Re: [xmca] Those Pesky emotions in the ZPD

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

larry--

The attached article is focused on adolescence--> adult transition, but I
think it is
relevant to making judgment about normativity that extend back in
development to
the beginning or earlier, whatever that might be.
mike

PS--  very difficult reconciling very different sources of
evidence/intuition "on the fly byte by byte"!!


On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Hi David and Ana
>
> I been thinking about the "normative" aspect of development and how
> development is conceptualized differently within particular historical
> moments.  Also when Ana suggested that their are many dimensions to
> development beyond abstraction and generalization I reflected on how some
> Discourses reflect on affective development.  Following is some reflections
> from Frank Lachmann and Beatrice Beebe who have been exploring the same
> affective developmental terrain as Daniel Stern, Fonagy, and others. They
> look to the parent-infant relationship for understanding the dynamic
> movement  of the developmental process.
> Lachmann and Beebe in an earlier (1989) article in Psychoanalytic
> Psychology, 1989, 6(2), p. 137-149  "Oneness Fantasies Revisited" take the
> position that earlier phases of development both organize and continue to be
> transformed by later phases of development.  Of special interest in this
> article are the complex and subtle interactive experiences of MATCHING
> (imitation) DISRUPTION, and REPAIR exchanges of active participants in an
> activity.
> Infant researchers have documented numerous kinds of matching interactions
> in infancy.  These have variously been termed "mirroring" "imitation"
> "matching" "attunement" (D.Stern)  Beebe and Lachmann are most interested in
> the dynamic process of CYCLES of match, disruption, and repair in face to
> face interactions.Tronick researched mother-infant play interactions with
> infants at  2 to 6 months old. When these interactions were videotaped and
> microanalyzed Tronick found 30% of mismatched states "were repaired within 1
> second and within 2 seconds 70% of mismatched states are repaired". EACH
> partner has a chance to alter his behavior or his/her partners behavior to
> reestablish a matched state.
> Lachmann and Beebe that the managing of the cycle from matching to
> disruption to repair is the beginning of a lifelong developmental capacity
> to FLEXIBLY span the the DIMENSION of experience from "we-ness" to a sense
> of "self".  They emphasize this is only a single dimension or source of WE
> and SELF experiences and there are multiple developmental sources.
> D. Stern (1983) suggests vocalizing in alternation, where each person takes
> his or her turn is later transformed into a conversational dialogue in the
> exchange of symbolic information.  Bowlby's Attachment theory describes
> toddlers moving back and forth between mother (attachment) and the
> environment (emergence and alterity)
> Tronick developed a "still-face method" where mother shows no response to
> the infants engagement and differentiates the infant's response along a
> continuum from most to least adaptive. Those infants who continue to signal
> the mother (with positive or negative emotions) and repair the interactional
> mismatch are considered most adaptive.
> Tronick's conclusions to the research was that the mode of managing match
> and disruption in "normal" ongoing interaction does BIAS DEVELOPMENT.  The
> CAPACITY for INTERACTIVE REPAIR increases security of attachment. The
> capacity to FLEXIBLY move along the range of sense of self to "we"
> experiences is a developmental achievement and a loss oe diminishment of
> this flexibility leaves a person more vulnerable.
> Beebe and Lachmann suggest it is the mode of managing the sequence from
> match to disruption to repair (which can change in a 1 to 2 second interval)
> which may BIAS the solutions to development at each transformation.
> Mother-infant patterns of match-disruption-repair "begin a long chain of
> developmental transformations. The various transformations of these patterns
> will ultimately be relevant to the adult's capacity to FLEXIBLY encompass
> the range of experience from sense of self to oneness." (p146)
> This dimension of optimally being flexible to experience both "Self" and
> "we" develops over a life time rather than within a specific stage (as in
> traditional psychoanalysis) A growing child's perceptual, affective, and
> cognitive capacities are influenced by the capacity to maintain both a firm
> sense of self and the ability to flexibly yield one's sense of a bounded
> self.  Gradually, over time, this range of experience is abstracted and
> represented in symbolic elaborations but the process of
> match-disruption-repair continues throughout life and can be reinforced or
> undermined within socio-cultural settings. These processes are generally not
> in the FOREGROUND of awareness in ongoing experience across all stages of
> development.
>
> David and Ana and others interested in the Zo-ped
> This post is an attempt to articulate one particular dimension of the
> multiple dimensions Ana pointed out.  It points to the movement of emotions
> and the centrality of the affective dimension within the Zo-ped at the
> microgenetic level of analysis.  As Ana stated at the end of her post
> What do others think?
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
> Date: Monday, February 15, 2010 9:13 pm
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Those Pesky emotions in the ZPD
> To: Culture ActivityeXtended Mind <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
> >
> > Thanks, Larry, for your thought-provoking quotes, your
> > thoughtful comments, and above all for changing the subject
> > line. Of course, it goes without saying that emotions are not
> > mostly adjectives; an adjective is merely a type of word. As
> > Bakhtin reminds us, personal emotion is an inseparable part of
> > every word meaning, but the part of speech is not.
> >
> > I suspect that If anything English tends towards verbs
> > in expressing emotion, partly, I think, because of a general
> > emphasis on individual activity in English grammar (SVO, the
> > hero slew the dragon, instead of SOV, once upon a time, a dragon
> > and a hero did combat). In Korean, "feeling" is mostly nominal,
> > and "kibun" (individual emotion) is a kind of microcosm of
> > "bunwigi", social emotion.
> >
> > Mr. Bae Hicheol, a valued member of our Vygotsky translation
> > team who is, along with his fellow teachers, the target of very
> > nasty government witch-hunt, pointed out to me this morning
> > that the distinction between "vertical" and "horizontal" isn't
> > simply a distinction between "hierarchy" and "democracy", or
> > even between concrete, syntagmatic relations of the sort we find
> > in e-motions that are produced as a result of action in a
> > concrete situation (e.g. conversations about everyday matters)
> > and the abstract, paradigmatic relations we find in sicence
> > concepts.
> >
> > It's a distinction between quantitative, gradualistic,
> > incremental learning (e.g. times tables, lists of likes
> > and dislikes, simple categories of good and bad guys) and
> > qualitative, revolutionary, paradigm-shifting development (e.g.
> > access to algebraic relations, principles of artistic taste,
> > concepts of justice and fairness).
> >
> > Yrjo Engestrom pointed out that "horizontal" movement eventually
> > involves transgressing boundaries. But we can often move pretty
> > far, at least in language learning, without a fundamental
> > paradigm shift.  For example, if you are at the stage of
> > ostension, everything becomes an object you can hold (and emote
> > over). Of course, you rapidly run out of things within arms
> > reach, but there is a simple strategy for coping with that which
> > does not restructure the language system; you simply crawl a
> > little ways further. The same thing is true of  indicatory
> > reference, where everything either near or far becomes an object
> > you can point at. It is even true of naming.
> >
> > It's really only when we start to talk of things that cannot be
> > seen (the past, the future, the imaginary character, the
> > abstract principle) that we need a signifying function at all.
> > But as soon as we do this (even when we are talking perfectly
> > concretely, but about things we want or things we miss) we knock
> > our heads against a very hard paradigm ceiling which only
> > NEGATION can really shatter.
> >
> > I don't think e-motion is any different, at least in principle.
> > It's actually possible to go on feeling your own feelings and
> > expressing a vast variety of your own feelings without any
> > fundamental, qualitative growth. Development arises when, in the
> > course of role play, it becomes necessary to feel feelings that
> > you don't actually feel, or feelings that someone else is
> > feeling. It's precisely at this point that emotion becomes the
> > basis of esthetics, and even the basis of ethics.
> >
> > Here are some kids role playing "The Bremen Town Musicians" in a
> > fifth grade English class in a public school here in Seoul. The
> > donkey leaves his master to become a Beatle in Hamburg, and
> > meets a hound-dog along the way.
> >
> > T: (pointing to the third picture) Dog! Yes, he ... they met ...
> > they meet a
> > Ss: Dog!
> > T: Dog. What are they saying to the dog?
> > Ss: Can you join us?
> > T: Can you join us? Let's go together. Can you join us? And the
> > dog says ...
> > S1: See you again.
> > S2: Sure!
> > S3: Who are you?
> > S4: Do you want to die?
> >
> >
> > Now, you might think that S4's comment is simply being sassy,
> > because of course "Do you want to die?" is the way that Korean
> > yakuza threaten each other. But it comes up again when the dog
> > and the donkey meet a mouse:
> >
> >
> > T: The donkey, the cat, the dog says to the mouse ... ?
> > S: Can you join us?
> > T: Can you join us?
> > S9: Sorry! Sorry! Sorry! Sorry!
> > T: The mouse says ...
> > S: Sorry, I can't. I'm play computer game.
> > S: Do you want to die?
> >
> > Now at this point the teacher might respond. Of course, "Do you
> > want to die?" could mean something like if you DON'T want to
> > die, you have to go to Bremen and join my rock band. But another
> > child has a better idea and suggests, with the teacher's help,
> > that the mouse might have a very good reason for not joining.
> >
> >
> > T: Sorry, I can't. Why? Why do you think ... he says "Sorry, I can't"?
> > Ss: *&^%$#@!
> > S: I don't like cat!
> > T: Why do you think he says "Sorry, I can't."?
> > S21: I'm tired!
> > S: Teacher! Because I don't like *&^%$
> > S: Tired! I'm tired!
> > S: I don't like YOU!
> > T: Uh? Jerry can't join them? Jerry? Jerry? The mouse can't join them?
> > S!: Ah! Ah! (pointing to the cat in the book) Tom! Tom!
> > T: Yes, his name must be Jerry. Why ... why can't he join them?
> > S: Ah! ... Mouse doesn't like cat!
> > KT: Because the mouse ...
> > S: don't like cat.
> > T: doesn't like the cat. He is (gesturing of being scared)
> > scared of ...
> > S: cat.
> > KT: the cat. Yes, maybe ... maybe. What ... what ... what
> > happens next?
> >
> > Now we have an interesting twist in the tail. Can the story
> > accomodate it? Can Tom provide some kind of safety guarantee?
> > Will he keep to it? Here some real development seems not only
> > possible but inevitable.
> >
> > Of course, it's easier to get to ascend to this point if you see
> > individual feelings ("I don't like you") as a descent of social
> > emotion to the individual in the first place ("Can you join
> > us?")!
> >
> > This is the day after Seolal, here in Korea--the rice harvest
> > festival when everybody goes home (via a three day traffic jam)
> > to bow to their elders and hope for a prosperous new year. Hope
> > works better in large groups. Let us all pitch in and hope for
> > bigger harvests, smaller traffic jams, and a world in
> > which witches get to go hunting instead of being hunted like mice.
> >
> > David Kellogg and Friends
> > Seoul National University of Education
> >
> > --- On Mon, 2/15/10, Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>
> > Subject: [xmca] Those Pesky emotions in the ZPD
> > To: "Activity eXtended Mind, Culture," <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Date: Monday, February 15, 2010, 2:45 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David and Ana
> > I thought I would start a new post so we don't loose focus on
> > the dialogical functions of development in the other thread.
> > I've attached the Chaiklin article on the ZPD to help clarify
> > David's recommendation we not loose focus on the notion of
> > development of higher mental functions.
> > However the place of emotions in development also needs
> > articulation and therefore this new thread that focuses more
> > centrally on pesky emotions.
> > I want to quote a passage from Gordon Well's and Guy Claxton's
> > edited volume Learning For Life in the 21st Century on page 8 of
> > the introduction which is inviting reflection on e-motions and
> > identity formation.
> >
> > "We must ask how can the concept of individual agency be
> > reconciled with the strong emphasis on
> > socialization/enculturation that is taken to be a central
> > feature of sociocultural theory, as well as of most public
> > education.?  We might also note here  that traditionally
> > education has tended to IGNORE social and emotional development,
> > concentrating almost exclusively on intellectual development,
> > and, more specifically, on the acquisition of bodies of
> > formalized knowledge. From a CHAT perspective, however, all
> > human activity is inherently social and IMBUED WITH EMOTION.
> > Along with other more HUMANISTIC perspectives, which are also
> > challenging the status quo, CHAT therefore invites us to inquire
> > how educational activities can be designed to engage the active
> > involvement of the student as a 'whole person' and to contribute
> > positively to IDENTITY FORMATION." (page 8, emphasis added)
> >
> > Wells and Claxton also quote Vygotsky on this same theme.
> >
> > "Thought has its origins in the MOTIVATING sphere of
> > consciousness; a sphere that includes our inclinations and
> > needs, our interests and impulses, and our AFFECT and EMOTION
> > ... A true and complex understanding of another's thought
> > becomes possible ONLY when we discover its real AFFECTIVE-
> > VOLITIONAL basis. (Vygotsky, 1987, page 282, emphasis added)
> >
> >  As Vygotsky, Wells, Claxton, (and many others in the CHAT
> > community, the larger sociocultural community, and the even
> > larger humanistic community) make clear  those pesky emotions
> > have a place in our ongoing discourse on the ZPD.
> >
> > Ana's account of the complexity of the ZPD and the many
> > functions and dimensions of development (not learning) of the
> > whole person invites us to elaborate the "affective-volitional
> > basis" as foundational to our continuing dialogue.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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