Re: [xmca] Re: Imitation and Creativity

["Vera John-Steiner" <vygotsky@unm.edu>]

Hi Lois et al,

I am still ambivalent about the use of "creative" in creative imitation. As 
I mentioned in my previous e-mai, I like to reserve creative--as much as 
possible--to long-term, purposeful efforts toward creating the new. I am 
comfortable with innovative imitation and I do agree that imitation is part 
of the "C" activities even,  the planned imitation in the apprenticeships of 
composers (Notebooks of the Mind " Stravinsky and Rimsky-Korsikov .) But 
unless we specify gradations in creative activities  from spontaneous, 
social imitation,to  structured (social) imitation, to  invention, to 
performative creativity, and lastly long-term,planned creativity which 
combines all these forms, we may be refering to analogies rather than 
studied practices.
It is fun to think in the midst of a snow storm,
Vera

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lois Holzman" <lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Imitation and Creativity


Hi All,

Just from this morning, the conversation has gotten away from me and so I 
apologize if what I add now is not relevant to where folks are going. I 
wanted to respond by way of sharing 1) where in Vygotsky’s writings I get 
the ideas I do about imitation, mimicry, performance, creativity, play, 
etc.; and 2) what I am trying to say and the departure from Vygotsky and 
goal-directed understandings and toward a performance (play, pretend) 
understanding of imitation and its relationship/role in development. I leave 
it for others or for later to explore whether any of it fits into a matrix 
of concepts.

And so, first.

I suggest that imitation is necessary for creativity in general and for 
creating ZPDs (sorry, Mike, for not using “zoped” in this writing) in 
particular. In relation to ZPDs, I take my cue from Vygotsky:  “A full 
understanding of the concept of the zone of proximal development must result 
in a reevaluation of the role of imitation in learning” (1978, p. 87).

As part of his reevaluation, Vygotsky discounted an essentially mechanistic 
view of imitation that was “rooted in traditional psychology, as well as in 
everyday consciousness “(Vygotsky, 1987, p. 209).  He was also wary of the 
individualistically biased inferences drawn from such a view, as for 
example, that “the child can imitate anything” and that “what I can do by 
imitating says nothing about my own mind” (1987, p. 209). In its stead, 
Vygotsky posited that imitation is a social-relational activity essential to 
development: “Development based on collaboration and imitation is the source 
of all specifically human characteristics of consciousness that develop in a 
child” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 210).

Children do not imitate anything and everything as a parrot does, but rather 
what is “beyond them” developmentally speaking and yet present in their 
environment and relationships. In other words, imitation is fundamentally 
creative, by which I mean that it helps to create the ZPD. The kind of 
language play that typifies conversations between very young children and 
their caregivers can perhaps provide clarity on this point. Here is one of 
Vygotsky’s many descriptions of early childhood language development. It is 
a difficult passage, one that I have to re-discover the meaning of each time 
I read it.



We have a child who has only just begun to speak and he pronounces single 
words… But is fully developed speech, which the child is only able to master 
at the end of this period of development, already present in the child’s 
environment?  It is, indeed.  The child speaks in one word phrases, but his 
mother talks to him in language which is already grammatically and 
syntactically formed and which has a large vocabulary… Let us agree to call 
this developed form, which is supposed to make its appearance at the end of 
the child’s development, the final or ideal form And let us call the child’s 
form of speech the primary or rudimentary form.  The greatest characteristic 
feature of child development is that this development is achieved under 
particular conditions of interaction with the environment, where this …form 
which is going to appear only at the end of the process of development is 
not only already there in the environment … but actually interacts and 
exerts a real influence on the primary form, on the first steps of the child’s 
development.  Something which is only supposed to take shape at the very end 
of development, somehow influences the very first steps in this development. 
(Vygotsky, 1994, p. 348)


Both developed and rudimentary language are present in the environment, 
Vygotsky tells us. In that case, what is environment? If both forms of 
language are present, then environment cannot be something fixed in space 
and time, nor separate from child and mother. Rather, it seems that 
environment must be both what is—the specific socio-cultural-historical 
conditions in which child and mother are located—and what is coming into 
existence—the changed environment being created by their language activity. 
In other words, this environment is as much activity as it is context. In 
their speaking together, very young children and their caregivers are 
continuously reshaping the “rudimentary” and “developed” forms of language. 
It is this activity, I suggest, that is and creates the ZPD—and through 
which the child develops as a speaker, meaning maker and language user.

And second.

I see creative imitation as a type of performance. When they are playing 
with language in this way in the language-learning zpd, babies are 
simultaneously performing - becoming - themselves. In the theatrical sense 
of the word, performing is a way of taking "who we are" and creating 
something new - in this case a newly emerging speaker, on the stage a newly 
emerging character - through incorporating "the other." The capacity to 
speak and to make meaning is inextricably connected to transforming the 
total environment (a socio-cultural form of life) of speakers in the 
activity of performing an ordinary “unnatural” act.


Helpful? Confusing? Both?

If Cathrene says OK I'd be happy to let people read the "draft" paper from 
the book.

Great conversation for the eve before New Year's Eve!

Lois






Don't forget to check out the latest at http://loisholzman.org

Lois Holzman, Ph.D.
Director, East Side Institute for Group and Short Term Psychotherapy
920 Broadway, 14th floor
New York NY 10010
Chair, Global Outreach for UX (www.allstars.org/ux)
tel. 212.941.8906 ext. 324
fax 718.797.3966
lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org
www.eastsideinstitute.org
www.performingtheworld.org
loisholzman.org
www.allstars.org






On Dec 30, 2010, at 12:58 AM, Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> How can I resist answering when Mike calls with a particular question?
>
> OK -- Lois wrote:
> > "Children do not imitate anything and everything as a parrot does, 
> > rather
> > what is beyond them developmentally speaking and yet present in their
> > environment and their relationships."
>
> I would say that we have many different forms and purposes of imitation. 
> Some of them are not conscious: tone of voice you use may resemble your 
> parent's and siblings. I know whole families where it is hard to tell who 
> answered a phone for quite a while in conversation -- even though there is 
> quite a difference in age. People also imitate gestures -- I would say not 
> consciously or purposefully. When my younger son started school, he would 
> come home and talk with gestures of his teacher -- it was absolutely 
> hysterical. But he did not "imitate" her -- he just soaked her 
> idiosyncrasies.
> So there is a kind of "mimicry" in the way we "get" important 
> communicational tools - on the quite sensory-motor level. Not even to 
> mention accents -- that immediately identify you with a certain group 
> (even when you yourself cannot hear them).
> This alone is a very interesting aspect of development, especially in the 
> light of the relatively new discoveries coming from Diana Deutsch about 
> the connection between speech and music 
> (http://www.radiolab.org/2007/sep/24/): with the fascinating discovery 
> that almost 75% of people who peak tonal languages (like Mandarin) possess 
> an absolute pitch, something considered to be a rare talent among us, 
> speakers of non-tonal English (Russian, Serbian, French, Greek or other 
> Indo-European languages)
>
> But I think we were more interested in another type of imitation --  
> something that goes on with consciousness, maybe even reflection? 
> Imitation that Peter was describing, and that Mike summarized as:
>
> "So imitation is actually a constructive process, and so, I think, is
> relevant in discussions of the ZPD in that it is relational, involves
> adjustment, is reciprocal, involves new constructions, relies on
> intersubjectivity, and so on. Just as the ZPD is often characterized as a
> flat, one-way instructional process moving easily from here to there,
> imitation can be pretty static. But not if the act of imitation is part of 
> a
> more complex process of appropriation."
>
> It seems like a waist to imitate if it still entails constructing a novel 
> behavior for yourself anyway! -- Why not just go ahead and do it your own 
> way instead of imitating?
> When we were kids, my brother and our friends, we used to imitate each 
> other in order to laugh, and then we would end up imitating each other's 
> laughters, and laugh even more. We would  laugh until we could not breathe 
> any more and end up on the floor! That is what we though of imitation.
>
> Ana: That is what we though of imitation!
> Ana's brother: "That is what we thought of imitation!"
> Ana: Stop it! Don't imitate me!
> Ana's brother: "Stop it! Don't imitate me!"
> Ana: Stop!
> Ana's brother: "Stop!"
> Ana: Zzzzzzz!
> Ana's brother: "Zzzzzzz!"
> Ana: "I AM AN IDIOT"
> Ana's brother: ""I AM AN IDIOT""
> Ana: Hah! You said it right!!
> Ana's brother: "Hah! YOU said it right!!"
> Ana: - - - - - - - - -
> Ana's brother: - - - - - - - -
> (and so on) -- we leave this scene now -- back to our laboratry.
>
> I want to say that play is too often seen as "imitation" -- when in fact 
> it is a commentary on someone's behavior -- ways of saying something about 
> that behavior, making an opinion, and provoking someone's reaction. But to 
> make that opinion, to be absolutely sure what you are actually saying 
> about it, you have to "do it for yourself", to live into it, to see it 
> from inside. Kind of "see how it feels".
>
> I will never forget a friend of mine who was actually much younger than 
> me. She used to play being a teacher to all her dolls and stuffed animals. 
> She would put them all on a couch, and then stand in front of them and 
> talk to them exactly the way her (and much earlier mine) teacher used to 
> talk to students. The gestures, the tone of voice, and what she would say 
> to the bears and Barbies, was almost exact! -- but at the same time it was 
> a presentation with a critique -- like a good caricature that uncovers 
> more about the person or a situation, that the original.
>
> I think that, imitation as explicit copying to learn happens only in 
> situation of direct coaching -- of skills that can be learned like that: 
> how to throw a ball, or how to knit or something very visible that can be 
> dissected in parts and shown. Even then, it is never a direct copy.
> I don't think that we develop by such kind of learning. Although we can 
> develop some rather defined skills. That may be useful for development, 
> but needs to be somehow put to work.
>
> Creative imitation, as Lois called it, and as I tried to describe it a 
> little bit above, is imitation with a purpose other than copying. And that 
> other purpose -- whatever it is (I have several candidates) -- is 
> something developmental.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Ana
>
>
> __________________________
> Dr. Ana Marjanovic-Shane
> Assistant Professor of Education
> Chestnut Hill College
> St. Joseph Hall, 4th Floor, Room #172
> e-mails:  Marjanovic-ShaneA@chc.edu
>                 ana@zmajcenter.org
>                 anamshane@gmail.com
> Phone:    215-995-3207
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 29, 2010, at 11:34 PM, mike cole wrote:
>
> > Hi Cathrene and Lois--
> >
> > My copy of the book went to the person who is writing a review for MCA, 
> > so I
> > do not have it to hand.
> > But it is clearly a good source to turn to as a way of mapping out ways 
> > of
> > talking about imitation and zoped. For those who have not yet ordered the
> > book, its possible to get a good sample of what
> > Cathrene was referring to by checking Amazon.com, and searching the 
> > contents
> > for, say, imitation.
> >
> > To much there for me to type out each example, but here is a passage from
> > Lois's chapter that I found thought provoking.
> >
> > "Children do not imitate anything and everything as a parrot does, 
> > rather
> > what is beyond them developmentally speaking and yet present in their
> > environment and their relationships."
> >
> > So, there are several relevant distinctions implied in just this one
> > passage, including:
> >
> > Children and parrots imitate differently
> > Parrots imitate everything (I am assuming that we are talking about 
> > language
> > spoken by humans?, not sure).
> > Children imitate only what is going to develop at some proximal time.
> >
> > In this context, the use of the term "creative imitation" which I have 
> > been
> > trying to think about for the past several months, brings to mind the 
> > notion
> > that there must be something called "non-creative imitation" but
> > I am not sure what a synonym would be that could be substituted for
> > "non-creative" as a positive characterization.
> >
> > So, Cathrene, Lois, and Ana, what "kinds of imitation" do you think it 
> > worth
> > considering for our purposes?
> >
> > Harking back to Michael Glassman's earlier note in this thread, I do not
> > think that it is helpful to contrast imitation with mimicry without 
> > further
> > specification. The first three primary definitions of mimicry used by the
> > Oxford English Dictionary all involve the term, imitation, as a part of
> > their defining characteristics. If they are not simply synonyms according 
> > to
> > the OED, the variations are very underspecified.
> >
> > Clearly Lois sees an intimate relation between imitation as she 
> > interprets
> > that process and zopeds and adds another important term, creativity.
> >
> > We now have three core theoretical terms imbricated in the discussion of 
> > a
> > cultural historical approach to development. If there are three core 
> > terms
> > and, say, 3 interpretions of each term (imitation, zoped, creativity) 
> > seems
> > like a pretty large matrix of possible interconnections as part of the
> > system of development. My guess is that kinds of specifications cluster, 
> > but
> > I have only a vague sense of how, so far.
> >
> > Is creative/non-creative the place to start, and then see what kinds of
> > additional distinctions are warrantable?
> >
> > mike
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Lois Holzman <
> > lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks, Cathrene, for the plug! I've wanted to get into this 
> > > conversation
> > > but just can't right now, so that article will have to suffice for 
> > > anyone
> > > interested.
> > > Warm wishes to all for 2011 and new world creating,
> > > Lois
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't forget to check out the latest at http://loisholzman.org
> > >
> > > Lois Holzman, Ph.D.
> > > Director, East Side Institute for Group and Short Term Psychotherapy
> > > 920 Broadway, 14th floor
> > > New York NY 10010
> > > Chair, Global Outreach for UX (www.allstars.org/ux)
> > > tel. 212.941.8906 ext. 324
> > > fax 718.797.3966
> > > lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org
> > > www.eastsideinstitute.org
> > > www.performingtheworld.org
> > > loisholzman.org
> > > www.allstars.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 29, 2010, at 2:20 PM, <cconnery@ithaca.edu> <cconnery@ithaca.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi there,
> > > > Lois Holzman has some excellent observations about creativity, learning
> > > and imitation in her chapter in Vygotsky and Creativity. So do Oreck &
> > > Nicholls in the same text, although their statments are less direct and 
> > > more
> > > implied.
> > > > Happy New Year to all,
> > > > Cathrene
> > > > __________________________________________
> > > > _____
> > > > 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

__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca