Re: [xmca] Emotion at Work ("seichas" as "bukra")

Mike,

I guess, this Russian "seichas", or even "shchass" (lit. 'now') translated
into Arabic is "bukra" (lit. "tomorrow"). Both, however, are most likely
to mean 'never' ;)... Here it is - cross-cultural temporality :)....

--- Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> Work has grabbed me by the neck and is squeezing hard. I need time to
> read
> and think
> about these thoughtful messages and to be able to print them out and at
> present I have no
> printer. I will respond "seichas" as the Russians say, which
> means,.......... asap which means.....
> mike
>
>
> On 7/31/07, Steve Gabosch <sgabosch@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > Are~'t you describing a kind of perspectivalism around a single unit
> of
> > analysis? Is this what you (and you,michael) are gesturing toward, or
> am I
> > misunderstanding?
> > mike
> >
> >
> >
> > This is an interesting question, Mike. If I am grasping what you mean
> by
> > perspectivalism, a term associated with Nietsche, and some pragmatist
> > currents, I am probably not leaning in that particular direction too
> much,
> > at least not on purpose. If I have the term's basic meaning right,
> > perspectivalism or perspectivism is a type of relativist approach to
> seeking
> > truth that emphasizes that we are always constrained by our
> perspectives. I
> > agree that we are, but only up to a point. In contrast to the
> somewhat
> > pessimistic stance of perspectivism, I am attracted to the more
> optimistic,
> > objectivist stance of classical Marxism, which advocates overcoming
> the
> > limitations of individual perspective and, as part of an ongoing
> historic
> > motion toward human progress, points toward discovering the
> "objective"
> > truth, an always expanding and never fully attainable goal. One could
> argue
> > that there is a definite perspectivism in that outlook, in that our
> > perspectives are always necessarily limited by existing conditions,
> but this
> > is a highly qualified perspectivism. I am less inclined to begrudge
> and
> > lament the limitations of our perspectives than I am to have a
> positive
> > perspective on overcoming our limitations.
> >
> > My sketchy outline of a quest for a "unit of analysis" and "model" of
> the
> > **individual** psychological process - a special study within activity
> > theory, and certainly not its only "perspective" - aims at finding the
> > mechanisms and emergent processes within and individual by which
> social
> > conditions create subjective conditions, which in turn develop, behave
> and
> > act on those social conditions and subjective conditions. Boiling the
> > process down to a sequence defined in simple activity theory
> categories - a)
> > needs/motives, b) emotions/thoughts, c) actions/operations - has its
> risks
> > and limitations, but I think it is necessary to add this kind of
> abstract
> > analysis to our inquiry so we can identify and correct two kinds of
> common
> > errors we encounter in modern social theory.
> >
> > The first kind of error, typically made by the objectivists, is to
> offer
> > explanations that skip over the subjective conditions and processes,
> over
> > the middle stage "b" in my three step sequence schema. The
> behaviorists do
> > this as a matter of principle, and various forms of "skipping over"
> and
> > "reductionism" are introduced again and again from many perspectives.
> > Reductionism runs rampant in social science. Social Darwinism,
> > sociobiology, evolutionary psychology are various examples of popular
> > reductionist outlooks over the decades. Marxists can also be stalwart
> > objectivists and reductionists. They will often speak of class
> interests
> > and objective conditions, and then skip right over the middle area and
> begin
> > speaking on how people behave and act accordingly - "as a result".
> This
> > objectivist limitation of the Marxist movement has been one of its
> downsides
> > for many decades, and has left it open to many criticisms. There has
> been
> > a largescale rebellion against objectivism and reductionism in all its
> forms
> > throughout the social sciences and humanities since the 1960's. The
> > "postmodern" tradition has been a leading form this rebellion against
> > objectivism and reductionism has taken.
> >
> > The second error is made by subjectivists, who often offer
> explanations
> > that confuse the cause and effect relationships between the objective
> and
> > subjective, between "being" and "consciousness." In terms of the
> little
> > schema I have introduced, this means confusing the sequence and
> relationship
> > of processes in the first and second "stages," finding ways to use
> > observations about the subjective conditions and processes of an
> individual,
> > stage "b" in my schema, to explain the original social conditions in
> "a".
> > This approach is pervasive in modern social theory. Social processes
> and
> > conditions are frequently explained through individual behavior and
> > subjective experiences. The social is explained through the
> individual
> > rather than the cultural and historical. Although it is done in a
> > sophisticated way, this is essentially what I see happening on the
> > theoretical plane, to the extent it is argued that emotional payoffs
> drive
> > motives. Instead of looking to the objective **social** conditions
> for the
> > origin and development of motives, this perspective looks instead to
> the
> > internal **subjective** conditions of an individual to explain their
> > motives. The objective cause and effect sequence, the real direction
> of the
> > emergent processes and dialectical dynamics, gets reversed, and
> subjectivist
> > errors pop up left and right.
> >
> > The objectivists, in skipping over and downplaying the subjective
> stage,
> > tend toward reductionist errors. The subjectivists seek to correct
> these
> > errors by emphasizing the crucial role of the middle stage, the
> subjective
> > processes, in human behavior and activity. But they have problems
> solving
> > the problem of how objective conditions create subjective processes,
> and the
> > objectivists attack them for that - but in doing so, often offer no
> clear
> > solution of their own to how the subjective processes develop. The
> > subjectivists then point these severe weaknesses out in their
> counterattacks
> > and defenses. And so the debate has been raging in nearly every area
> of
> > human science and art for a long time.
> >
> > In part, I think the challenge before CHAT is to embrace the insights
> > offered by both objectivism and subjectivism, avoid the errors of
> both, and
> > over time, create a new, grand synthesis. In some ways, this is what
> > dialectical materialists like Vygotsky attempted to do, and what I
> think
> > many of the leading writers in CHAT today, including Wolff-Michael,
> each in
> > their own way, are trying very hard to do. Besides the influences of
> > dialectical materialism, we also have pragmatism, dialectical
> phenomenology,
> > and other serious trends in social science that are contributing to
> this
> > international dialogue and dialectic. All bring both successes and
> > limitations. I see CHAT as becoming a kind of collecting ground for
> these
> > cutting edge ideas to try to combine into something new.
> >
> > Anyway, back to your question, Mike. I may have gone off on a tangent
> > here, misunderstanding how you mean perspectivalism, a term I don't
> normally
> > use. Did I get close to what you meant, or am I missing something?
> >
> > - Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 10:03 PM 7/30/2007 -0300, you wrote:
> >
> > Steve, with respect to the following I have a question:
> > It must be able to a)
> > describe the relevant surrounding activity
> > systems, and the person's needs and motives
> > within those systems (note that these needs and
> > motives may be contradictory), b) describe that
> > person's internal physical, emotional and
> > cognitive processes (also potentially highly
> > contradictory), and c) describe the external
> > operations, actions and behaviors they carry out
> > (which we know by observing ourselves and others
> > can also be highly contradictory and not necessarily "on purpose").
> > Are~'t you describing a kind of perspectivalism around a single unit
> of
> > analysis? Is this what you (and you,michael) are gesturing toward, or
> am I
> > misunderstanding?
> > mike
> >
>
=== message truncated ===

      Get news delivered with the All new Yahoo! Mail. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. Start today at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Tue Jul 31 16:33 PDT 2007