Re: [xmca] Subject: Verb, Object

Andy
... why not "cultural psychology"?

Luísa Aires

> Good question Mike. I never thought about that, and it is certainly in
> ignorance of how these terms are used in academia generally.
>
> I suppose by 'social psychology' I mean a current of psychology which
> utilises a concept of 'extended mind' as its foundational principle. It is
> always the case that other currents contribute insights which are not so
> easily accessible from one's own (so to speak) - even if you don't accept
> the principles of Psychoanalysis, there are still things to learn from it;
> and the same goes for all currents and schools of psychology. But by
> 'social psychology' I mean a real psychology, that is practical and useful
> in dealing with psychological problems and copes with the reality of
> individual difference and so on. A 'social psychology' which sees
> individuals as purely and simply instances of their social position does
> not warrant the name in my opinion. And 'social psychology' in the sense
> that Max Horkheimer (I think) used it, which deal only with the phenomena
> of crowds and so on, is also 'not worthy' of the name.
>
> So I am looking for a tool which can give me a way of understanding how
> the
> Zeitgeist is formed, how it is changed, practically how to intervene in
> it.
> I do not expect a 'social psychology' to go further and provide me with a
> social or political theory as such, but it need to be able to bridge the
> gap, so to speak. Let's face it! If we can change the Zeitgeist which gets
> people like George W Bush and John Howard elected in democratic countries,
> into one in which genuinely good people get elected, then the rest will
> look after itself and I can enjoy my retirement.
>
> Why not a meta-psychology? Apart form my idiosyncratic dislike of "meta" I
> don't want a metapsychology, I want a psychology which has a
> metapsychology
> which is sound and able to cope with the sociality of consciousness.
>
> Why not a "science of human nature"? "Human nature" is such a problematic
> term, it carries such a lot of unwanted 19th century baggage. And I am
> interested in consciousness, not "nature" in general.
>
> Sure, social psychology is a sub-discipline within psychology. There are
> things which belong to psychology which are not centre-stage for me. Sure,
> brain injury or other defects are a serious topic, as is child
> development,
> etc., etc.. I guess I am talking about a psychology whose central thread
> is
> a social psychology rather than a neurobiology, for example.
>
> I need a social psychology which recognises that social movements are not
> just large numbers of people with the same feeling, but subjects, and
> individuals are neither passive victims of social processes nor absolutely
> free agents. But a *real*, practical, living school of psychology, with
> people using it in designing curricula, healing depressed people, running
> half-way houses, training teachers, organising self-help groups, etc.,
> etc.
> and doing real, experimental science with it, critiquing and improving its
> concepts down the years.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Andy
>
> At 05:14 PM 30/12/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>>Andy-- This is the second time you have declared your goal to be
>> answering
>>questions within the framework of social psychology. Why do you use this
>>term? Why not a
>>meta-psychology? Why not a "science of human nature"?
>>
>>I ask because I am used to social psychology being viewed as a
>>sub-discipline within psychology.
>>The only dept of social psych I know of that takes on your questions
>>seriously is at the LSE. One branch of cultural psychology in the US
>> comes
>>out of experimental social
>>psychology here, but I do not think you have that in mind.
>>
>>This query is not to distract from the main line of discussion, but
>> rather
>>to locate what you are striving for better.
>>
>>mike
>>On Dec 30, 2007 4:34 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I think David and Peg's messages were out of sync., yes?
>> >
>> > This all raises that most difficult of questions for a social
>> psychology
>> > that wants to deal with the tasks I am asking it to deal with, how do
>> you
>> > deal with the knock-on effect of an action, which is predictable from
>> > on-high, but unknown to the actors themselves? We rely on the basic
>> > insight
>> > that what goes on in the head first went on between people - whether
>> in
>> > the
>> > form given to it by Fichte, Hegel, Marx, CS Peirce or Vygotsky. What
>> is
>> > Hegel's Logic about? About the underlying "logic of events", how this
>> or
>> > that policy or statement or whatever ultimately leads to this or that
>> > problem which was at first invisible. Life experience will tell you
>> this,
>> > but if you don't have life experience, it will happen according to the
>> > logic of events anyways and you should learn. Basically, I think we
>> can
>> > only make sense of this if we get right away from the idea of the
>> > "individual-as-subject" but remember that no subject exists other than
>> in
>> > and through individual human beings.
>> >
>> > With the ANL example of the child and the father, I have always had
>> > trouble
>> > with "examples" and methods which presuppose a leader or a father or a
>> > facilitator, a person who knows what the experimental subject or
>> student
>> > or
>> > self-help group really needs to do, and organises things accordingly.
>> Of
>> > course, I understand that all you teachers and teacher-trainers, child
>> > psychologists, etc., work and have a responsibility to work in
>> precisely
>> > that circumstance. But I do not think this is the paradigmatic
>> > relationship. The father can only do his bit in "leading" the child
>> into
>> > an
>> > activity where its "best interests" will be served if the father can
>> act
>> > as
>> > a kind of transmitter of life experience, and kind of short-cut the
>> > process
>> > for the child. So it is not the father's technique which is the
>> paradigm,
>> > but the bitter life experience which the child may or may not have as
>> a
>> > result of choosing to do this or that.
>> >
>> > Andy
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > At 07:54 AM 30/12/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>> > >Dear Andy and Peg:
>> > >
>> > > Here's some stuff from my notes; I happen to know that Andy can't
>> get
>> > > ahold of a copy of ANL's Problems of the Development of the Mind. I
>> hope
>> > > I don't get those funny marks that always show up when I paste in...
>> > >
>> > > p. 402 ANL points out how 'only understandable' motives for
>> homework
>> > > such as wanting to get a good mark can be replaced by 'really
>> effective'
>> > > motives such as doing it so you can go out to play. However, after
>> some
>> > > weeks of really effective motives, it is also possible that the
>> child
>> > > will find that the only understandable motives become really
>> effective,
>> > > e.g. the child will leave off doing homework because it¡¯s untidy
>> and
>> > the
>> > > child is now afraid of getting a bad mark.
>> > >
>> > > p. 403: ANL writes: 'It is a matter of an action¡¯s result being
>> more
>> > > significant in certain conditions than the motive that actually
>> induces
>> > > it. The child begins doing its homework conscientiously because it
>> wants
>> > > to go out quickly and play. In the end this leads to much more not
>> > simply
>> > > that it will get the chance to go and play but also that it will get
>> a
>> > > good mark. A new "objectivation" of its needs come about which means
>> > they
>> > > are understood at a higher level.'
>> > >
>> > > 'The transition to a new leading activity differs from the process
>> > > described simply in the really effective motives becoming in the
>> case of
>> > > a change of leading activity, those understandable motives that
>> exist in
>> > > the sphere of relations characterizing the place the child can
>> occupy
>> > > only in the next higher stage of development rather than in the
>> sphere
>> > of
>> > > relations in which it still actually is. The preparation of these
>> > > transitions therefore takes a long time because it is necessary for
>> the
>> > > child to become quite fully aware of a sphere of relations that are
>> new
>> > > for it.¡±
>> > >
>> > > ANL compares a child¡¯s performance in a school play with the
>> child¡¯s
>> > > learning of study as an independent activity. The child begins the
>> > school
>> > > play as an assignment, and later continues for the approbation the
>> child
>> > > receives during a successful performance. As with learning to study
>> for
>> > a
>> > > good mark instead of just studying for the opportunity to go out and
>> > > play, a ¡°merely understandable¡± motive has now become ¡°really
>> > > effective¡± and a new activity is established.
>> > >
>> > > But only in the case of independent study (according to ANL) is
>> the
>> > new
>> > > activity developmentally significant (¡°objectively¡±) because the
>> child
>> > > is not going to become a professional dramatist (if the child were,
>> then
>> > > the performance in the play would be study). Thus only in the latter
>> > case
>> > > can we say there is a new leading activity.
>> > >
>> > > Here's what I make of this:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > a) ANL really does NOT interrogate the subject as to the object
>> > > orientation of the activity: the object (study, the completed play)
>> is
>> > > indeed given in advance. As far as ANL is concerned, ONLY Chaiklin's
>> > > "objective" ZPD exists, and there is NO subjective ZPD. But Andy's
>> idea
>> > > of "immanent critique" is NOT an objective critique; it has to do
>> with
>> > > following up (just like Sarah's) the subject's way of seeing things
>> and
>> > > seeing where it leads.
>> > >
>> > > b) In the development discussion (San Diego-Helsinki) Dr. Olga
>> Vasquez
>> > > raised the question of whether "leading activity" is the same as
>> > > "neoformation", and Dr. Pentti Harakarainnen really did not answer
>> it
>> > and
>> > > instead talked about Dr. Engestrom's even more general concept of
>> > > activity. But here we can see that "leading activity" and
>> "neoformation"
>> > > are quite different: LSV used "neoformation" to talk about
>> transitional
>> > > structures during crisis periods that COMPLETELY disappear (for
>> example,
>> > > the child's autonomous speech at one and the child's "negativism" at
>> > > three) as well as neoformations which become the leading activity
>> during
>> > > normal growth. Only the latter is a "leading activity" for ANL.
>> > >
>> > > c) There is still a STRONG behaviorist streak in ANL's reasoning:
>> the
>> > > difference between the "really effective" and "merely understood"
>> > > reasoning can very easily be described, in ALL of ANL's examples, as
>> a
>> > > simple lengthening of the time distance between the behavior and the
>> > > positive reinforcement. Bruner, in a quote that I have long since
>> lost,
>> > > suggests that development can be described this way, but I don't
>> think
>> > > LSV ever would have done so: for LSV the key thing about humans is
>> that
>> > > they are dogs that can ring their own bells.
>> > >
>> > > David Kellogg
>> > > Seoul National University of Education
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >---------------------------------
>> > >Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
>> > Search.
>> > >_______________________________________________
>> > >xmca mailing list
>> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> >
>> > Andy Blunden :
>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>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
>
>

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Tue Jan 1 14:54 PST 2008