great, but would someone please tell me exactly what "culture" means.
Paul
Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
Sure.
Andy
At 10:43 PM 1/01/2008 +0000, you wrote:
>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 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/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
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
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Tue Jan 1 16:37 PST 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 13 2008 - 12:33:27 PST