RE: [xmca] Applicability of CHAT to US society

["Peter Smagorinsky" <smago@uga.edu>]

At no point in the review do I say that Finland is a socialist country. I
hope that comments on the review are based on the review itself, rather than
on paragraphs taken out of context. Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of merja helle
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:09 AM
To: ablunden@mira.net; 'eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity'
Subject: RE: [xmca] Applicability of CHAT to US society

      As a Finnish citizen living in Finland I was really surprised to se
the word "socialist" or "socialistic" used to describe Finnish society. We
have a "republican" government, only 20 % of voters support social
democrats, we live in a highly competitive capitalist society where
privatization is the key mantra. 
      Free school and university education, cheap healthcare, working child
care, fair wages etc should not be excluded from the ideal of a market based
society.
      Here we think that the US is becoming more "socialist" by supporting
and guiding private banks, car manufacturers etc :-). Maybe even getting
affordable health care coverage for all.
      As to the use of Yrjö's triangle, sure it has been used in many places
in many different ways for many different purposes. But the idea behind it
does not apply only to "socialist" countries. We are all in our lives
members in many activity systems, like workplaces, schools, commerce,
hobbies etc. Sure we have different possibilities to influence our
conditions and future possibilities, 
      but as John Donne wrote already in 1624
      "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy
friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am
involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell
tolls; it tolls for thee."
      Merja
Merja Helle
Head of Research
Education and Development Services
University of Art and Design Helsinki
+358 504485 111
Address: Hämeentie 153 B
00560 Helsinki, Finland
merja.helle@taik.fi
       
      
      -----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: 14. tammikuuta 2009 1:00
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Applicability of CHAT to US society
      
      You raise very interesting questions Richard. I can't 
      address the issue of the ubiquitous use of Engstrom's logo 
      (mnemonic? template?), but just in relation to the use of 
      the basic ideas of CHAT in societies like the US.
      
      I write from Australia, though half my working life was in 
      Britain. Australia is somewhat midway between Europe and the 
      US with respect to the dominance of individualism in the 
      work situation. Since I returned to Australia in 1985, union 
      membership has dropped from 44% to something like 14%, so 
      conditions here are starting to resemble the US in some ways.
      
      The theoretical issue as I see it is: what is the impact of 
      individualist ideas and individualist methods of government, 
      work organisation and cultural production on the adequacy of 
      theoretical instruments which are presaged on an 
      understanding of the human condition as primarily collective 
      and only derivatively individual?
      
      It seems to me obvious that the traditions of the American 
      bourgeoisie can make deep inroads into the nature of human 
      life in the US, but they cannot turn people into actual 
      realisations of decision theory economics. I think we have 
      to view the forms of organisation and cultural production 
      which militate against collective self-consciousness as one 
      of the elements of the social conditions, i.e., itself part 
      of the collective. Otherwise, where do these ideas come from?
      
      For example, here in Australia, and I am sure in the US too 
      (because the gurus all speak with American accents), there 
      has been very widespread use of "Japanese" methods of 
      industrial organisation, such as team work, quality circles 
      and so on. But when you look closely at how these methods 
      are applied in corporations, it actually functions to 
      reinforce hierarchy and atomise individuals by undermining 
      trust and corruption of language, and so on.
      
      Also, in the US there is a frightening level of 
      "communitarianism" looked at from here. But it takes the 
      form of people flying flags in their front yards etc., 
      something unheard of here. So the supposed individualism is 
      very selective. Like our old Prime Minister who was proud of 
      our Diggers at Gallipoli, proud of our cricket team, but 
      disclaimed any connection with the crimes of the settlers 
      against the indigenous people. Selective.
      
      That's my reaction anyway Richard. I am sure others will 
      have much more to say!
      
      Andy
      
      Richard Beach wrote:
      > In his review of The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky. Harry Daniels,
Michael
      > Cole, and James V. Wertsch (Eds.), in the (2009,
January/February/March)
      > issue of Reading Research Quarterly, 44(1), 85­95, Peter Smagorinsky
argues
      > that while a CHAT research perspective may be relevant for analysis
of
      > workplaces/schools in socialist countries like Finland, it may not
be
      > relevant for analysis of schooling in America:
      >  
      > Engeström¹s chapter in CCV details his Change
      > Laboratory, an intervention used in Finnish workplaces
      > in which groups of employees use Engeström¹s activity
      > triangle among other artifacts as a means to improving
      > how they work together toward a common goal. This
      > triangle has become a ubiquitous slide or overhead at
      > countless conference presentations I have attended and
      > numerous articles published in U.S. and international
      > journals. And yet I do not see in U.S. research, for the
      > most part, its relevance to the issues under study, which
      > tend to lean more toward analyses of situated individuals
      > than investigations of group processes. In my view,
      > the activity triangle, much like the oft-trivialized ZPD of
      > recent years, has become for many a means of affiliation
      > with a fashionable theory rather than a conceptual tool
      > for conducting a rigorous activity analysis that follows
      > from Leontiev¹s move in focus from the individual to
      > the collective.
      >  
      >>From a cultural perspective, I see activity theory being
      > a much more productive heuristic for scholars working
      > in relatively socialistic societies, such as Engeström¹s
      > Finland, than in overtly competitive capitalist nations,
      > such as the United States. I seriously question the degree
      > to which activity theory, at least as advocated by
      > Engeström, genuinely frames the majority of studies for
      > which it is invoked in the United States. I have fallen
      > into this trap myself (sans the triangle) by claiming an
      > activity theory perspective for research that looks at individual
      > internalization and externalization rather than
      > collective action; my critique here applies to my own
      > work as much as it applies to anyone else¹s.  (p. 93)
      >  
      > This provocative critique raises all kinds of questions about the
nature of
      > contemporary American political culture, and whether schooling in
America
      > reflects an individualist versus collective culture perspective. The
current
      > neo-conservative/neo-liberal political era since Reagen evident in
casino
      > capitalism and application of a business-management discourse to
schooling
      > (Fairclough) has collapsed, a collapse best portrayed in the
dysfunctional
      > systems portrayed in the HBO series, The Wire.
      >  
      > Is it possible to generalize about the applicability of CHAT to all
of
      > American society?  America clearly isn¹t Finland (it ranks near the
bottom
      > of the top 25 advanced countries in terms of support for children).
      >  
      > However, there may be or may have been more ³socialist² pre-Reagen
cultural
      > pockets in America.  When I moved to Minnesota in the 1970s, I
experienced a
      > collective sense of community built around the Progressive political
      > movement, a Scandinavian culture, and strong labor unions.  (One of
Peter¹s
      > studies of ³character education² found cultural differences between
the
      > Upper Midwest and the Deep South in their attitudes towards the role
of
      > schooling in society).
      >  
      > While Minnesota has moved away from these cultural traditions, we
did
      > experience the rise of Paul Wellstone and his use of grass-roots
political
      > organizing that built on these traditions, a system emulated in the
Obama
      > campaign.  Whether that system?driven by the object of engaging
voters to
      > achieve the outcome of winning can transfer/translate into governing
or even
      > begin to move to a more ³socialist² society remains to be seen.
      >  
      > There are also signs of collective political activity/participatory
critical
      > inquiry mediated by uses of digital communication tools well
documented in a
      > chapter by Chip Bruce and Ann Bishop, ³New Literacies and Community
      > Inquiry,² in Corio, Leu, Knobel, & Lankshear¹s Handbook of New
Literacies
      > Research. They identify various projects such as SisterNet in which
African
      > American women in Champaign, Illinois share information online about
issues
      > of health/poverty or a neighborhood organization in Chicago designed
to
      > engage in political action.  Such projects certainly represent
instances of
      > collective activity that could be examined using a CHAT perspective.
      >  
      > I¹d be curious as to other XMCA¹ers responses to Peter¹s very
interesting
      > charge.
      >  
      >  
      >  
      >  
      >  
      > 
      > Richard Beach
      > Professor of English Education
      > Department of Curriculum and Instruction
      > 359 Peik Hall, 159 Pillsbury Dr., S. E.
      > University of Minnesota
      > Minneapolis, MN 55455
      > rbeach@umn.edu
      > 612-625-3893 (voice messages only)
      > 952-649-7289 
      > Teaching Literature to Adolescents website
      > <http://www.teachingliterature.org/teachingliterature/>
      > TeachingMediaLiteracy.Com book website
      > <http://teachingmedialiteracy.com>
      > Teaching Digital Writing website
      > <http://digitalwriting.pbwiki.com>
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > _______________________________________________
      > xmca mailing list
      > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
      > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
      > 
      
      -- 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 
      Skype andy.blunden
      Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
      http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm
      
      _______________________________________________
      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