[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF
Many thanks for this article - it is wonderful. And I totally agree that
language-as-activity is the place to look for an interdisciplinary science
of human behavior (and I'd agree that Vygotsky doesn't quite give us enough
of a theory of language, but I might add Peirce to your additions of
Volosinov and Bakhtin).
When I started reading your article I thought for a minute, based on the
list of scholars, that you were describing the Macy conferences held
between 1948 and 1953, published under the name Group Processes. These were
an incredibly eclectic collection of scholars, including anthropologists,
psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, biologists, mathematicians,
engineers, and linguists.
I found these to be particularly fascinating b.c. there aren't many times
when you can actually read the words of advice that margaret Mead and
Gregory Bateson gave to Erving Goffman - it really puts things in
perspective to see how much criticism was heaped on these geniuses (perhaps
we should think of the criticism from others as a part of their genius?).
Here is a link to the google books ref for the second volume:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Group_processes.html?id=goMIAQAAIAAJ
and here is a review of the second volume (on the bottom of the page - not
the neuropharmacology one on LSD - although I think that was in the same
series!):
http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/19/2/173.2.full.pdf
Note that Volume 2 includes one of Bateson's earlier formulations of the
problem of the message "This is Play". Fascinating to watch ideas form...
And honestly I can't imagine a conference today approaching the
intellectual breadth of the Macy conferences. So maybe this isn't just a
pendulum swinging closer and then further from interdisciplinarity. Maybe
we are getting further and further away from the possibility of a true and
lasting interdisciplinarity?
-greg
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Charles Bazerman <
bazerman@education.ucsb.edu> wrote:
> You might look into the history of the journal Psychiatry, which was part
> of an attempt to reunify the social sciences around the problems of living.
> On the board were the founder of linguistic anthropology Edward Sapir and
> the founder of modern propaganda studies Harold Lasswell
> took major roles alongside the founding editor, psychiatrist Harry Stack
> Sullivan. Its lead article of the first volume was in particular Edward
> Sapir ‘Why cultural anthropology needs the psychiatrist,’ (Psychiatry,
> 1938, 1: 1, 7–12). This was republished as
> Edward Sapir (2001). Why Cultural Anthropology Needs the Psychiatrist.
> Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes: Vol. 64, No. 1, pp.
> 2-10.
>
> I have done an analysis of the early volumes Practically human: The
> pragmatist project of the interdisciplinary journal Psychiatry, which
> appeared in the initial issue of Linguistics and the Human
> Sciences. LHS vol 1.1 2005: 15–38.
> I am attaching it here as it raises the entire dilemma of the fragmenting
> of the social sciences and the attempts to reunify them.
>
> Chuck Bazerman
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 8:49 am
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF
> To: Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>, "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
> > Carol,
> > I like your suggestion that psych students should take anthropology
> > courses, and would add that anthro students should take psych courses
> > as
> > well so that they don't see psychological researchers as a kind of
> > bogeyman.
> > But maybe there needs to be something more since this can create a Necker
> > cube either/or effect - where the student feels that these are two
> > incommensurate fields and that they must choose one or the other.
> > Maybe everyone should take a course in Cultural Psychology? (okay, that's
> > not going to happen, but it would be a nice way to introduce the
> > concept of
> > "interdisciplinarity" in a more serious manner).
> > -greg
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:00 AM, <carolmacdon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Well I was thinking about that claim this morning and I think that our
> > > psychology dept within itself offers very different courses now but
> > all
> > > under the same department. In education we have very different courses
> > > under the rubric of psychology in education eg cultural psychology in
> > > education. Of course we think that activity theory is where it's all
> > at but
> > > we are minuscule proportion of the psychologists in the country. Of
> > course
> > > I would be happy to work in linguists and anthropologists but
> psychologists
> > > here are not able to make that leap. Perhaps if psych students were
> > advised
> > > to take anthroplolgy
> > > Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you!
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> > > Sender: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:36:56
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF
> > >
> > > I imagine Nicholas would find mikes suggestion of ethnographic
> psychology
> > > to be BORING. Why no call for the integration of philosophy or other
> > > humanities into the social sciences?
> > > This sounds to me like the very old argument that the social
> > sciences need
> > > to be more like the natural sciences.
> > > Old whine, new bottle...
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Jul 23, 2013, at 3:25 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The NY Times ran an op-ed on Sunday that might be of interest to
> people
> > > dissatisfied with the current state of academic disciplines:
> > > > Gray Matter
> > > >
> > > > Let's Shake Up the Social Sciences
> > > >
> > > > By NICHOLAS A. CHRISTAKIS
> > > >
> > > > Published: July 19, 2013
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TWENTY-FIVE years ago, when I was a graduate student, there were
> > > departments of natural science that no longer exist today.
> > Departments of
> > > anatomy, histology, biochemistry and physiology have disappeared,
> replaced
> > > by innovative departments of stem-cell biology, systems biology,
> > > neurobiology and molecular biophysics. Taking a page from Darwin, the
> > > natural sciences are evolving with the times. The perfection of cloning
> > > techniques gave rise to stem-cell biology; advances in computer science
> > > contributed to systems biology. Whole new fields of inquiry, as well
> > as
> > > university departments and majors, owe their existence to fresh
> discoveries
> > > and novel tools.
> > > >
> > > > In contrast, the social sciences have stagnated. They offer
> essentially
> > > the same set of academic departments and disciplines that they have
> > for
> > > nearly 100 years: sociology, economics, anthropology, psychology and
> > > political science. This is not only boring but also counterproductive,
> > > constraining engagement with the scientific cutting edge and
> > stifling the
> > > creation of new and useful knowledge. Such inertia reflects an
> unnecessary
> > > insecurity and conservatism, and helps explain why the social sciences
> > > don't enjoy the same prestige as the natural sciences.
> > > >
> > > > One reason citizens, politicians and university donors sometimes lack
> > > confidence in the social sciences is that social scientists too
> > often miss
> > > the chance to declare victory and move on to new frontiers. Like
> natural
> > > scientists, they should be able to say, "We have figured this topic
> > out to
> > > a reasonable degree of certainty, and we are now moving our
> > attention to
> > > more exciting areas." But they do not.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not suggesting that social scientists stop teaching and
> > > investigating classic topics like monopoly power, racial profiling and
> > > health inequality. But everyone knows that monopoly power is bad for
> > > markets, that people are racially biased and that illness is unequally
> > > distributed by social class. There are diminishing returns from the
> > > continuing study of many such topics. And repeatedly observing these
> > > phenomena does not help us fix them.
> > > >
> > > > So social scientists should devote a small palace guard to settled
> > > subjects and redeploy most of their forces to new fields like social
> > > neuroscience, behavioral economics, evolutionary psychology and social
> > > epigenetics, most of which, not coincidentally, lie at the
> > intersection of
> > > the natural and social sciences. Behavioral economics, for example,
> > has
> > > used psychology to radically reshape classical economics.
> > > >
> > > > Such interdisciplinary efforts are also generating practical insights
> > > about fundamental problems like chronic illness, energy conservation,
> > > pandemic disease, intergenerational poverty and market panics. For
> example,
> > > a better understanding of the structure and function of human social
> > > networks is helping us understand which individuals within social
> systems
> > > have an outsize impact when it comes to the spread of germs or the
> spread
> > > of ideas. As a result, we now have at our disposal new ways to
> accelerate
> > > the adoption of desirable practices as diverse as vaccination in rural
> > > villages and seat-belt use among urban schoolchildren.
> > > >
> > > > It is time to create new social science departments that reflect the
> > > breadth and complexity of the problems we face as well as the
> > novelty of
> > > 21st-century science. These would include departments of biosocial
> science,
> > > network science, neuroeconomics, behavioral genetics and computational
> > > social science. Eventually, these departments would themselves be
> > > dismantled or transmuted as science continues to advance.
> > > >
> > > > Some recent examples offer a glimpse of the potential. At Yale, the
> > > Jackson Institute for Global Affairs applies diverse social sciences
> > to the
> > > study of international issues and offers a new major. At Harvard, the
> > > sub-discipline of physical anthropology, which increasingly relies on
> > > modern genetics, was hived off the anthropology department to make the
> > > department of human evolutionary biology. Still, such efforts are
> generally
> > > more like herds splitting up than like new species emerging. We have
> > not
> > > yet changed the basic DNA of the social sciences. Failure to do so
> might
> > > even result in having the natural sciences co-opt topics rightly and
> > > beneficially in the purview of the social sciences.
> > > >
> > > > New social science departments could also help to better train
> students
> > > by engaging in new types of pedagogy. For example, in the natural
> sciences,
> > > even college freshmen do laboratory experiments. Why is this rare in
> > the
> > > social sciences? When students learn about social phenomena, why
> > don't they
> > > go to the lab to examine them - how markets reach equilibrium, how
> people
> > > cooperate, how social ties are formed? Newly invented tools make this
> > > feasible. It is now possible to use the Internet to enlist thousands
> > of
> > > people to participate in randomized experiments. This seems radical
> > only
> > > because our current social science departments weren't organized to
> > teach
> > > this way.
> > > >
> > > > For the past century, people have looked to the physical and
> biological
> > > sciences to solve important problems. The social sciences offer equal
> > > promise for improving human welfare; our lives can be greatly improved
> > > through a deeper understanding of individual and collective
> > behavior. But
> > > to realize this promise, the social sciences, like the natural
> sciences,
> > > need to match their institutional structures to today's intellectual
> > > challenges.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nicholas A. Christakis, a physician and sociologist at Yale
> University,
> > > is a co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > > On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:16 PM
> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF
> > > >
> > > > Greg, I think you are completely right with the way you describe the
> > > interdisciplinary blindness inquestion. Michael Hedelberger (for yet
> > > another example) referred to the "folk psychology" of natural
> scientists,
> > > neuroscientists in particular, when they unwittingly step outside their
> > > discipline and talk about psychology instead of brains.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I think you are completely right in disagreeing with
> suggestions
> > > to replace the relevant interdisciplinary gulf with a dichotomy beween
> > > thinking and speaking, and insisting that actions always include
> thinking
> > > and that speaking is an action. Otherwise, we are not talking about
> > > actions, but behaviour. Behaviour is the result of abstracting
> > actions away
> > > from consciousness. And thinking cannot be abstracted away from
> voluntary
> > > motor actions which was the topic of Luria's book, of course.
> > > >
> > > > And this is the point isn't it? Whether a sensible social science
> > can
> > > abstract from (individual) consciousness and rely only on
> > objectified forms
> > > of mind (such as the recorded word), and whether a sensible
> > psychology can
> > > absrtact away from the formative processes of the practical and
> material
> > > objectifications of thought inherited by every individual from their
> > > societal environment.
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > > Greg Thompson wrote:
> > > >> Michael,
> > > >> I'm still having a hard time figuring out how any instance of
> speaking
> > > or
> > > >> even thinking about speaking is not action.
> > > >>
> > > >> But Philip's post suggests a slightly different way of thinking
> about
> > > the
> > > >> discourse/action distinction.
> > > >>
> > > >> Perhaps the discourse/action distinction is better captured by
> > > individual
> > > >> vs. group than by ideal vs. material, with discourse being the group
> > > level
> > > >> phenomena that makes certain ways of thinking about things more
> > or less
> > > >> available, and action being the way that people use discourse in
> > actual
> > > >> practice (and which, in the collective, becomes discourse).
> > Discourse is
> > > >> the thing that circulates in society and is instantiatable in any
> > > >> individual instance of bringing discourse to life by action (whether
> > > >> speaking or doing).
> > > >>
> > > >> I'd be happy to talk Treyvon, but maybe better to stick to the
> question
> > > of
> > > >> why a google search of "ethnographic psychology" turns up only a
> > > handful of
> > > >> articles and no insitutional centers? This is a fantastic idea -
> > so why
> > > >> hasn't it caught hold?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thinking through discourse and action (which have to be two sides
> > of the
> > > >> same coin), "ethnographic psychology" doesn't take hold because it
> > > doesn't
> > > >> fit with discourse or with action (and I would still prefer to
> > put these
> > > >> together, b.c. in academia, let's face it, if discourse isn't
> action,
> > > then
> > > >> we are doing a whole lotta nothing! But I'll keep them separate in
> > > order to
> > > >> try them on). Where discourse includes the predominant ways of
> thinking
> > > >> about what psychology is and action involves things like
> > publishing in
> > > >> actual journals that will allow one to keep one's job. The
> configuration
> > > >> that rules out "ethnographic psychology" is thus very complex. I
> > don't
> > > know
> > > >> that changing discourse or actions is really going to change things
> > > unless
> > > >> the supports of discourse and action are altered in some way. And
> > I
> > > don't
> > > >> think it is just one single support that can be knocked out (e.g.
> > > >> capitalism). Rather, I think there are lot of interconnecting
> supports
> > > that
> > > >> make "the way things are (e.g., no "ethnographic psychology")"
> > appear to
> > > >> most to be right and good and true. These include such myriad
> > things as
> > > >> language (in the broadest sense of Western languages, but also in
> > the
> > > more
> > > >> specific sense of the arcane lingos of different disciplines),
> > > >> institutitutional structures ("joint" appointments remain the
> exception
> > > in
> > > >> most universities), sociopolitical arrangements, and, yes,
> capitalism.
> > > It
> > > >> isn't a perfect impenetrable Althusserian structure, some of the
> > > supports
> > > >> may contain contradictions that make them prone to collapse, and
> > others
> > > may
> > > >> be less well interconnected. This is all just to say that there
> > is hope,
> > > >> but the challenge is to identify where the shaky supports are and
> > to
> > > figure
> > > >> out how to encourage their collapse. And I'll do my part at pointing
> > > these
> > > >> out.
> > > >>
> > > >> So, yes, discourse and action are the place to start.
> > > >>
> > > >> -greg
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:52 PM, White, Phillip <
> > > Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu
> > > >>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Michael, in response to your multiple questions here, i'm going
> > to
> > > hazard
> > > >>> a guess based on my experiences teaching children who are
> > learning a
> > > second
> > > >>> language as well as teaching teachers how to teach second language
> > > learners.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> for me, the communicative discourse drives our actions.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> when working with second language learners, when the learners had
> > > language
> > > >>> supports, particularly visual and auditory, they were often
> > stronger in
> > > >>> mastering an activity. for example, in science when comparing two
> > > objects
> > > >>> and finding similarities and differences. if on the board that
> > > statement
> > > >>> was posted, "I noticed that _____________ was similar to
> > > ________________
> > > >>> because ___________________."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> in time, i noticed that when the teachers were learning teaching
> > > >>> strategies, and, say, i'd focus on utilizing open questions,
> > when i
> > > >>> provided them with a piece of paper with specific open question
> > > prompts,
> > > >>> they were more easily and more quickly able to change their
> questioning
> > > >>> behaviors.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> while the teachers knew the difference between a closed
> > question and
> > > an
> > > >>> open question, they didn't have the language structures, say, on
> > the
> > > tip of
> > > >>> their tongue. as time passed and they became more fluent with open
> > > >>> questions, then they were better able to control their questioning
> > > >>> strategies, which also demanded that the students then had to
> respond
> > > with
> > > >>> more than "yes", "no" or other monosyllabic discourses.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> my two bits.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> phillip
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Phillip White, PhD
> > > >>> Urban Community Teacher Education Program
> > > >>> Site Coordinator
> > > >>> Montview Elementary, Aurora, CO
> > > >>> phillip.white@ucdenver.edu
> > > >>> or
> > > >>> pawhite@aps.k12.co.us
> > > >>> ________________________________________
> > > >>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > On
> > > Behalf
> > > >>> Of Glassman, Michael [glassman.13@osu.edu]
> > > >>> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 12:16 PM
> > > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > >>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 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
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > > > Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> > > > 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