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

[xmca] intersubjectivity and collaboration

Hello Vera and Andy:

Thank you for contributions to this topic:

Here is a link to Andy referring to Vera's work entitled "Creative 


Vera, could you please provide a few thoughts on your understanding of 
intersubjectivity?  Perhaps Fonagy has misinterpreted it to further his 
concept of mentalization.

always attempting to learn  : )


"Vera Steiner" <vygotsky@unm.edu>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
04/26/2010 11:00 AM
Please respond to Vera Steiner; Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, 

        To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
        Subject:        Re: [xmca] Honestly....

Hi Eric and Andy,

I have always been uncomfortable with the notion of innate 
particularly Freud's "death" instinct and Chomsky's innate linguistic 
structures. Currently, the strong presence of evolutionary theory
of various strands brings us back to questions of species-specific skills 
and their survival values. Tomasello whose work I respect greatly has been 

publishing lately about human forms of cooperation or "shared
intentionality." He is very persuasive relying on research in his lab 
comparing children and chimpanzees on various tasks.(see for example, Why 
Cooperate?)He continues to emphasize  how cooperation is culturally shaped 

and mediated. I think we are confronting an important issue.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [xmca] Honestly....

> Eric, I think it quite possible to hold at the same time different 
> positions on intersubjectivity and on the question of innate/acquired. 
> There is no doubt that there are social animals whose sociality is 
> and who can therefore acquire new skills socially. But I believe CHAT is 
> current of thought which holds that becoming human is possible only 
> through interaction with other people using culturally acquired 
> (i.e., intersubjectivity plus artefacts), but even the tendency to 
> in interaction is acquired only because other human beings around the 
> child "summon" the child to interaction. There is no innate drive to 
> sociality in human beings. A. I. Meshcheryakov's book is definitive on 
> this question I believe.
> Does that answer your question, Eric? I wasn't sure I got your meaning 
> exactly.
> Andy
> ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>> ....didn't realize equating Piaget with intersubjectivity would create 
>> conflaguration of misunderstanding.
>> Am I incorrect in my understanding of intersubjectivity?  I believe it 
>> be based on innate abilities rather than appropriated skills.  Perhaps 
>> Bahktin did not write on this, I must admit I am shallow in my 
>> understanding of Bahktin.
>> Initially in my study of LSV and the CHAT tradition I was a person who 
>> prioritized innate abilities but as I have studied and practiced 
>> I have come to  realize that being human IS developed via interactions 
>> and attachments.  Biological genetics must play into it but I have a 
>> time believing that intersubjectivity is biological in nature.
>> Am I talking in circles or drowing in misunderstanding?
>> eric
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 Skype 
> andy.blunden
> An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list