kind of split seems to throw us full-on into the
ideal/material split (discourse is ideal and action is material).

Rather than "communicative discourse AND action," I'd much prefer
"communicative discourse AS action."

And I'm also looking forward to Mike's response.
-greg



On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>


--
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