[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] History of triangle metaphors in post-Piagetian theory
Larry
Thanks. That certainly make sense. Good sense. I shall look at the
Gillespie paper. As someone who has taught both, this is an exciting
development.
Carol
On 30 July 2010 03:49, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Carol
> I read the article by Zittoun et al as recognizing that Piaget's theory
> did
> not theorize "other" as central, but Piaget did write about the social in
> his sociological studies in later life. Zittoun's article however suggest
> that post-Piagetian theory finds this later writing compelling
> as it recognizes the weakness of Piaget's earlier accounts in theorizing
> "other". 2nd and 3rd generation Piagetian scholars have taken the
> direction that Piaget pointed to in his sociological studies and extended
> Piaget's sociogenetic model by engaging with Vygotsky, Mead, and Bernstein.
> Now whether foregrounding "other" throughout the lifespan is still
> recognized as Piagetian or should be considered a"mediational model" is
> open to debate. What interested me in the article was the CENTRALITY of
> "other" in the models Zittoun et al have labelled sociogenetic and
> post-Piagetian. [for historical reasons]
>
> A theorist named Robert Kegan wrote a book called "The Evolving Self"
> which was written as an extension of Piagetian theory that suggests each
> "stage" of development is a re-negotiation of Self/Other differentiation.
> At each level what is experienced as what you HAVE [objective] and what is
> experienced as who you ARE [subjective] is re-negotiated. Robert Kegan
> could be labelled a post-Piagetian and he suggests that the Self/Other
> dialectic is never completed but is a developmental achievement which
> evolves within predictable stages. He called his theory
> "Constructive-Developmental". It is the extension of Piagetian theory to
> theorize the centrality of "other" in the development of "self" that seems
> to be the hallmark of Kegan's post-Piagetian tradition. Kegan worked at
> Harvard with W. Perry, L. Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, and Sharon Parks. I'm
> not sure how this theoretical model has evolved since the 1980's when Kegan
> wrote his book but it is one example of how sosciogenetic models can be
> extended in ways Piaget could not imagine.
>
> Post-Piagetian theory seems to be embracing many insights of Activity
> theory and there may be an emerging synthesis in the spirit of "both/and"
> that Mike mentioned.
>
> I also find it interesting that the article written by Alex Gillespie and
> Jack Martin, recently written from a neo-Meadian perspective, [article can
> be accessed and downloaded from Gillespie's website] was being presented at
> the yearly meeting of the Piagetian Society. It seems in 2010 that
> post-Piagetian theorizing is continuing to see "other" as central to the
> emergence of "agentic capacity".
>
> I'm going to read Tolman's article as a response to the above thoughts as I
> attempt to understand the linkages between the accounts of "activity" and
> accounts of the "other(s)"
>
> Carol, I hope this was helpful in clarifying my thinking on this topic.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > A week too late Larry, tidying up here, just a point. For Piaget the
> > differentiation of the self from the other is the major achievement of
> the
> > sensorimotor period.The infant first lives in an undifferentiated whole.
> > But
> > Piaget rapidly loses interest in the other, focussed as he is on the
> third
> > person, i.e. the "it". Piaget late in his long life wrote about the
> social
> > in what was translated as "sociological studies", but the social was
> never
> > integrated into his "standard theory" by which we know him. In one late
> > (mostly unreadable) piece, Piaget in a schema puts consciousness as
> > existing *between* the subject and the object. For LSV that would have
> > been
> > unconscionable.
> >
> > (When I have put my mind to reading the Companion to Piaget, I could
> > probably make more of a contribution than I do here.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > On 22 July 2010 21:30, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Andy
> > > I agree that Zittoun et al are creating out of their own imaginations
> > some
> > > mediational triangles which may not have theorized by Freud. However, I
> > > consider this imaginal process that attempts to ABSTRACT and make
> > explicit
> > > what they "read" as implicit in Freud's theory as a central aspect of
> > > generating new perspectives by coordinating previously generated
> > > perspectives. Looking at Zittoun et al's explication as a creative
> > > "imaginal" construction which generates a new perspective therefore
> seems
> > > to
> > > be a legitimate way to proceed. However, when the ideas get posted to
> > CHAT
> > > and are reflected on by scholars who take different perspectives, the
> > > reasonableness of their perspectives are scrutinized in a community of
> > > inquiry.
> > >
> > > However, what I appreciated in thes is that eir framing of
> psychoanalytic
> > > perspectives is that "emotion" is a central construct in the emergence
> > and
> > > constitution of agency.
> > >
> > > I also agree Andy that what they are framing as "post-Piagetian" theory
> > [by
> > > embracing Vygotsky and mediation] could be seen as going beyond Piaget
> > and
> > > should no longer be framed as "piagetian" and should be called a
> > > "mediational" theory. However, what I take from their review of
> > Piagetian
> > > theory is the emphasis on "Other(s)" as central to emerging "agency".
> > >
> > > Therefore "emotions" in one tradition and "other" in "post" Piagetian
> > > theory
> > > are theorized or "imagined" as central.
> > >
> > > The question I posted to open this thread was the historical trajectory
> > of
> > > these various mediational models. Is there a general trend of moving
> from
> > > 2nd person perspectives of actual social interaction, to a more
> > > "generalized
> > > other(s)" perspective within institutional structures, and then more
> > > recently towards social representations [Moscovici] and Hermeneutical
> > > accounts which put HISTORY [however this is theorized] as cental within
> > > developmental theory.
> > >
> > > As an example of this broader historical approach would be how we
> > > understand reason and rationality. Gillespie and Jack Martin explain
> > acting
> > > on the basis of reasons as involving reasoning about what would occur
> IF
> > a
> > > given course of action were or were not taken. In this particular
> > > perspectival approach ANTICIPATED, possible consequences of particular
> > > actions enter into the reasoning that is the basis for acting. What is
> > > thought MIGHT happen becomes a DETERMINANT of what DOES happen because
> > > people are are REACTING to and reasoning about POSSIBLE futures.
> > >
> > > This account of reasoning puts the imaginal anticipation of possible
> > > futures
> > > at the center of rationality. Now my question is the historical
> > > constitution of this form of cognition. Do we within Eurocentric
> > > historical traditions develop this particular perspectival stance
> towards
> > > "reality" as a particular perspectival frame [which on some accounts
> can
> > be
> > > historically located in Greece in the transition from dialogue to
> "text"
> > or
> > > is rationality a more "universal" perspective?
> > >
> > > Andy,
> > > If Zittoun's article's get others to REACT [respond] and it furthers
> > > dialogical [and textual] coordination of multiple perspectives, then
> its
> > > worth engaging with the article.
> > >
> > > Larry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Larry,
> > > >
> > > > I have read about halfway through the Zittoun paper, but I got a bit
> > fed
> > > up
> > > > with it. Mainly, I think he is simply putting his own idea of
> mediation
> > > into
> > > > what he reads. On Freud for example, he creates out of his own
> > > imagination
> > > > some mediational triangles which were never seen in those terms by
> > Freud
> > > > himself, so far as I know. But he makes no mention of the
> > Id-Ego-Superego
> > > (I
> > > > grant not developmental in the sense he wants) which is a very
> > prominent
> > > > triad in Freud. Nor does he make mention of Donald Winnicott who
> quite
> > > > explicitly made a mediational reading of Freud of the kind Zittoun is
> > > > imagining.
> > > >
> > > > Then we get to Vygotsky and his imagination runs wild. Vygotsky
> > > discovered
> > > > that people were not like animals in the mid-1920s! This is the guy
> > whose
> > > > previous interests were aesthetics and lit crit before going into
> > > education,
> > > > and in his very first recorded intervention, defined consciousness as
> > the
> > > > mediator between physiology and behaviour!
> > > >
> > > > As I see it, both unmediated interaction and mediation have a very
> long
> > > > history in psychology and social philosophy generally. In American
> and
> > > > German traditions, mediation is almost ubiquitous. The French on the
> > > other
> > > > hand are obsessed with dichotomy and binaries, but only for the
> purpose
> > > of
> > > > "exposing" and "desconstructing" them, so not as alien to mediation
> as
> > > > appears at first sight. But social and psychological analysis which
> > takes
> > > a
> > > > unit of analysis which is unmediated is still today, I think,
> > > predominant,
> > > > as it was in the 17th century.
> > > >
> > > > And the genealogy you refer to, I mean, calling followers of Vygotsky
> > > > "post-Piagetian." I question whether this designation makes any
> sense,
> > as
> > > > Piaget is a direct descendant of Kant and those looking to Vygotsky
> and
> > > Mead
> > > > come from a quite distinct current of thinking and were not followers
> > of
> > > > Piaget. There are, of course, thinkers who use an unmediated model,
> > such
> > > as
> > > > the intersubjectivists, who do wish to "take into account" context,
> but
> > > with
> > > > them "context" is moderation perhaps, but not mediation.
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Larry Purss wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I am curious if a historical trajectory Zittoun, Gillespie,
> Cornish,
> > > and
> > > >> Psaltis have suggested has evloved in Piagetian developmental theory
> > is
> > > a
> > > >> more general trend in developmental theories. The reason I ask is
> it
> > > >> seems
> > > >> to parallel my emerging perspectives and questions about
> development.
> > > >>
> > > >> Zittoun et al suggest Piagetian models have developed through 4
> > > >> generations
> > > >> of theorizing the subject-OTHER-object model of development.
> > > >> [sociocognitive
> > > >> model] They suggest Piaget [except in his early work] focused on
> the
> > > >> binary
> > > >> subject-object transmission of knowledge and was a model of interior
> > > >> mediation.
> > > >> The first generation of post-Piagetian models looked to Mead,
> > Vygotsky,
> > > >> Bernstein, and Moscovici to reorient to a triadic subject-OTHER-
> > object
> > > >> triangle and resocialized Piaget's model. Subject and other have
> > > >> differing
> > > >> perspectives and this creates tension and creates a de-centering and
> > > >> cognitive elaborations. Chapman's term was the "epistemic triangle".
> > In
> > > >> this first generationof post-Piagetian models tension is created
> > between
> > > >> persons interacting as different intentional beings, "but these
> > > >> intentional
> > > >> participants are not typically considered in terms of their
> societally
> > > >> situated roles.
> > > >> A second line of post-piagetian models deepens and extends the
> notion
> > of
> > > >> the
> > > >> social to the whole subject-other-object SYSTEM [context] that takes
> > > place
> > > >> in a world structured by social positions, VALUES, rules, and
> > > DISCOURSES"
> > > >> which are all factors which CONSTITUTE social positions and thus the
> > > >> PERSPECTIVES of the participants in the epistemic triangle. This
> > > extends
> > > >> interpersonal coordination to include intergroup and ideological
> > > >> processes.
> > > >> This generation of models focused on the INSTITUTIONAL contexts and
> > > >> re-focuses on the centrality of the object as mediating SYSTEMS of
> > > social
> > > >> relations [positions]
> > > >> More recently another generation of epistemic triangle models is
> > > exploring
> > > >> the constitutive role social and institutional Asymmetires within
> > > >> societal
> > > >> contexts. [Duveen]
> > > >>
> > > >> This movement from interpersonal interactivity, to institutional
> roles
> > > and
> > > >> positions, and then into social representations and hermeneutics
> > gives
> > > an
> > > >> expanding role to history and traditions and seems parallel to the
> > > >> direction
> > > >> in which my curiosity is wandering. I was curious if the patterns
> or
> > > >> configurations of emerging epistemic triangle models of development
> to
> > > >> embrace hermeneutics, traditions, and history as the CONTEXT in
> which
> > > >> interpersonal participation is embedded is a trajectory that is more
> > > >> general
> > > >> across other triangle models of development?
> > > >>
> > > >> Larry
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> xmca mailing list
> > > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > --
> > > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >
> > >
> > > > Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> > > > Book: 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WORK as:
> > Visiting Lecturer
> > Wits School of Education
> > HOME (please use these details)
> > 6 Andover Road
> > Westdene
> > Johannesburg 2092
> > +27 (0)11 673 9265 +27 (0)82 562 1050
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
--
WORK as:
Visiting Lecturer
Wits School of Education
HOME (please use these details)
6 Andover Road
Westdene
Johannesburg 2092
+27 (0)11 673 9265 +27 (0)82 562 1050
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca