Re: [xmca] Request for Panelist Names on CHAT History

Don't let the Dogma eat your Karma, Peter!!
Around here we spend a lot of time trying to figure out the difference
between genuine
disagreements and misunderstandings or differences arising from application
of common
ideas to different objects of analysis. Sort of like Don saying that
behaviorism helped out
with with an eneuresis problem, but not in other contexts. And, of course,
if one forgets
that Skinner was deeply immersed in Dewey's ideas, one could be led into all
sorts of
odd dogmas!!

No interest in master narratives from his quarter. But trying to understand
the variability
and its implications is an ongoing project.
mike

On 9/11/07, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:
>
> Another approach, perhaps alongside the historical narrative, might be a
> more dialectical analysis of differences among forms of "CHAT" and
> differences between CHAT and kindred developments such as Communities of
> Practice (Lave, Wenger). To what extent are there just differences in the
> extent to which different aspects of social phenomena have been theorized,
> and to what extent are there actually principled differences among these
> approaches? It seems to me there's something positivistic in
> characterizing what something is just on its own (i.e., positively)
> without consideration of how it differes from what it is not.
>
> Maybe this could be another panel. Or maybe this suggests consideration of
> "critical friends" from outside (whatever that means) CHAT as possible
> discussants.
>
> BTW, I used to think that "Cultural Historical Activity Theory" was highly
> redundant, since I thought Activity Theory per se was intrinsically
> cultural and historical. Then I heard a conference presentation using
> "Activity Theory" that was not cultural or historical in any way. It
> showed that the activity of interest could be diagrammed with triangles.
>
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
>
> > I have found some people claiming a CHAT perspective to be more dogmatic
> > than do others in this discussion. At times it's public and explicit,
> such
> > as the article that appeared in Educational Researcher a couple of years
> ago
> > (I forget the authors and title); I also think of the introduction to
> > Perspectives on Activity Theory, in which the editors claim that they
> are
> > true activity theorists, while people such as Jim Wertsch are not (they
> > say). I also find dogma in the reviews of my work from anonymous
> reviewers,
> > who lecture on this point or that as being rightfully faithful to true
> AT
> > tenets; and as a result I've stopped calling my work CHAT-oriented and
> more
> > Vygotsky-oriented so as not to obligate myself to fit into other
> people's
> > boxes. And so I'm less sanguine than some about the prospects for
> producing
> > any kind of definitive history of the discipline.
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter Smagorinsky
> > The University of Georgia
> > Department of Language and Literacy Education
> > 125 Aderhold Hall
> > Athens, GA 30602-7123
> > smago@uga.edu /fax:706-542-4509/phone:706-542-4507/
> > http://www.coe.uga.edu/lle/faculty/smagorinsky/index.html
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On
> > Behalf Of Tony Whitson
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:12 AM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Request for Panelist Names on CHAT History
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Lois Holzman wrote:
> >
> >> I've always thought the lack of dogma, definition and exclusivity was
> >> a strength of CHAT.
> >> Lois
> >>
> > I agree, and I think that's how it looks to folks who might be
> considered
> > CHAT afficianados. Interestingly, though, I have heard some people who
> are
> > coming from outside the CHAT community characterize CHAT as a movement
> that
> > looks, to them, comparatively dogmatic -- compared to the disciplinary
> > traditions where they feel at home. I've heard remarks about
> preoccupation
> > with LSV's work (and/or Marx, Hegel, etc.) as a kind of scripture, for
> > example, such that people are concerned with properly interpreting LSV's
> > writing, and using that as a kind of authority, in ways that seem to
> them
> > unlike anything that happens in their own fields of research.
> >
> > To CHAT folk this no doubt seem like a completely unrecognizable
> > characterization.
> >
> > What do you think?
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
> Tony Whitson
> UD School of Education
> NEWARK DE 19716
>
> twhitson@udel.edu
> _______________________________
>
> "those who fail to reread
> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Tue Sep 11 10:31 PDT 2007