Re: [xmca] Communication/social relations/obshenie

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

I dare not say "Naaaaay."
mike

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:

>
> Yes, Mike, there is nothing to bring a fossil back to life like
> re-contextualizing its meanings with a new backstory, even one slightly
> different from what we have long been used to.
>
> We can have both a kind of stability and respect for tradition, for what we
> have come to share as common touchstones of meaning and discourse that help
> us cohere as a community, AND joy at finding ever new ways of re-thinking
> and making unanticipated uses of and connections with the old warhorses.
>
> Which is what keeps some of us horses going, eh?
>
> :-)
>
> JAY.
>
>
>     Jay Lemke
> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
> Educational Studies
> University of Michigan
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>
> Visiting Scholar
> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
> University of California -- San Diego
> La Jolla, CA
> USA 92093
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   On Nov 28, 2009, at 3:56 PM, mike cole wrote:
>
> I think that what makes issues of definition simultaneously so difficult
> an"d so thought provoking in the cross-linguistic cases we have been talking
> about, Jay, is that we have
> both sympathy for the ideas-as-translated which has been a (somewhat)
> common source of our ideas AND that what you refer to as "theory" or
> Discourse is a whole world view with a long history.
>
> At least I am knocked over repeatedly by the new perspectives on
> "fossilized" ideas I have by these encounters.
> mike
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>> I am backtracking through recent topics on the list as I play catch-up.
>>
>> It might be worth noting in regard to a number of recent discussions about
>> un-translatability and cross-language terminology, that (a) words don't
>> really work according to our folk-theory that they can be individually
>> "defined", or translated; (b) meanings get made with systems of interlinked
>> words, which form somewhat more stable "sets" (what I've called thematic
>> systems or thematic formations); and (c) to define the meanings and
>> relationships among the terms in such a set, you generally need to explicate
>> the whole "theory" or Discourse (ala Gee) in which they function. You then
>> get the sense of each of the terms as part of this larger discourse whole.
>> You can translate essays, and maybe even paragraphs, but certainly not
>> words.
>>
>> JAY.
>>
>> PS. Mathematics and science have been trying to force language to fit our
>> folk-theory of how it should work, with for example, stable definitions of
>> individual terms, but for the most part have failed (esp. in science when
>> dealing with concepts), and only in some areas of pure, abstract mathematics
>> may have partly succeeded, though I still have my doubts. I think one can
>> learn, as a member of a specialist community, to read and interpret "as if"
>> bottom-up from the individual terms and definitions, but only because of
>> being immersed in a culture which enables one to background the inevitable
>> "backstory" which meaning requires.
>>
>>
>> Jay Lemke
>> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
>> Educational Studies
>> University of Michigan
>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>>
>> Visiting Scholar
>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
>> University of California -- San Diego
>> La Jolla, CA
>> USA 92093
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 22, 2009, at 4:22 PM, mike cole wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca