[Xmca-l] From Cliff O'D

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Not sure what is getting through where, but pasting this message into the
email and ccing.
mike
------------

In response to Andy message:

*??’s fromAndy Blunden*

 <ablunden@mira.net>



* Do you take "activity setting" to be the optimal conception of "context"?



No. Activity settings are contextual, but not all contexts are activity
settings. See the 5th paragraph of our article for references to other uses
of context.



** What exactly do they understand by "activity setting"? You cite Vygotsky
in a book edited by Wertsch, but I do not have that book. I associate
"activity setting" with the current of CHAT around Mariane Hedegaard. It
seems to me to be similar in meaning to "institution". Thus I quetion the
efficacy of this concept for grasping social change, as opposed to just
child development.*



We mean by ‘activity setting’ the concept drawn from Vygotsky and activity
theorists, and most directly influenced by the writing and translations of
James Wertsch and his students, all working closely and derivatively with
the original translators of the Russian under the general aegis of the M.
Cole group.  Activity setting is the unified concept incorporating the *who*,
the *where*, the *when*, the *why*, and *what *specific activity is being
performed (see our references below).



As in Vygotsky, intersubjectivity flowing from shared activity depends on
accompanying semiotics (ordinarily but not necessarily verbal). Because of
the sharing of tasks and language, the activity setting is smaller rather
than larger, such as ‘institutions’. Institutions typically have many
activity settings.



** Is "mutual understanding" what you mean by "intersubjectivity"?*



Partly, certainly.  It is the condition of like-minded interpretation and
valuation of events.  Intersubjectivity is created through shared activity
with conversation, and intersubjectivity in turn fosters felt affinity.



** I agree that participation in shared activities is the necessary
condition for people to achieve mutual understanding. But this is not
necessarily the outcome, is it? It depends on the type of collaboration
within the activity. EG White slave-owners and black slaves collaborated in
the production of cotton in the Confederate States of America for many
years, but this did not result in mutual understanding. So it seems that
the notion of "shared activities" needs further specification. Yes?*

* *

          Yes, specific instances require close observation.  In your
example of slaves and owners, we would argue that such instances of shared
activity were extremely rare and considered inappropriate.  The giving and
receiving of orders, or providing demonstrations, does not constitute joint
activity.  This distinction is quite clear in the papers of Thomas
Jefferson, for example.  Jefferson, however, did apparently violate the
propriety with certain slaves, particularly some young females.  The
historical evidence seems to indicate some resultant intersubjectivity, but
severely restricted. Overall, the activity settings of slaves and
slave-owners were dramatically different. Thus we agree that the practical
design of activity settings (and their evaluations) require full
specification, as you suggest.





References:

Tharp, R. G.  (2012). *Delta Theory and Psychosocial Systems:*

*            The Practice of Influence and Change**.*  Cambridge University
Press.

Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L.A.  (2000). * Teaching
transformed:  Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion and harmony.  *Boulder,
CO:  Westview Press.

Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1989). *Rousing minds to life:  Teaching and
learning in social context.* New York:  Cambridge University Press.

Rivera, H. H., Tharp, R. G., Youpa, D., Dalton, S. S., Guardino, G. M.  &
Lasky, S. (1999). *ASOS:  Activity Setting Observation System Coding & Rule
Book.* 54 pp.  Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence,
University of California, Santa Cruz CA 95064.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/crede/rsrchrpts/ASOS

            http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5010t7g4

Rivera, H. & Tharp, R. G. (2004).  Socio-cultural Activity Settings in the
Classroom: A Study of a Classroom Observation System. In H. Waxman &
R.G.Tharp & R. S. Hilberg (Eds.), *Observational Research in U.S.
classrooms:  New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic
diversity.* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O'Donnell, C. R. & Tharp, R. G. (1990). Community intervention guided by
theoretical development.  In:  Bellack, A. S., Hersen, M., & Kazdin, A. E.
(Eds.),* International handbook of behavior modification and therapy, *2nd
Ed., (Pp. 251-266).   New York:  Plenum Press.

O'Donnell, C. R., Tharp, R. G., & Wilson, K. (1993). Activity settings as
the unit of analysis: A theoretical basis for community intervention and
development. *American Journal of Community Psychology, 21*, 501-520.

O'Donnell, C. R. (1995). The right to a family environment in Pacific
Island cultures. *The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 3*, 87-99.


O’Donnell, C. R. (Ed.) (2003). *Culture, peers, and delinquency*. New York:
Haworth Press.

O'Donnell. C. R. (2006). Beyond diversity: Toward a cultural community
psychology. *American Journal of Community Psychology*, *37*, 1-7. doi: *
10.1007/s10464-005-9010-7*<http://psycnet.apa.org.eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/doi/10.1007/s10464-005-9010-7>
.