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

Re: [xmca] Re: Engstrom and Habermas (and Unification and "Freedom")

And I was thinking Jonna that the best place to find critiques of Habermas is to read other critical theorists. I think Seyla Benhabib has a good critique of him, which I would go along with. Or you might look at Nancy Fraser. 

Andy
PS. It says a lot about a writer that their best critics are their followers. 

David Kellogg wrote:

Jonna:
There's quite a bit on Habermas in Engstrom's book "Learning by Expanding". Take a look at: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm Start around page 11 in the intro. Habermas came to Korea a lot to discuss the unification issue; he took a typical liberal position, and in so doing ignored what we in Korea are far more acutely aware of: there are really two very different issues at stake, and neither one has anything to do with "freedom". a) National unification. This was expressed very eloquently by the domino which read "Ein volk!" in Berlin. There is nothing progressive about German national reunification: it is an extremely costly experiment, less than two hundred years old, that has already brought disaster to the European continent four times, most recently when the "reunited" Germany brought ethnic cleansing and genocide (sorry, I mean "freedom") to Yugoslavia. Korean unification, on the other hand, is several thousand years old, and the division of Korea, an experiment that has cost millions of lives, occurred only six decades ago. b) Brain drain. I think people forget that the original purpose of the wall was neither as a particularly fetching piece of Stalinist architecture nor a nice place for Reagan to attempt performance art. It was built in order to prevent a catastrophic "flight of quality" that risked rendering East Germany, already a qualitatively less educated place than it had been before the extermination of the Jews, a country without any intellectual infrastructure. My university, Seoul National University of Education, provides low cost education to young people who need it and have nothing to give in return except years of service to still younger people. Most of the kids think that it's an exchange worth making but there are always some exceptions, and I guess if we suffered the kind of "flight to quality (???)" that East Berlin suffered we would probably have enforceable contracts for our students (and we DID have them in the seventies). David Kellogg Seoul National University of Education 
--- On Mon, 11/9/09, Jonna Kangasoja <jonnakatariina@gmail.com> wrote:


From: Jonna Kangasoja <jonnakatariina@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Arne Raeithel's "genealogy"
To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 2:00 AM


Dear all,

I would be especially interested if someone could say something
(anything) about the influence/role of Habermas in the picture. I am
working nowadyas with (urban) planning theorists, to whom Habermas is
a very central, although contested figure. Most of my colleagues have
never heard of Activity Theory, and the one's who have, regard present
day Activity Theorists as 'Habermasian' - I am not sure if this is
quite the way to put it, or at least I never thought Habermas to be
very central in e.g. Engestöm's theory - does anyone have any comments
on this?

best, Jonna



2009/11/9 Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>:

I've been thinking ... What these diagrams lack is any information about why
a writer is included and what they contributed to CHAT. Would anyone on the
list like to put their hand up to write a paragraph (max 100 words probably)
on a writer on the diagram explaining their contribution to CHAT and their
sources? I would be happy to collate them and fix the essays to hyperlinks
on the names of each writer? ... if others do most of the writing ... then
the diagram might be genuinely useful.

Andy

Andy Blunden wrote:

Mmmmm. I didn't sign up for an intellecual map of the universe here! The
French Revolution produced a mass of political theory of course, but also,
it is widely regarded as the inspiration for Classical German Philosophy,
which is one of our sources.

World War One?  I don't know, but I have thought in the past that what
Vygotsky called "The Crisis in Psychology", viz., the myriad of conflicting
currents in psychology suddenly contesting each other after WW1, was some
kind of reaction to WW1 and the Russian Revolution.

The Reformation and the Industrial Revolution deserve mention somewhere
too, in the atlas of ideas. ...

Andy

mike cole wrote:

Hmmmmm, like the French revolution or world war I for example?
:-)
mike

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

   Both Arne's and mine are listed on
   http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/index.html and both are in that
   directory. I too would be interested in seeing some other versions.
   Something might emerge out of the crowd.

   It is interesting isn't that it is a quite small number of ... what
   do you say? ... millieux? events? movements? which produced the main
   ideas, via a whole mass of individual writers.

   Andy

   mike cole wrote:

       I think your pictured genealogy is interesting, Andy. I thought
       Arne's was too, and I a sure others can make interesting
       modifications. If anyone could do this in three D it could get
       really fascinating.

       Part of what makes for the partiality of any such attempt is the
       position of the creator. Arne was a radical cultural historical
       cognitive scientist of the
       70's-90's (roughly), an importatant odd hybrid and unusually
       nice guy.
       Maturana, who is on his list, with Varela, were central figures
       on bringing
       dynamic systems into the discussion but you do not know about
       him just
       as many of us do not know some of the figures you name, and the
       connections such as Dilthey-Wundt or Mead-Dilthey-American
       pragmatism are poorly known altogether, but fascinating (to me!)
       in their implications.

       And, of course, the historical events that various of us might
       highlight as
       most relevant are going to vary as well.

       Thanks for the new tool to think with. I'll try to get Arne's
       genealogy put
       up where yours is and perhaps others will contribute from their
       perspectives.
       mike

       On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
       <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
       <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:

          Well, here's my shot at it:
            http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Genealogy-CHAT.pdf
          I have tried to deal with your very valid point, Martin, that
       it is
          more the milieux than individuals, but I have also just omitted
a
          billion possible arrows so it is readable. It needs more than
one
          person to do this.

          Andy
          Martin Packer wrote:

              My question about the map is what the links represent.
After
              all, one scientist or philosopher may accept the ideas or
              another, or react against them, or modify them, or
       misunderstand
              them. Seems to me each of these is a different link. Also,
a
              family tree indicates two parents for every progeny, where
              Arne's genealogy seemingly shows spontaneous generation -
one
              figure alone can produce another. And wouldn't we want to
       have a
              way to map the milieus within which people were working?
       Perhaps
              something along the lines of the social fields that
       Bourdieu was
              fond of sketching, but with an added historical dimension.

              Martin

              On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:44 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:

                  To tell the truth Louise, there are a couple of names I
                  don't know and half a dozen I know so little about I
       don't
                  know why they're included ... or not. Two of the three
                  "outcomes" are people who think humans are a type of
                  computer, so I am not surpised that this genealogy is
       odd to
                  me. But there is sooooo much out there. So much to
       read. :(

                  Up till a few weeks ago I thought that starting with
                  Descartes was not justified, but I take that back
       now. But
                  somehow, Rene's nemesis, Aristotle, needs to be
       included as
                  well.

                  I don't know anything about Vico, but I find Locke,
       Berkeley
                  and Leibniz to be rather peripheral to *our* story.

                  Kant certainly deserves an important place, but I
       think his
                  nemesis, Goethe, may be more important for us.

                  Fichte is actually the inventor of Activity as a
                  philosophical concept (I just learnt that Hegel asked
       to be
                  buried next to Fichte; like Goethe, very under
       recognized in
                  the Anglophone world).

                  Hegel is the inventor of Cultural Psychology, so
       agreed there.

                  I think Stirner and Mach are total diversions from our
                  tradition. But maybe someone can explain to me their
       role.

                  Wundt and Dilthey are important, though I don't know
       them well.

                  Feuerbach is a bit of a footnote, but if you're going
to
                  have Feuerbach, you've gotta have Moses Hess, author of
                  "Philosophy of the Deed", and inspiration for "Theses
on
                  Feuerbach". Of course if you think Frege, Russell and
       Turing
                  are important to the genealogy of CHAT, then you
wouldn't
                  want Hess.

                  MARX, obviously, in CAPS.

                  And I would have lines from a whole bunch of people
       going to
                  Dewey, as well as Peirce and Mead, but even though
Peirce
                  was the elder, I don't think you can give him such
       priority.
                  Dewey surely was the leader. Arguable.

                  And where are the Gestaltists? Again, not for computer
                  cognition, but there needs to be lines between Goethe
and
                  Kant and then to von Ehrenfels, and on to Koehler and
Co.

                  Russian linguists like Potebnya, but I don't know
       where they
                  came from.

                  And these threads are all tied together with LS
       Vygotsky, yes?

                  Freud has to be mentioned (I forget his sources), with
                  arrows to Luria. And after Vygotsky and Luria you
       have ANL
                  and thus to present day people,

                  I guess, you can't leave out Piaget, and I don't know
                  Piaget's sources.

                  I know some people rate Merleau-Ponty, but if you're
       going
                  to give Merleau-Pony a seat, you have to put in
       Lukacs and
                  Horkheimer. I guess Habermas for discourse ethics, etc.

                  I have no idea why Husserl and Heidegger get a
       mention. I my
                  humble opinion, as clever as they might be, their
       impact on
                  Activity Theory has only been negative.

                  I have no idea why Bergson is mentioned: was he a
       source for
                  Piaget? Don't know why Nietzsche is there.
       Interesting guy,
                  but so are many others. Why von Uexhill?

                  I agree that Wittgenstein rates a mention, though I
don't
                  know how much of a source he has been for us. He is
some
                  kind of version of Activity Theory.

                  Frege, Russell and Turing are nothing to do with
       CHAT. What
                  about anthropologists??

                  Never heard of Maturana.

                  That's my reaction,

                  Andy

                  Louise Hawkins wrote:

                      Andy,
                      I remember seeing this diagram a number of years
ago,
                      and I found it useful as a big picture diagram to
       get my
                      head around the significant theorist.
                      Regards
                      Louise Hawkins
                      Lecturer - School of Management & Information
Systems
                      Faculty Business & Informatics
                      Building 19/Room 3.38
                      Rockhampton Campus
                      CQUniversity
                      Ph: +617 4923 2768
                      Fax: +617 4930 9729
                       -----Original Message-----
                      From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net
       <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
                      <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
       <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>] Sent: Wednesday, 4 November
                      2009 01:05 PM
                      To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
                      Subject: [xmca] Arne Raeithel's "genealogy"

 http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Theoretical%20connections.jpg
                      I never found this map very useful to be honest.
                      Andy
                      mike cole wrote:

                          Have you found Arne Raeithel's "genealogy" of
                          cultural-historical, activity theory thinkers
       from
                          several years back. I am sure it is somewhere
at
                          lchc.ucsd.edu <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>
       <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>
                          <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>. Perhaps you (and Andy,
                          and.....) could update it with
                          more detail. Hegel generated so much that has
       been
                          "laundered" by subsequent "original" thinkers
its
                          totally amazing, and ditto Mead (whose writings
i
                          know far better, although very inadequately).

                      _______________________________________________
                      xmca mailing list
                      xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
       <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>

                      http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
                      _______________________________________________
                      xmca mailing list
                      xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
       <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>

                      http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


                  --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
                  Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev,
       Meshcheryakov,
                  Ilyenkov $20 ea

                  _______________________________________________
                  xmca mailing list
                  xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
       <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>

                  http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca




          --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
          Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
          Ilyenkov $20 ea

          _______________________________________________
          xmca mailing list
          xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
       <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>

          http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



   --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
   Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
   Ilyenkov $20 ea



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov $20 ea

_______________________________________________
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



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov $20 ea 

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca