[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Communication/social relations/obshenie
A group from my university attended the Vygotsky/Golden Key Summer
School earlier in the year and returned home all talking about the
importance of obshchenie (this is the spelling we have been using -
funny that it is a cross between Mike and Katrina's). While they said
that Elena Kravtsova translated it as 'social communication' she also
made it clear that this was not really an adequate translation for
capturing the true expansive meaning of the word.
In reference to my earlier message, pasted below, I'm wondering whether
it is actually 'obshchenie' that is the unique property of 'obuchenie'
(teaching/learning)? - i.e. it is all about the special social/emotional
relationships between and among teachers and learners in the joint
activity of obuchenie that make the difference.
Perhaps some Russian speakers can help further?
Thanks,
Helen.
Earlier message: Helen wrote....
I am currently attempting to use obuchenie as a central
concept in my PhD research, arguing that perhaps using a 'new' word with
teachers makes it easier for them to think about teaching and learning
in a new way (as a conjoint practice that both teachers and learners
engage in together).
I have argued that it is difficult to assign new conceptualisations to
existing terms we have traditionally conceptualised in different ways
and that perhaps using teaching/learning still provides an image of
simply bringing together the two contradictory practices of teaching and
learning (as understood in their old way) rather than helping teachers
think about it in a new way as a dialectical unity which has its own
unique properties (more than the sum of its parts).
I then go on in my proposal for confirmation of candidature paper to
spend nearly 6000 words trying to explain what the unique properties of
obuchenie are. In a nutshell I talk about the ZPD (although taking a
holistic approach to development recognising the importance of the
affective dimension alongside the more typical cognitive approach);
intersubjectivity and perezhivanie; authentic meaning and motives for
participating in the activity; and recognising that all of this occurs
within a particular cultural-historical context that both determines and
is determined by the interactions of the participants.
I would be interested to hear what others think are the unique qualities
of obuchenie and why/whether translations as even teaching/learning or
teaching-learning may be inadequate for generating new understandings
amongst teachers.
----- Original Message -----
From: Katarina Rodina <katja@student.uv.uio.no>
Date: Monday, November 23, 2009 4:30 am
Subject: Re: [xmca] Communication/social relations/obshenie
To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> The problem with terminology is a tricky one. The understanding of
> terminology in Russian Psychology as "communication", "social
> interaction"and "Obchenie" is far from being straightforward.
>
> I've tried to investigate the problem of communication (obchenie) in
> Vygotsky's, Leontiev's and so-called neo-Vygotskian research (see
> belowRodina (2006)) .
>
> The problem of communication as a social relation (rus. obchenie,
> German"Verkehr") is highlighted in the works of A.N. Leontiev,
> Zaporozhets and
> M. Lisina, i.e. the concept of early ontogeny of communication
> (obchenie)as a communicative activity (not speech activity as an
> object of study as
> in psycholinguistics). Lisina's theory of early emotional
> communication/obchenia as a Leading Acitivity has much in common with
> Trevarthen's concept of early inter-subjective communication and
> socio-emotional development in early ontogeny. Bodrova & Leong
> (1996: 51)
> could also be mentioned as a contemporary variant of Elkonin's and
> Lisina's psychological concept of early emotional
> communication/obcheniawith Tronick`s (1989) "interactional synchrony".
>
> Lisina's understanding of communication/obchenia as a psychological
> category was based on Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory of
> developmentof HMF and Leontiev's activity theory (see for example
> Lisina, M. (1985)
> Child-Adults-Peers: Patterns of Communication. Progress Publishers;
> Karpov,Y.(2005). The Neo-Vygotskian Approach to Child Development.
> Cambridge University Press; Bodrova, E. & Leong, B.(1996). Tools of
> theMind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education.
> Prentice-Hall,
> Inc., pp. 50-55; Rodina, K. (2006).The Neo-Vygotskian Approach to
> EarlyCommunication: A Cultural-Historical and Activity based
> Concept of
> Ontogeny. Nordic Psychology,Vol.58, No.4, 331-354).
>
> Katarina
>
>
> On Sat, November 21, 2009 17:22, mike cole wrote:
> > " Since communication is the precise measure of the possibility of
> social
> > organization, of good understanding among men (sic), relations
> that are
> beyond its range are not truly social..
> > GH Cooley, 1894.
> >
> > for Cooley, like Pierce, "mind is made concrete in culture."
> >
> > ---------------
> > Cooley's first book: The theory of transportation. No accident that.
> >
> > mike
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
>
> --
> Katarina A. Rodina
> Research Fellow (PhD)/Logoped,MNLL
> Department of Special Needs Education,
> University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1140 Blindern,
> NO-0318 Oslo, Norway
> Phone: +47 41 108 408/Fax: +47 22 85 80 21
> E-mail: katarina.rodina@isp.uio.no
> http://staffdirectory.uv.uio.no/singleview/v1/index.php?user=katja
> http://katarinarodina.blogspot.com/
>
> Head of Russo-Norwegian Academic Relations,
> The Vygotsky Institute of Psychology/RSUH
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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