Re: [xmca] SAWCHUK/ANNA'S *NON-CANONINITY* MOST WELCOME

My computer caused losing it once ; I wonder if it reaches you in safe mode !!

Dear Mike ,
We have always to say *as I understand it ...*
What I understand first comes between the lines of your message ; second , as marked with ellipses within the article proper attached to this message ..
Thank you for your attention and help .
Best
Haydi
--- On Sun, 12/14/08, Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [xmca] SAWCHUK/ANNA'S *NON-CANONINITY* MOST WELCOME
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 6:44 PMHaydi-- I greatly admire the work of Alexander Zaporozhets and the manhimself, but statements like the following leave me very confused:  The development of emotions, as noted by A.N. Leontiev (1972),L.I. Bozhovich (1968), and others is closely related to the developmentof motives of behavior [not motives of activity because he's talking about infants to preschoolers ]that emerge with a child's new needsand interests[the general term for interests/drives/incentives/etc. is *needs* ; however at times they are listed as near
 synonyms . They are not *motives* until and unless they come across an object/objects that can satisfy them . in other words , needs could be considered as first being *abstract* . ] Throughout childhood not only a deep restructuringof organic needs [at times *vital needs* , being fed up is a vital organic need as *sleep* is . Take a child need to be fed up but just at the time she begins to eat , she sees another child with certain background which is known to the first child ; she leaves the food for the second child ; this is one kind of *restructuring* , an hiararchy/continuum could begin with eating up to selfless avoidance of eatig for sake of sacrifice and humanitarian cause ; in the article this hiararchization is quite visually depicted ]. takes place, but also an acquisition of material andspiritual values [values of many sorts could act as motives , too . material when you do an action (activity) to get a prize ;
 spiritual when you do an action out of selflessness/sacrifice/martyred for the homeland . These are on top of the said hiararchization . ] created by society, which, [[under certain conditions]],become the [[content]] of a child's internal[internalized] motives.  motives of behavior, [like , needs, interests ], "organic needs" (are these thesameas, or different than [the same as] motives of behavior?), values [as motives](material andspiritual), andinterests and internal motives [in the other post i said Leontiev objects Rubinstein as saying *the external acts through the internal* because he does not agree there are innately/instinctly/as given/ such things as *internals* which could instigate social human activity ; a prize becomes internalized /then internal ].  Which is which and what is what and how do we know which we
 are dealing withwhen? It all gets jumbled in my concerted activity, as Derek would have it.  mike      2008/12/14 Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@yahoo.com>  >  >  > Dear all,> In the article we read :> [However, this paper focuses largely on sociology, not so much> anthropology, which says to me that the importance here is on the> dialectic between the agency of people and the larger, broader social> structures that go beyond, say, a particular classroom or school. This> is where I stop being able to follow the argument and need> clarification (if indeed what I wrote earlier is actually a sensible>
 interpretation).]> What great sincerity/humbleness really . mostly/wholeheartedly appreciated> ..> I'm sure Peter has much to say in this respect ; he createsopportunity for> others to come their way .> On many previous occasions , we came across the idea that what puts> constrainsts upon agency/limits and dimensions of scale of freedom of the> activity of the subject is the problem of *necessity* . What lessons and> sylabuses come from Bush's administration and the benefits andexpediencies> of the Multinationals cannot and are not separate from the mentalitieswhich> have been made or are being made within American classes and schools .Mike> told Paul Dillon *Why bothering then* ? The bothering problem relates to> what we read in the article as
 the degree of subordination , concessions ,> compliance or resistance not just within classes and schools but exactly> within the expanse of the nationwide territory . And because Peter andAnna> explicitly admit their at least general pursuit of Marxism , they have to> admit the scale and method and kind of this spread and scattering withinthe> limits of the dialectics of class antagonistic standpoints and social>  relations .> Here is the place we have to appreciate what Peter and Anna label as the> *non-canoninity* of the school of Marxism , though my humble guess isthey'd> better have reviewed this category with their extremity of going to *talkas> action* or *text as action* . My reasoning is shortly that
 Leontiev'saction> goes to activity , activity goes to labor and work enterprise , work goesto> life itself and quite assuredly we cannot generalize and expand this as to> be able to say *text is life* , *talk is life* .> In short and quite simplisticly , how social relations affect the psycheof> the man can be achieved through two main points : one *sense* , two> hiararchization of motives .> Reality is reflected *ideally* . Ideality deals with meanings etc. Onekind> of meaning comes to us as the general meaning . All of us know what apiece> of *straw* means .> Another kind of meaning is *personal* , sense , I say . For a person> drowning at sea , the piece of straw first occurs to her the same as all> know of it ; but then when she
 is saved , the piece of straw becomes toher> *the savior of life* ; this is the sense which is quite specific . The sea,> the swimmer , the beach , the leisure time , the entertainment , the> loneliness of the sole swimmer , etc. are not talk or text . Terror ,horror> , death and life , salvation etc. are not either . They are not even facts> of life ; they are *moments* of life . Copare this with the generalmeaning> of *welfare society* and *proliferation of goods* which throughinteractions> and ups and downs within social relations might come to somemisery/poverty> stricken or very far away from being fooled layers , individuals , classes,> groups , intelectuals , communities of the society as *senses* indicating> *exploitation* ,
 *alianation* , *colonialism* , *plunder* , *war>  and crime* , *invasion* etc.> Leontiev takes his *activity theory* from *major work/labor activity* .Now> we say *breathing activity* , *sighing activity* , *frowning activity*etc..> I think it's not the case with activity proper . There's a lot ofdetailed> explications in this respect (hiararchization of motives) onLeontiev's book> . There are many pages in which Leontiev talks about the ultimate> humanitarian cause of human activities . He recites and quotes many many> lines and paragraphs from many literary sources indicating sense ofhumanity> and balanced personality (minus cause of collapse and miserableness of> Makarenko's children) of the human being . He
 considers *psychology*as a> ideological weapon against the evils of the capitalistic society . How can> he agree his theory to be used to repair these evils . Yes , one thing is> certain . He hopes (or you prefer to say dreams/hallucinates/deludes/> socialistic *senses* might come into existence through confrontations of> classes>  , these then acting not in speech as speech acts but *exploding*> --formerly discussed here--as jumping boards and real social standpoints> against decay and corruption and profiteering . Now workers and employees> are being expelled/dismissed from their work locales in multitudes andgreat> masses . Their children might feel in misery . This misery leads to> confrontation , to at least revision of their due
 general social meanings?> Do they have proper senses ? Do they have their vanguards ? These are the> bitter truths which are greatly related to sociology just when it goes to> influence psychology of men but people wayward it unfortunately . Now the> motive is not the motive of schooling . Schooling had many decades to go> agent . Now the motive , want or not , is the motive of upheavals andwhere> it leads to , enduring or transient . And last but not least :> ZAPOROZHETS :>  > [The development of emotions, as noted by A.N. Leontiev (1972),> L.I. Bozhovich (1968), and others is closely related to the development> of motives of behavior that emerge with a child's new needs> and interests. Throughout childhood not only a deep restructuring>
 of organic needs takes place, but also an acquisition of material and> spiritual values created by society, which, under certain conditions,> become the content of a child's internal motives.> In a study conducted under conditions of a psychological-pedagogical> experiment, Ia.Z. Neverovich (1955a, 1955b, 1955c) analyzed> the process of forming the simplest social motives for> activity in preschool age children, consisting of their tendency> to make something useful not only for themselves but also for> others, their peers or the adults around them. This formative process> was conducted in a specially organized collective labor activity> of duty monitors (a child assigned supervisional> duty-activities in the dining room, in the nature corner, in the> play corner, etc.). This
 psychological-pedagogical experiment> continued for about eight months. Initially, the instructor explained> the meaning of their work to the children and its importance> to the kindergarten's collective, aiming to instill in them> an orientational basis for forthcoming actions and to create a> preliminary notion of social significance of these actions.> Later, the instructor systematically evaluated the duty monitors'> work, discussing results with the children. In the course of> joint activity, a collective opinion on the importance and necessity> of the duty monitors' work was formed, and, thus, the fulfillment> of working responsibilities by one child or another came to be> evaluated not only by the instructor but also by other children.> This created a rather rigid system of group
 requirements and expectations.> The actions of a child corresponding to these requirements> systematically received positive social reinforcement, while> the actions not corresponding to them received a negative reaction.> Nevertheless, the changes in children's mentality that occurred> under given circumstances should not be interpreted as a simple> adaptation to the actual social situation by mechanical memorization> of encouraged forms of behavior.> The essence of the experiment lies in reorienting the child to> new values. A kind of devaluation of the previously most valued> games and entertainment took place, and correspondingly, the value> of the previously least attractive serious and difficult tasks increased.> Due to systematic participation in an important common>
 activity, the children discovered its true sense, its usefulness for> others around them, and the importance their own role played in> this activity. In this way, psychological prerequisites were created> for children's acquisition of social standards and requirements,> the fulfillment of which was necessary for the successful realization> of the joint labor activity.> The transformation of such requirements into requirements set> for the self, that is, into the internal motives of children'sbehavior> was accomplished gradually, over several successive stages. Initially,> some children completely refused to be on duty, attempting> to shift their responsibilities to someone else. Other children, even> if they accepted the task, did not always carry it out well: they did> not
 bring the task to completion, were distracted and began to play> instead of working, and so forth.> Later, under created conditions of collective activity, children's> behavior became more orderly; the tasks of a duty monitor were> carried out in a more organized way, but this happened only in the> presence of external support, under the direct influence of adult> guidance and the evaluations of adults and other members of the> children's collective. Some children remained in this stage for a> long time. For them, the social essence of the activity was still not> the most important matter. Praise was of primary importance to> them, first from the instructor, and then from their peers. Only> when they could count on such praise did these duty monitors work> in a more or less organized and
 productive fashion. As soon as> those close by stopped paying attention to them, the children ceased> to work and switched to other activities.> Subsequently, however, these children, some earlier, others later,> passed to the next, higher stage of forming social motives of behavior.> It was characteristic of this stage that the child began to fulfill> work duties not to obtain adult praise and not to reach high social> status in the children's collective, but rather to achieve a socially> significant result by trying to satisfy the specific needs of people> around them. At this point, the child acted on his own initiative without> waiting for any instructions or encouragement, which indicated> that the adopted social standards and requirements were transformed> into the internal motives
 of the children's activity.> In the course of forming new behavioral motives, the nature> of the child's emotional manifestations underwent substantial> changes. Changes in the emotional sphere directly reflected,> above all, changes in the motives of children's labor activity.> With the formation of such motives, an indifferent attitude toward> labor duties was transformed into a very high emotional> sensitivity to evaluation of their work by others. Later, concerns> associated with evaluation seemed to fade into the background> and were replaced by completely different feelings related to how> well the child managed to do useful work and how closely the> results achieved corresponded to the interests of others, which> now became the child's own.> Our data show, however,
 that emotion not only expresses one> or another particular aspect in the motivation of child behavior;> it also plays a significant role in the realization of these motives.]> Then Zaporozhets goes through documenting these with experimental examples> , that is , step-by-step promotion of motives and corresponding activities> of the children .> Best> Haydi>  >  >  > _______________________________________________> xmca mailing list> xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>  _______________________________________________xmca mailing listxmca@weber.ucsd.eduhttp://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
 
--- On Sun, 12/14/08, Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [xmca] SAWCHUK/ANNA'S *NON-CANONINITY* MOST WELCOME
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 6:44 PM

Haydi-- I greatly admire the work of Alexander Zaporozhets and the man
himself, but statements like the following leave me very confused:

The development of emotions, as noted by A.N. Leontiev (1972),
L.I. Bozhovich (1968), and others is closely related to the development
of motives of behavior that emerge with a child's new needs
and interests. Throughout childhood not only a deep restructuring
of organic needs takes place, but also an acquisition of material and
spiritual values created by society, which, under certain conditions,
become the content of a child's internal motives.

motives of behavior, needs, interests, "organic needs" (are these the
same
as, or different than motives of behavior?), values (material and
spiritual), and
interests and internal motives.

Which is which and what is what and how do we know which we are dealing with
when? It all gets jumbled in my concerted activity, as Derek would have it.

mike

2008/12/14 Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@yahoo.com>

>
>
> Dear all,
> In the article we read :
> [However, this paper focuses largely on sociology, not so much
> anthropology, which says to me that the importance here is on the
> dialectic between the agency of people and the larger, broader social
> structures that go beyond, say, a particular classroom or school. This
> is where I stop being able to follow the argument and need
> clarification (if indeed what I wrote earlier is actually a sensible
> interpretation).]
> What great sincerity/humbleness really . mostly/wholeheartedly appreciated
> ..
> I'm sure Peter has much to say in this respect ; he creates
opportunity for
> others to come their way .
> On many previous occasions , we came across the idea that what puts
> constrainsts upon agency/limits and dimensions of scale of freedom of the
> activity of the subject is the problem of *necessity* . What lessons and
> sylabuses come from Bush's administration and the benefits and
expediencies
> of the Multinationals cannot and are not separate from the mentalities
which
> have been made or are being made within American classes and schools .
Mike
> told Paul Dillon *Why bothering then* ? The bothering problem relates to
> what we read in the article as the degree of subordination , concessions ,
> compliance or resistance not just within classes and schools but exactly
> within the expanse of the nationwide territory . And because Peter and
Anna
> explicitly admit their at least general pursuit of Marxism , they have to
> admit the scale and method and kind of this spread and scattering within
the
> limits of the dialectics of class antagonistic standpoints and social
> relations .
> Here is the place we have to appreciate what Peter and Anna label as the
> *non-canoninity* of the school of Marxism , though my humble guess is
they'd
> better have reviewed this category with their extremity of going to *talk
as
> action* or *text as action* . My reasoning is shortly that Leontiev's
action
> goes to activity , activity goes to labor and work enterprise , work goes
to
> life itself and quite assuredly we cannot generalize and expand this as to
> be able to say *text is life* , *talk is life* .
> In short and quite simplisticly , how social relations affect the psyche
of
> the man can be achieved through two main points : one *sense* , two
> hiararchization of motives .
> Reality is reflected *ideally* . Ideality deals with meanings etc. One
kind
> of meaning comes to us as the general meaning . All of us know what a
piece
> of *straw* means .
> Another kind of meaning is *personal* , sense , I say . For a person
> drowning at sea , the piece of straw first occurs to her the same as all
> know of it ; but then when she is saved , the piece of straw becomes to
her
> *the savior of life* ; this is the sense which is quite specific . The sea
,
> the swimmer , the beach , the leisure time , the entertainment , the
> loneliness of the sole swimmer , etc. are not talk or text . Terror ,
horror
> , death and life , salvation etc. are not either . They are not even facts
> of life ; they are *moments* of life . Copare this with the general
meaning
> of *welfare society* and *proliferation of goods* which through
interactions
> and ups and downs within social relations might come to some
misery/poverty
> stricken or very far away from being fooled layers , individuals , classes
,
> groups , intelectuals , communities of the society as *senses* indicating
> *exploitation* , *alianation* , *colonialism* , *plunder* , *war
> and crime* , *invasion* etc.
> Leontiev takes his *activity theory* from *major work/labor activity* .
Now
> we say *breathing activity* , *sighing activity* , *frowning activity*
etc..
> I think it's not the case with activity proper . There's a lot of
detailed
> explications in this respect (hiararchization of motives) on
Leontiev's book
> . There are many pages in which Leontiev talks about the ultimate
> humanitarian cause of human activities . He recites and quotes many many
> lines and paragraphs from many literary sources indicating sense of
humanity
> and balanced personality (minus cause of collapse and miserableness of
> Makarenko's children) of the human being . He considers *psychology*
as a
> ideological weapon against the evils of the capitalistic society . How can
> he agree his theory to be used to repair these evils . Yes , one thing is
> certain . He hopes (or you prefer to say dreams/hallucinates/deludes/
> socialistic *senses* might come into existence through confrontations of
> classes
> , these then acting not in speech as speech acts but *exploding*
> --formerly discussed here--as jumping boards and real social standpoints
> against decay and corruption and profiteering . Now workers and employees
> are being expelled/dismissed from their work locales in multitudes and
great
> masses . Their children might feel in misery . This misery leads to
> confrontation , to at least revision of their due general social meanings
?
> Do they have proper senses ? Do they have their vanguards ? These are the
> bitter truths which are greatly related to sociology just when it goes to
> influence psychology of men but people wayward it unfortunately . Now the
> motive is not the motive of schooling . Schooling had many decades to go
> agent . Now the motive , want or not , is the motive of upheavals and
where
> it leads to , enduring or transient . And last but not least :
> ZAPOROZHETS :
>
> [The development of emotions, as noted by A.N. Leontiev (1972),
> L.I. Bozhovich (1968), and others is closely related to the development
> of motives of behavior that emerge with a child's new needs
> and interests. Throughout childhood not only a deep restructuring
> of organic needs takes place, but also an acquisition of material and
> spiritual values created by society, which, under certain conditions,
> become the content of a child's internal motives.
> In a study conducted under conditions of a psychological-pedagogical
> experiment, Ia.Z. Neverovich (1955a, 1955b, 1955c) analyzed
> the process of forming the simplest social motives for
> activity in preschool age children, consisting of their tendency
> to make something useful not only for themselves but also for
> others, their peers or the adults around them. This formative process
> was conducted in a specially organized collective labor activity
> of duty monitors (a child assigned supervisional
> duty-activities in the dining room, in the nature corner, in the
> play corner, etc.). This psychological-pedagogical experiment
> continued for about eight months. Initially, the instructor explained
> the meaning of their work to the children and its importance
> to the kindergarten's collective, aiming to instill in them
> an orientational basis for forthcoming actions and to create a
> preliminary notion of social significance of these actions.
> Later, the instructor systematically evaluated the duty monitors'
> work, discussing results with the children. In the course of
> joint activity, a collective opinion on the importance and necessity
> of the duty monitors' work was formed, and, thus, the fulfillment
> of working responsibilities by one child or another came to be
> evaluated not only by the instructor but also by other children.
> This created a rather rigid system of group requirements and expectations..
> The actions of a child corresponding to these requirements
> systematically received positive social reinforcement, while
> the actions not corresponding to them received a negative reaction.
> Nevertheless, the changes in children's mentality that occurred
> under given circumstances should not be interpreted as a simple
> adaptation to the actual social situation by mechanical memorization
> of encouraged forms of behavior.
> The essence of the experiment lies in reorienting the child to
> new values. A kind of devaluation of the previously most valued
> games and entertainment took place, and correspondingly, the value
> of the previously least attractive serious and difficult tasks increased.
> Due to systematic participation in an important common
> activity, the children discovered its true sense, its usefulness for
> others around them, and the importance their own role played in
> this activity. In this way, psychological prerequisites were created
> for children's acquisition of social standards and requirements,
> the fulfillment of which was necessary for the successful realization
> of the joint labor activity.
> The transformation of such requirements into requirements set
> for the self, that is, into the internal motives of children's
behavior
> was accomplished gradually, over several successive stages. Initially,
> some children completely refused to be on duty, attempting
> to shift their responsibilities to someone else. Other children, even
> if they accepted the task, did not always carry it out well: they did
> not bring the task to completion, were distracted and began to play
> instead of working, and so forth.
> Later, under created conditions of collective activity, children's
> behavior became more orderly; the tasks of a duty monitor were
> carried out in a more organized way, but this happened only in the
> presence of external support, under the direct influence of adult
> guidance and the evaluations of adults and other members of the
> children's collective. Some children remained in this stage for a
> long time. For them, the social essence of the activity was still not
> the most important matter. Praise was of primary importance to
> them, first from the instructor, and then from their peers. Only
> when they could count on such praise did these duty monitors work
> in a more or less organized and productive fashion. As soon as
> those close by stopped paying attention to them, the children ceased
> to work and switched to other activities.
> Subsequently, however, these children, some earlier, others later,
> passed to the next, higher stage of forming social motives of behavior.
> It was characteristic of this stage that the child began to fulfill
> work duties not to obtain adult praise and not to reach high social
> status in the children's collective, but rather to achieve a socially
> significant result by trying to satisfy the specific needs of people
> around them. At this point, the child acted on his own initiative without
> waiting for any instructions or encouragement, which indicated
> that the adopted social standards and requirements were transformed
> into the internal motives of the children's activity.
> In the course of forming new behavioral motives, the nature
> of the child's emotional manifestations underwent substantial
> changes. Changes in the emotional sphere directly reflected,
> above all, changes in the motives of children's labor activity.
> With the formation of such motives, an indifferent attitude toward
> labor duties was transformed into a very high emotional
> sensitivity to evaluation of their work by others. Later, concerns
> associated with evaluation seemed to fade into the background
> and were replaced by completely different feelings related to how
> well the child managed to do useful work and how closely the
> results achieved corresponded to the interests of others, which
> now became the child's own.
> Our data show, however, that emotion not only expresses one
> or another particular aspect in the motivation of child behavior;
> it also plays a significant role in the realization of these motives.]
> Then Zaporozhets goes through documenting these with experimental examples
> , that is , step-by-step promotion of motives and corresponding activities
> of the children .
> Best
> Haydi
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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