Re: [xmca] Radius of Subjectivity

I have read a few of Giddens' books, and I must say I found them useful at
the time. But I don't find him satisfactory for where I want to go.

Andy
At 05:51 PM 13/11/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>Andy,
>
> Have you read any of Giddens' books? He seems to me to be the one who
> has most explictly tried to connect the levels you identify for
> a stable-state (purely stochastic,, no chaos or cusp points included)
> social system. I don't think he really adresses the historical
> dimension too well but then who does?
>
> My dad had a stroke when he was almost eighty. He never was able to
> deal with the sudden limitation of his world: not being able to drive,
> ride a bicycle, not being able to express what he was thinking. His
> frustration became a death-wish.. It seems that there's something about
> flexibility implicit in being able to learn, fmaybe letting go of the
> remembered radii and just starting dealing with the horizons
> defining where you find yourself . My dad never did. Hope your
> partner works it out.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul
>
>Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> What I was trying to get at is to do with the individual/structure
> problem:
>intuitively we know that "agency" is a real thing, but social science
>teaches us that history is governed by laws, not the will of individuals,
>we know we can make certain choices about the path we take in our own
>lives, but do we have any say over which roads are available? can we change
>the landscape? We have a "mind of our own", but are we not simply
>expressions of this or that aspect of the Zeitgeist?
>
>So putting the ability raise our arm on the same scale with overthrowing
>capitalism, with maybe changing attitudes about teaching maths in San Diego
>somewhere in the middle, it changes things. Instead of having 2 or 3
>different questions that seem to belong to different worlds, one has a
>continuous scale. We see that one person can change EG the attitude of
>people in a whole city to gays by agitating and getting a new laws passed,
>which for someone else is just an unchangeable fact of life. But there is
>no sharp line. People can expand their radius of subjectivity.
>
>Practical example: 15 months ago my partner had a stroke and is now quite
>disabled. Formerly she would be out of the house every day doing this or
>that. For 15 months she has been outside only if I drive her to rehab or
>something. The government has offered to buy her an electric scooter (which
>she is competent to drive BTW) but she says: "What do I need that for?
>Where would I go?" So my problem is, how do I expand her "radius of
>subjectivity" in the sense of having an interest again in the world
>outside, so she sees a point in getting agency in that world outside the
>front door? So I am thinking agency, knowledge and identity are
>interconnected here. If she is no longer "tied up in" things happening
>around town, she doesn't need agency; if she *can't* participate in that
>big world outside due to lack of mobility, she loses interest in that
>world. Vicious circle.
>
>Andy
>At 04:16 PM 13/11/2007 -0800, you wrote:
> >Andy, Eric
> >
> > I'm not sure that Vygotsky's ZPD is at all similar to what Lewin had in
> > mind . It seems that Giddens microspaces -- that eclectic stew of
> > Bourdieu's fields and Garfinkel's ethnomethodological frames are the
> > already elaborated concepts that encompass what is being proposed in the
> > various terminologies being discussed in this thread.. . But, as far as
> > I understand, these theoretical constructs, have a totally abstract
> > relationship to Vygotsky's ZPD: the notion of a boundary, a very
> > abstrract notion at that, something limiting individual agency (which
> > doesn't have a whole lot to do with subjectivity in any event).
> >
> > It seems to me that the learning process at the core of Vygotsky's ZPD
> > isn't a key factor in Lewin, Garfinkel, Giddens, or any other
> > formulations of "radii" I've read in this thread. In all of these
> > micro-sociological frames, the boundary has nothing at all to do with a
> > learning relationship between someone competent in a task and someone
> > gaining competency. Lewin's idea was almost geometrical. Do you think
> > Vygotsky's was? From what I understand the ZPD is not a boundary that
> > can be reduced to a metric any more than can the feelings of blossoming
> > wonder or or monstrous terror.
> >
> > What d'ya think>
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >Andy Blunden wrote:
> > Thank you Eric. You and David have given me the kind of pointers I
> >suspected were out there.
> >Andy
> >At 11:58 AM 13/11/2007 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> > >Andy:
> > >
> > >Radius of subjectivity is not new but providing different language for
> > >social situations can help introduce new thinking about the age old
> > >question, "Why and How are humans what they are?"
> > >
> > >Consider the following quote regarding Kurt Lewin:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For Kurt Lewin behaviour was determined by totality of an individual's
> > > situation. In his field
> > > theory, a 'field' is defined as 'the totality of coexisting facts which
> > > are conceived of as
> > > mutually interdependent' (Lewin 1951: 240). Individuals were seen to
> > > behave differently according
> > > to the way in which tensions between perceptions of the self and of the
> > > environment were worked
> > > through. The whole psychological field, or 'lifespace', within which
> > > people acted had to be
> > > viewed, in order to understand behaviour. Within this individuals and
> > > groups could be seen in
> > > topological terms (using map-like representations). Individuals
> > > participate in a series of life
> > > spaces (such as the family, work, school and church), and these were
> > > constructed under the
> > > influence of various force vectors (Lewin
> > > 1952).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >this was taken from the following website:
> > >http://wilderdom.com/theory/FieldTheory.html
> > >
> > >or consider Jaan Valsiner's Zone theory that suggests people develop based
> > >on their zone of free movement, society's zone of promoted action and the
> > >specific zone of proximal development ( as defined by Seth Chaiklen).
> > >
> > >I for one appreciate your input and believe if you were to extrapolate
> > >further you may be onto a successful philosophical tool Andy!
> > >
> > >eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Andy
> > > Blunden
> > >
> > >
> > > et> cc:
> > >
> > > Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] Radius
> > > of Subjectivity
> > > xmca-bounces@web
> > >
> > > er.ucsd.edu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 11/08/2007
> > > 06:44
> > >
> > > PM
> > >
> > > Please
> > > respond
> > >
> > > to
> > > "eXtended
> > >
> > > Mind,
> > > Culture,
> > >
> > > Activity"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >My reason for splurting the thought on to the list was the suspicion that
> > >it was not original.
> > >There are differences though. The idea of "radius" as a measure
> unites, for
> > >
> > >example, both "society" and the "individual", which people regularly talk
> > >about as two distinct levels needing some kind of bridge between them, and
> > >you have people talking about "agency" in quite contradictory ways, using
> > >the same word for what appears as two different things, but actually
> > >involves different radii which has a continuous scale. Plus you mention a
> > >trichotomy, but a quite different trichotomy to identity, agency and
> > >knowing.
> > >Andy
> > >At 03:17 PM 8/11/2007 -0800, you wrote:
> > > >Andy--
> > > >
> > > > Great! But wait....
> > > >
> > > > What's the relationship between your "radii of subjectivity" (and my
> > > > "event horizon" and Mike's and LSV's "social situation of
> learning"...how
> > >
> > > > the terms proliferate!) and the trichotomy (if that is what it is)
> > > > "operation", "action", and "activity"?
> > > >
> > > > That's my question!
> > > >
> > > > David Kellogg
> > > > Seoul National University of Education
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > >Do You Yahoo!?
> > > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > > >http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >xmca mailing list
> > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > > Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
> > >mobile 0409 358 651
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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
> >
> >Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
> >mobile 0409 358 651
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >xmca mailing list
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try
> >it now.
> >_______________________________________________
> >xmca mailing list
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>mobile 0409 358 651
>
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

  Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
mobile 0409 358 651

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Tue Nov 13 21:02 PST 2007