[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [xmca] Applicability of CHAT to US society

      Point taken Peter
      Sorry about my mistake
      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: Peter Smagorinsky [mailto:smago@uga.edu] 
Sent: 14. tammikuuta 2009 17:09
To: merja.helle@helsinki.fi; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
Subject: RE: [xmca] Applicability of CHAT to US society
      
      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