Vygotsky's example:
A (wo)man is sleeping in his room and suddenly wakes up and open her-his eyes. She-he takes her-his trench coat, laying over a coat stand, as an intruder in her-his room. She-he does feel afraid of the intruder-trench coat. The feelling she-he feels in that time is REAL although it had been genereated by a distorted perception (imagination) of "what was going on".
He claims that PERCEPTION, IMAGINATION and FEELING are indissociated related in human relations to [any - real or virtual worlds] "reality"; and the link between them (perception-imagination-feeling) would be the "tip" to investigate art psychology (psychology inbedded in any work of art reception act).
Virtual and "real" words are both mediated by culture. A one can interact presentially or not presentially both in virtual and in "real" worlds. These interaction can be synchronic or non-synchronic. Virtual and "real" worlds are-were both criated by (wo)men. What distinguish them? The kind of relation (wo)men have with them - according to Vygotsky's "law" of reality of feeling.
The "aesthetic reaction", the catarsis to him, would be a specific kind of "animic" feeling (intense and real but, at the same time, couscious of its conventionated or "superior" nature).
Maybe catarsis could be a usefull category to approach human criation - of course, beyond what is strictlly named "art". All human production have an artistic nature, that's what he says in Art and imagination in childhood. Human beeing has an artistic nature, and that very typical human "behaviour" - or better, activity - arises from the emergence of a "new" psychological cultural function: criative imagination.
Ricardo Ottoni Vaz Japiassu
Universidade do Estado da Bahia/Uneb
http://www.uneb.br
----- Original Message -----
From: Eugene Matusov
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:18 AM
Subject: RE: real and virtual worlds
Dear Ricardo-
Can you describe Vygotsky's example you are referring to below, please? Sounds very interesting but it does not ring a bell, so to speak.
Thanks,
Eugene
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ricardo Japiassu [mailto:rjapias@uol.com.br]
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 7:11 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: real and virtual worlds
On topic 1:
Maybe Vygotsky's "law" of reality of feeling (Psychology of Art and Art and Imagination in Childhood ) can drop more light on the issue - his classic example of real feeling started by distorted perception of a (wo)man that take, at night, her-his trench coat by a theaf inside the room.
Ricardo Ottoni Vaz Japiassu
Universidade do Estado da Bahia/Uneb
http://www.uneb.br
----- Original Message -----
From: Oudeyis
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: real and virtual worlds
Andy and Gene and Ricardo,
It appears to me that we are discussing two or three issues simultaneously:
1. The relationship between virtual reality and false consciousness
2. The emergence and non-emergence of class-consciousness among social classes
3. Class consciousness and false consciousness.
Concerning the first issue, I would just like to clarify one point:
Virtual reality, as the term is used today, is a constructed replication of objective conditions - a product designed through the model-building process of rational thinking to imitate objective conditions - and not to be confused with lkyenkov's ideational character of perception. Perception emerges out of a life-time of exposure to objective conditions, and while it is certainly the product of social relations, hence ideational, it is not designed nor is it -as perception - a model of anything but itself. As such, perception is neither virtual or false but simply situated; in space, in time, and most of all in historical-social conditions.
The second question is more ethnological and historical than theoretical. In Europe, and especially in Great Britain, class consciousness is much more widespread than it is, say, on the North American continent -save Mexico and Central America. In Great Britain, for example, the various classes have a degree of cultural and political self-consciousness that would be unthought of in the USof A . This class-consciousness can be accredited to a very strong awareness and even pride of most Europeans of their not so ancient Medieval past (remember our discussion on the English Flag?). In the US something like class-consciousness may be found in the traditional culture of the old Confederacy, though here as in much of S. America this class-consciousness is - or was- connected to race and is ultimately related to the history of conquest and slavery of the North American South and of Hispanic America. Gene is correct, the most class-conscious social class in Anglo-North America is that of the old rich. There are a number of theories concerning this phenomenon - none based on strictly economic issues. During the course of my college and University experience I've had an opportunity to mix with scions of old, wealthy families (a lot of them used to study Anthropology) and my general impression is that most of their class image is cultural - even aesthetic - rather than economic.
Andy's point that Class consciousness and solidarity are attitudes which have to be learnt through definite kinds of experience is well taken here - especially as regards Anglo-North Americans. The US and Canada have witnessed local and sometimes even Nationwide movements that have been self-consciously working class in goals and practices, but these have generally been sporadic and related to extended periods of economic crises such as the great depression and the midwestern farm crises of the 70's and 80's. Interestingly enough, these have never actually produced a permanent working-class consciousness, except among American Blacks where the economic issues were usually totally hidden by ideologies of race. Most of the other longish-lived working class movements - mostly expressed in energetic Trade Union organization - usually emerged from large working class groups sharing a recent past outside the US (immigrants). The Irish Unions of the mid to late 19th century and the Jewish and Italian Unions of the first half of the 20th century maintained their strength for a generation or two, but declined in size and vigour as the sons and grandsons of their founders "became real Americans." In fact, American society has at least till now been a very mobile one with enough people moving up and down the class ladder even in a single generation to compromise the development of strong class consciousness.
Class-consciousness and false consciousness is, as I've written earlier, a non-issue that sells Newspapers and makes spurious reputations for moral crusaders of both left and right.
Regards,
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Blunden
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 5:50 AM
Subject: RE: real and virtual worlds
Well, yet again I need to be more precise, don't I.
I suppose what I mean it that, on one end, no two people see the world just the same way, and at the other we all share the "illusion" that money has value. I suppose this means that we all start with a number things we pick up from living in the same capitalist world: the Zeitgeist, the world market, the dominant social forces and realities, which are the basis of "ideology". Although we all look at the world from different viewpoints, we all look at the same world, with its characteristic mirages and illusions. It could be said that someone looking at it from a "privileged" position is more able to free themselves from what is illusory, in a better position to be critical at least in thought if not in action.
Andy
At 08:26 PM 30/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Dear Andy
It will be interesting to check/test your (and Victors?) hypothesis about *all* member of bourgeois society& sharing& the same illusions. I personally doubt that members of upper class (old moneys) would agree with I believe if you put an effort into anything, you can get ahead&(Strauss, 1992, p. 202) But it will be nice to check that. I wish somebody made a study like Claudia Strauss did with members of working, middle, and upper class people.
What do you think?
Eugene
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:39 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: real and virtual worlds
Here we come back to what someone (Victor?) said about *all* members of bourgeois society, whatever class, sharing in the first place, the same illusions. Class consciousness and solidarity are attitudes I think which have to be learnt through definite kinds of experience; such experiences are not to be had in the home, generally are not conveyed in TV; perhaps the first experiences are in gang-like interactions at school?
Andy
At 07:23 PM 30/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Dear Andy, I think you are right on the target talking about, what Jim Gee calls, projective identity. The question that I have is how and why working class people participate in middle-class cultural model(or way of talking).
It is not the case that working class people accept any middle class cultural modelthat available via TV or other popular media. Although I do not have much data about that but I doubt that many working class people would buy middle class cultural model of child fostering based on constantly giving kids choices. So the question is why some working class people project themselves in self-actualizationmiddle-class cultural model but not in child-rearing through choice-makingmiddle-class cultural model. I do not think the preference of working class people in adapting middle-class models can be explained simply by watching TV. Any ideas?
What do you think?
Eugene
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 6:38 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: real and virtual worlds
We could put this together with Jim Gee's observations about play. People are growing up acting out characters that they see on TV. They believe that they can make their own character. But this turns out to be a frustrated experience; they only get to play Doug Heffernan. ... Andy
Claudias study shows that also working class men widely hold this self-actualizationcultural model they do and cannot enact it (but rather they act out of necessity-based being a breadwinnercultural model). Victor or anybody else, can you explain what makes proliferation of cultural modelsthat people deeply hold but cant enact, please?
Eugene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 01:00:09 PST