Re: [xmca] my new questions

Great exercise for your graduate students, Carrie. A lot of unspoken
understandings must have been made visible.
mike

On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Carrie Lobman <lobman@rci.rutgers.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Vesna,
>
> I couldn't agree more--we are most able to see our ability to keep playing
> with our roles in social contexts that are being organized to support
> development.
>
> Your response to me is a yes and to what I was saying. I also see people
> as
> able to use their roles as the ongoing material for the improvisational
> play
> that is our lives. For example, yesterday in one of my graduate classes I
> asked the students to create a performance of themselves as graduate
> students. They looked at me like I was crazy and said, "But we are
> graduate
> students." I said, "I know, now I want you to do the performance of
> graduate
> students." They created a fascinating, funny, and in many ways more
> developed performance of the class. Very interesting experience for them
> and
> me.
>
> Carrie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of zdravo
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:40 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] my new questions
>
> Dear Carrie
> I share your views regarding performance and role-playing, maybe it could
> be
> helpful just to make inversion like we do, the role is material to play
> with. Our programme is based on Vygotsky's approach to play. Some things
> are
> seen differently when the development of the social group is unity, that
> goes beyond the pattern of unique individuals or the network made by
> dyads.
> Vesna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carrie Lobman" <lobman@rci.rutgers.edu>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [xmca] my new questions
>
>
> > Dear David,
> >
> > I share your discomfort with "I" as the
> > definition of who Carrie is. Monstrous is a really good word for it.
> >
> > I (but its also pretty difficult not to use it)
> > find the distinction between "role-playing" and
> > "performance" very helpful in understanding how I
> > think about who human beings are and how we
> > develop. Performance as I see it is the ongoing,
> > improvisational, social creation of who we are
> > becoming. When a three year old is pretending to
> > be "mommy" she is not role-playing, she is
> > performing. She is creatively imitating--not
> > mimicking, nor is she acting out a societally
> > pre-determined role. She is as I understand it
> > being who she is and who she is not. That's what
> > I think performance is and it is what allows for human development.
> >
> > Role-playing, is something different. As we grow
> > older we become able, through performance
> > (ironically), to play out societal
> > roles--performances that were fluid and creative
> > at age 4 become rigid and stultified by age 10.
> > We become a certain kind of person--"the shy
> > girl," the "good son." These are the roles that
> > we and those around us begin relating to as our
> > personality or "who we really are." In my opinion
> > they are neither--but the fact that they are
> > related to that way is particularly conservatizing and even monstrous.
> >
> > Part of why I love teaching people to improvise
> > is that it re-initiates our experience of
> > ourselves as performers rather than role-players.
> > By creating improv scenes socially with other
> > people we get a sense of what it means to be who we are and who we are
> not.
> >
> > Hope that makes some sense--I found your
> > impassioned response to personality and
> > role-playing very compelling and wanted to respond.
> >
> > Carrie
> >
> > At 02:45 PM 2/9/2008, you wrote:
> > >Dear Elinami,
> > >
> > > I'm really VERY grateful for this question,
> > > but unfortunately it's not because I have
> > > anything remotely resembling an answer. I It's
> > > just because it allows me to post something
> > > that has always puzzled me and ask other people
> > > (YOU, for instance!) to comment.
> > >
> > > The source of my bepuzzlement is on pp.
> > > 103-104 of Leontiev's book, "Activity,
> > > Personality and Consciousness". It goes like this:
> > >
> > > "Each of us, it is understood, assumes one
> > > set or another of social (for example,
> > > professional) functions and, in this sense,
> > > roles. The idea, however, of a direct reduction
> > > of personality to a collection of roles that a
> > > person fills is, notwithstanding every possible
> > > reservation of the followers of this idea, one of the most monstrous."
> > >
> > > Yes, I suppose it is. But then the idea of a
> > > personality is pretty monstrous too. Why should
> > > something as complex as David Kellogg be
> > > reducible to one of the two shortest words in
> > > the English language? And why should it be 'I' and not 'a'? Leontiev
> continues:
> > >
> > >"Of course, a child learns, let us say, how he
> > >is supposed to behave with his mother, that it
> > >is necessary to listen to her, and he listens,
> > >but can it be said that in this way the child
> > >plays the role of a son or a daughter? It is
> > >just as absurd to speak, for example, about the
> > >¡°role¡± of the polar explorer ¡°accepted¡± by
> > >Nansen: For him it was not a role, but a mission."
> > >
> > > I must be missing something. This doesn't
> > > seem absurd to me at all, particularly not the
> > > bit about the role of son or daughter. What the devil is he getting
> at?
> > >
> > > "Sometimes a man actually plays one role or
> > > another, but nevertheless it remains for him
> > >only a role regardless of the extent to which it
> > >is internalized. A role is not a personality but
> > >rather a representation behind which it hides.
> > >If we are to use the terminology of P. Janet,
> > >the concept of a role corresponds not to the
> > >concept of personality (personnalite)
> > >but to the concept of personage (personnage)."
> > >
> > > I get it! The analogy is something like
> > > "glove-hand", "mask-face",
> > > "personnage-personality". But doesn't this kind
> > > of analogy assume a "personnage" which is
> > > merely a social tool (a glove or a mask) and a
> > > "personality" (a hand or a face) which is in some sense not?
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > > Seoul National University of Education
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >---------------------------------
> > >Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all
> > >with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date:
> 2/11/2008
> 8:16 AM
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Wed Feb 13 11:01 PST 2008