Re: RE: [xmca] moral life of babies

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Larry-
I think I agree!

I take imagining to be central to all of human cognition, and affect and
cognition to interpenetrate each other, however much we murder to dissect.

I was keying on the example-- I have not read all of Martin's article. And I
have always been blown away by what American middle class parents imagine
their week old infants to be discussing with them!

I am re-reading the Fleer and Hedegaard article for discussion which get us
to the institutional side of things. I have deliberately withheld reading
comments and look forward to seeing what others think of that.

I also re-read the Bloom article on baby morality when a colleague with a
lot of background in social theory and Foucault asked me about its
plausibility. This is a case where I think i really need to read the
original studies. Bloom -- or his Times editor -- is being so breezy that I
can see where someone who does not know the various procedures and allusions
could get turned off.
mike
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:

>   Mike
> In my humble opinion, I read Martin's point of view as all mothers and
> infants interact in reciprocal patterns but it is the cultural and
> institutional "imaginaries" [Charles Taylor] or cultural representations
> [Moscovici] that MEDIATE the foundational interactions that require
> engagement but NOT intentionality.  However, from the very first
> interactions that ARE COMMUNICATIVE in that the infants actions are not
> random but are in reciprocal response each culture, institutional family
> pattern, and each mother IMAGINES [from there cultural frameworks] what the
> babies responses "MEAN"
> In our cultural context we "imagine" [interpret] the infants motivation as
> "intentional activity" that is "representing" a "theory of mind" perspective
> which privileges internal explanations of the infants movements.
> The transformation from movement to "activity that is intentional" is a
> cultural response to a particular HISTORICALLY embedded notion of activity,
> intentionality, and desire. [Theory of Mind] Other cultural practices
> interpret [imagine] this reciprocal movement [which is the foundation of all
> cultural interpretations of MEANING] in vastly different ways.  From the
> first moments these various cultural responses to reciprocal movement [which
> is affective and I believe biological] is transformed by how the parents
> imagine what the infant "intends"  However what I believe Martin and
> Reddy are suggesting is the centrality of the "other" and the "meaning" of
> the others imaginal interpretation [which seems like facts within the
> particular culture] in response to the infants global movement of affective
> communication.
> The concept of "emotions" and there location is also a cultural frame and
> in our modern conception emotions are located inside the person [like
> cognitions] This is a cultural and historically constructed concept of
> emotions BUT the AFFECTIVE reciprocal engagement PRECEDES the "meaning"
> given to the movement [which becomes activity when meaning is developed
> culturally] and PRECEDES the conceptual labelling of the movement/meaning
> with "emotional terms such as anger, jealousy etc. [which are historically
> constructed cultural labels]
> Martin, I hope I've been somewhat accurate in my reading of your position.
> If I've misread your position I can only give the excuse that each time I
> read your articles the meaning I extract is MY IMAGINAL INTERPRETATION of
> your intended meaning.  This is a process that runs parallel to how we
> "read" babies movement "AS IF" it were activities. With repeated readings of
> the infants movements as activities the movements BECOME activities for the
> infant as it incorporates the cultural meanings while interacting with the
> mother. My engagement with Martin's  text and the mother's engagement with
> the infant have similar developmental pathways to meaning. They both require
> "others" imaginal interpretations to tranform  movement to meaning. In this
> perspective OTHERS and how they "read" and give meaning to communicational
> acts FORMS or structures the cultural realities in which infants
> develop. These interpretations are culturally constrained and framed BUT
> open-ended and NOT DETERMINED.
>
>
> That still leaves the question of institutions and there role in
> development. And the transformation in development as the child moves out of
> the family "lifeworld" into rationalized institutional contexts and the
> requirement culturally for the young child to adopt the rationalized conduct
> expected in modern schools but that's for another post.  Martin's reading of
> Habermas also gives guidance on how to have schools remain lifeworlds. The
> fifth dimension and its IMAGINAL wizard and the Golden Key schools with
> their IMAGINAL return to peasant cultural patterns, or Martin's Willow Run
> schools with their IMAGINAL ideals of "being a REAL community" are all
> examples of constructing imaginal lifeworlds that embody real self/other
> relations.  All these examples represent socially meaniningful attempts to
> construct lifeworlds [and develop particular kinds of persons] against the
> tide of the rationalized processes of modernity.
> What do others think?
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:17 pm
> Subject: Re: RE: [xmca] moral life of babies
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
> > Rod and Larry -- Finally arriving home after two weeks of
> > hithering and
> > dithering.
> >
> > Yes, Alan Fogel is very relevant.
> > Yes, all of this is central to understanding human communication.
> > Question: The pattern Martin describes with Sarah and Jenny
> > (hmmm, i once
> > had a little one named Jenny) appears very wide spread among
> > American middle class mothers. It appears virtually absent in a
> > lot of
> > cultures (Kaluli, Yucatec Maya........). Seems doubtful that the
> > Kaluli or
> > the Maya lack imagination or communication. What might be the
> > functionalequivalents?
> > mike
> >
> > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Larry,
> > >
> > > I think Reddy's 2nd person model of interaction highlights the
> > fact that we
> > > have been distracted by a focus on the thinking aspects of
> > communication so
> > > that the feeling aspects have been downplayed or even
> > overlooked altogether.
> > > For me 'imagination' has primarily 'thinky' associations but I
> > suspect that
> > > it would be a more valuable concept if it was expanded to
> > include the full
> > > scope of intuitive, pre-conscious 'gut-feelings' as well as
> > the 'mental
> > > imagery' to which it is often reduced (I suspect that you,
> > too, would want a
> > > richer meaning for imagination).
> > >
> > > Another person whose ideas I have found really powerful is
> > Alan Fogel,
> > > whose 1993 book 'Developing through relationships: origins of
> > communication,> self and culture' introduced the term 'co-
> > regulation' to describe the
> > > continuous reciprocity which informs nearly all forms of
> > communication. In
> > > adult-baby interactions the adult clearly takes a bigger role in
> > > co-regulation but in later forms of communication (e.g.
> > writing a letter or
> > > sending a message to a discussion group) the co-regulating
> > partner/s may be
> > > imagined or internalised models of how other people might be
> > imagined to
> > > react/respond. You are never alone with a culture.
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > Rod
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
> > bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > > Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > > Sent: 11 May 2010 17:56
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: Re: RE: [xmca] moral life of babies
> > >
> > > Hi  Rod, and Martin.
> > >
> > > Martin, can you give us more details on when your new book
> > will be
> > > published.?
> > > Mike Cole mentioned he has a lot of sympathy about the notions of
> > > "reciprocity" and Martin's 2 articles definitely put
> > reciprocity at the
> > > center of development.
> > > Martin asked us "What do you think? and my answer is that this
> > topic is
> > > foundational for understanding "communication" and our notions
> > of what that
> > > term "means"
> > > I want to respond to a specific point in Martin's masters
> > thesis [1983]  On
> > > page 28 he describes an interaction between Jenny and Sarah
> > [mother] and
> > > their interaction of smiling and sticking out their tongues.
> > Martin says
> > > several aspects of this interaction stand out as striking.
> > > 1)Sarah TAKES Jenny's actions AS IF they are manifesting
> > "intentions"> though this clearly goes BEYOND Jenny's actual
> > capabilities to form
> > > intentions.[interpretive]
> > > 2) Sarah talks AS THOUGH Jenny is issuing an invitation to "play"
> > > [interpretive] though this is a CONCEPT Jenny cannot yet possess.
> > > 3)Sarah TAKES subsequent tonguings AS THOUGH they are part of
> > A DIALOGUE
> > > [interpretive]
> > > 4) Two of Sarah's comments to Jenny make SENSE IF ONE IMAGINES an
> > > intervening reply by Jenny [To me the term "imagine" is
> > central to Martin's
> > > notion of communication.
> > >
> > > At the heart of what Martin is trying to explicate is the
> > centrality of
> > > IMAGINATION to the process of interpretation within a
> > RECIPROCAL INTER
> > > actional pattern of activity [could it also be called
> > "motivation"]  It
> > > depends on how you differentiate motivation from activity.
> > > The other central notion being pointed out by Martin is that this
> > > communicational pattern is ALWAYS OPEN-ENDED and that
> > "motivation/intention"> is ALWAYS being reciprocally NEGOTIATED
> > in patterns of ENGAGEMENT [response
> > > and withdrawal]
> > >
> > > Rod I believe Reddy's dialogical 2nd person account of reciprocal
> > > communication is narrating an account of communication that
> > has many
> > > parallels with Martin's reciprocal account of the foundations of
> > > communication.
> > > Martin, that's what I think at the moment
> > >
> > > Larry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
> > > Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 1:09 am
> > > Subject: RE: [xmca] moral life of babies
> > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >
> > > > Thanks for this Martin,
> > > >
> > > > The image that came to mind reading your last sentence was of
> > > > surfing - the child is caught by the wave of an existing culture
> > > > and swept along with the cultural practices going on around her
> > > > but it doesn't take long before she is kneeling on her board and
> > > > then standing up and then carving the wave (I have no personal
> > > > experience of surfing on actual water!). What may be missing
> > > > from this analogy, however, is the active concern by certain,
> > > > local, familiar parts of the wave to keep her afloat.
> > > >
> > > > All the best,
> > > >
> > > > Rod
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
> > > > bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Packer
> > > > Sent: 08 May 2010 21:16
> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] moral life of babies
> > > >
> > > > Mike has added several names to the list of infancy researchers
> > > > whose work we need to consider, and I haven't even finished yet
> > > > with Jean Mandler! Then there are my messages to David about T&L
> > > > that still need to be completed. So I need to play for time, and
> > > > to do so I'm attaching yet another 'young' publication, the
> > > > longitudinal case-study of infant-mother interaction that was
> > > > accepted as a masters thesis by UCBerkeley, on the condition
> > > > that I considered it to be officially a failure.
> > > >
> > > > It's written with youthful arrogance (especially the title!),
> > > > and with too phenomenological a turn of phrase at times. But
> > > > perhaps people on the list can get their teeth into it and tear
> > > > off the bits that have little value, and we'll see what's left.
> > > > Without having read a word of Vygotsky at the time I proposed
> > > > that "It is possible, perhaps even likely, that it is by
> > > > observing the effects on others of our utterances that we
> > > > discover our own intentions, make them conscious, and hence are
> > > > able to act more deliberately in the future." And I
> > suggested that:
> > > >
> > > > "There is a level of shared meanings that is constantly referred
> > > > to, and constantly developed; and so the infant's schemes will
> > > > inevitably take a form that depends not only on her bodily
> > > > structure (the basis of knowledge for Piaget) but which also
> > > > reflects the norms, values, expectations, and roles - in short,
> > > > the practices - of the society she is born into. These social
> > > > meanings are at first not represented, but simply lived; the
> > > > infant's bodily dispositions will reflect and express them
> > in an
> > > > unreflective, preconscious fashion. The 'task', so to speak, for
> > > > the adults who interact with the infant is to make available to
> > > > her the shared meanings of their society by making them relevant
> > > > to her own interests and needs, at the same time redirecting
> > > > those interests into more mature forms. The child is
> > involved in
> > > > communication from birth. Her task is not to learn how to begin
> > > > to communicate, but to learn how to gain mastery of what she is
> > > > doing already."
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> >
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca