Hi Andy
I think I get the difference but as you point out we can engage in a conversation on the characteristics of lifeworlds.
Eric
Yes this topic goes back to Weber, but it still seems to have relevance to the current article being discussed .
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010 8:16 am
Subject: Re: [xmca] Development of development
To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Hello Larry:
Thank you for reintroducing this topic, it has a long life and
glad to see
it continue. I can't really comment greatly on Habermas,
lifeworlds or
the like.
Martin:
the reason for this post is to inquire about the dialectic in
Habermas'
writing. I have just briefly read a few critiques and am
seeing
dichotomies between social and individual and am lacking enough
knowledge
about Habermas to find the dialectic. Could you perhaps
enlighten me on
this for I have read enough of your writing to know you value
the
dialectic.
Just want to mention this has been a bountiful year of morels
and wild
asparagas; yum!
eric
Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
05/14/2010 10:09 AM
Please respond to ablunden; Please respond to "eXtended Mind,
Culture,
Activity"
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> cc:
Subject: Re: [xmca]
Development of development
Larry,
This doubtless seems exceptionally pedantic, but in my view
"socially situated development" is something quite different
from "the social situation of development."
As I see it, when Vygotsky emphasises the importance of
identifying and understanding the *situation* which drives
development he is requiring us to form a concept of the
situation, whatever it may be in a given case. He makes a
contrast between this approach and a description of the (let
us say for the sake of contrast) the context or environment
in which the child happens to find themself. This context or
environment is characterized in terms of its various
attributes, such as the ethnic background of parents,
socioeconomic status, values, and so on. This way of
characterising the relation is really complexive (to use
Vygotsky's word) and not conceptual as such.
You correctly point out the need for a conceptual grasp of
the lifeworld's character, but I think "situation" is
different from situating something, Larry. Do you see what I
mean? If we have the characteristics of the surrounding
world on one hand and the development on the other, then we
have situated the development but we don't know the situation.
Andy
Larry Purss wrote:
Hi everyone
I thought I would log on and reflect on social situations of
development
[Fleer and Hedegaard article.]
I want to bring in Martin's ideas from his edited book
"Cultural and
Critical Perspectives on Human Development" (2001) On page
142, 143 he
elaborates on Habermas's notion of the "lifeworld" to explore
the
development of development [innovations in the institutions that
define
specific developmental pathways]
Martin, following Habermas, contrasts lifeworlds with
RATIONALIZED
SYSTEMS [institutional structures that develop particular "kinds
of
persons". I believe this distinction of institutions as existing
within a
tension between different ways to structure relational practices
is
critical to our reflection on socially situated development.
Martin offers a key insight when he states "The
rationalization efforts
depended for their effect on the CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE
LIFEWORLD of
the school, without having an adequately CONCEPTUAL grasp of the
lifeworlds character.
As we go forward in describing socially situated development I
believe
this recognition of the foundational requirement for
implementing
rationalized systems depends on maintaining lifeworlds.
However the contradictions involved in this statement are
obvious as the
more "successful" the implementation of rationalized systems of
institutional practices, the more fragmented the lifeworlds become.
The "project" [Andy's term] that I see Fleer & Hedegaard
engaged in in
their explication of socially situated development can be
enriched by
including the notion of the lifeworld's character [and the
VALUES this
notion implies].
Martin also brings in Latour's notion of classrooms and
families
existing as institutions as NODES within a wide ranging NETWORK
of distal
rationalized SYSTEMS that exert "a relationist ontology"
(Latour, 1997 as
cited in Packer p. 143) that threatens the "bursting of the
capacity of
the lifeworld" Habermas (as cited in Packer p.143).
The development of development trajectory of our current
institutional
structures needs to explore the historically continuing
destruction of
schools as lifeworlds. The 5th dimension, and Golden key
schools are
particular examples of responding to this rationalizing process
but
philosophically I believe we need to engage in asking how we can
maintain
lifeworlds within our current public schools.
Larry
_______________________________________________
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@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca