Hi everybody--
Sorry, Diane, for a confusing message and thanks, Judy, for your helpful
clarification. Organismic relations are NOT necessarily transactional,
according to Altman & Rogoff (A&R). My example of liver and kidney was an
example of objects related via an orgnismic ecological system. It was NOT a
transactional relation. A&R original discussion was about individual and
environment as an example of transactional relation -- individual and
environment mutually constitute and define each other and do not exist
without each other. I'd recommend to read interesting debate between Jan
Valsiner and Barbara Rogoff occurred on pages of Human Development a few
years ago about the notion of internalization where Jan was discussing "the
link" between individual and environment (i.e., interactional approach,
according to A&R, legacy of Vygotsky's problem of how "social" becomes
"psychological") and Barbara rejecting the notion of "the link" all together
based on A&R transactional approach (and thus rejecting Vygotsky's problem).
Valsiner, J. (1991). Building theoretical bridges over a lagoon of everyday
events: A review of Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in
social context by Barbara Rogoff. Human Development, 34, 307-315.
Rogoff, B. (1992). Three ways to relate person and culture: Thoughts
sparked by Valsiner's review of Apprenticeship in thinking. Human
Development, 35, 316-320.
Mike is right that Altman & Rogoff's article heavily relies on Dewey and
Bentley but also on Pepper (specifically Pepper, S. C. (1967). Concept and
quality: A world hypothesis. La Salle, IL: Open Court) as they ally
transactionalism and contextualism.
I agree with Paul that there is a strong connection (at least in my view)
between A&R's notion of transaction and Hegel's dialectics as they both use
wordings "mutually constitute each other). I also agree that mutuality in
transactionalism is much stronger than in interactionalism. As to Judy's
concern about one-way/one-time relation in the word "transaction," it may be
that A&R use the term in a non-conventional way so in their definition there
is no such connotation (but even the reverse one).
Alfred, I wonder how much A&R's notion of transaction similar/different form
Oerter's Transactionalism? What do you think?
In a few days, I'll scan A&R article and put it one the CH sig website.
Take care,
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judy Diamondstone [mailto:diamonju@rci.rutgers.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:51 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Re(2): transactions
>
>
> Randy, Paul, Alfred, Diane --
>
> Randy, I'll acknowledge a "larger frustration" with Rosenblatt, but I'm
> afraid I didn't "know all this" - or rather, I wasn't knowing
> what I know in
> other circumstances -- it wasn't in mind. I think I abducted the
> meaning of
> 'transmit' & transmogrified 'transact'
>
> So, Diane, I can certainly see how Eugene's example tripped you up.
>
> Paul, your message suggests that without self-interest, reciprocity would
> not be transaction -- did I understand you? I rather like the notion of:
>
> >An apparent
> >combination of one-way and two-way process.
>
> but not sure it fits or how it would fit with the 'going beyond' sort of
> process within an 'evolutive' system. I haven't read Alfred's
> paper yet, but
> I feel better about completely missing the ballpark on this one, since it
> brought Alfred back online.
>
> thanks,
> Judy
> Judy
>
>
> At 05:17 PM 8/3/00 -0600, you wrote:
> >judy notes:
> >>ooo, diane -- Eugene will speak for himself, but I think you misread his
> >>message. I don't think he's capable, poor thing, of simplistic
> analyses :)
> >>-Also, he was distinguishing (following Rogoff et al) oranismic from
> >>transactional....
> >
> >oops. ain't that just like me, to fly off in a rant without all the
> >information?
> >my apologies eugene. i'll try to catch up more with this idea of
> >"transaction"
> >and simply discard the analogy of "evil person," as i am reckoning that
> >isn't what you were on about.
> >diane
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> > :point where everything listens.
> >and i slow down, learning how to
> >enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.
> >
> >(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
> >***********************************************************************
> >
> >diane celia hodges
> >
> > university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
> >instruction
> >==================== ==================== =======================
> > university of colorado, denver, school of education
> >
> >Diane_Hodges@ceo.cudenver.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
> Graduate School of Education
> Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
> 10 Seminary Place
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:39 PDT