[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Honestly....
- Subject: Re: [xmca] Honestly....
- From: Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:20:16 +1000
- Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <OFC886C376.17F68715-ON86257711.004E5A0D-86257711.004EF28A@spps.org> <4BD5A898.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-agent: Thunderbird 188.8.131.52 (Windows/20090812)
As you know, I'm not talking from my own research, just what
I have read by Ilyenkov and A I Meshcheryakov, so I am open
to being proved wrong by people who have actually researched
the topic. But I actually don't see the observations that
either of you have raised as contradicting the point I
wanted to make.
It is obvious that human organisms are born (or gestated,
whatever the word is) with characteristics which are only
later realized. If there is no basis for flying in the human
baby, it cannot learn to fly. But whatever is in the
organism is only realized though interaction with other
people in culturally determined forms of use of cultural
The "Honestly ..." thread began with Eric counterposing
innateness to intersubjective construction. Apart from the
need to distinguish intersubjective from the societal and
cultural, my claim was (1) these two forms are not mutually
exclusive alternatives, and (2) even the propensity for
"intersubjective construction" was not simply innate, but
had to be fostered. In other words, exactly the point you
are making Carol. Left without responsive adults, a child
cannot develop a social sense.
Carol Macdonald wrote:
I am not sure that I agree with you about there being no innate drive.
There is psychological data to show that orphan children, who are simply
dumped in a cot and has no interaction with a caregiver (except for
getting a bottle) either grow up impoverished socially, or worse, die.
Luckily, since we know that, crèches are a bit more caring.
On 26 April 2010 16:52, Andy Blunden <email@example.com
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 innate and who can therefore acquire new skills
socially. But I believe CHAT is a current of thought which holds
that becoming human is possible only through interaction with other
people using culturally acquired artefacts (i.e., intersubjectivity
plus artefacts), but even the tendency to engage 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
ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org <mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
....didn't realize equating Piaget with intersubjectivity would
create a conflaguration of misunderstanding.
Am I incorrect in my understanding of intersubjectivity? I
believe it to 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 teaching I have come to realize that being human
IS developed via interactions and attachments. Biological
genetics must play into it but I have a hard time believing that
intersubjectivity is biological in nature.
Am I talking in circles or drowing in misunderstanding?
xmca mailing list
Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> +61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden
An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity: http://www.brill.nl/scss
xmca mailing list
6 Andover Road
011 673 9265 082 562 1050
Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435
An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity:
xmca mailing list