Re: [xmca] Communication/social relations/obshenie

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

obuchenie without obshchenie is a little difficult to imagine, helen.
communication devoid of affect seems to offer a similar set of problems.

Again, in every case of "definition" we have (a largely unexplicated,
because you can never say everything about anything) a large,
pre-supposed set of theoretical assumptions about the processes being
defined.

What makes discussion of these cases always (potentially) useful
is that different ways of defining/interpreting provide glimpses of the
theoretical field which provides the lens through which we and our
interlocutors are interpreting/delimiting the processes of (potentially!)
common interest.

mike
(PS-- My spelling and typing are no better in transliterated Russian than in
English)  :-((


On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Helen Grimmett <
helen.grimmett@education.monash.edu.au> wrote:

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