Re: [xmca] Article for Discussion

[Joanne Hyatt <jody.hyatt@gmail.com>]

I read Andre's article and particularly enjoyed the 'figured worlds'
concept. It caused me to pause and consider all the figured worlds I
inhabit. However, I wondered who was supposed to benefit from the three
medical students' experiences. Analyzing their discourse was interesting,
but is this something one does to learn about others, or should we be doing
this ourselves, or is there another lesson to be learned here. Do we analyze
our own writings? Should we be aware of how we are situated in a 'figured
world' before speaking or writing about it? If those three medical students
read that article, what would they learn?
Jody

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mike
>
> Why did I enjoy this article?  In my learning curve asking how we "go on"
> with each other I'm curious about "figured worlds" "lenses" "containers" as
> frameworks for how to proceed with each other.  In the past year the term
> "perspectives" has moved to center stage in my curiosity about how we
> interact with each other.  When I mentioned enjoying the article it was
> from
> the perspective of learning more about the "discursive framework".  I was
> going to use the term "discursive point of view" but the term "view"
> privileges "seeing" as the metaphor for "knowing" and the term
> "perspectives" is a much more inclusive term that includes cognition,
> perception, identity, situated agency, figured worlds, frameworks.  Mead's
> "me" as "being IN the perspectives of others" seems to be a general way of
> capturing this more inclusive concept of "perspectives"  It seems to have
> some affinity to Andy's elaboration of "gestalts"  At a speculative level I
> wonder about the relation of perspectives and activity. In order to "go on"
> within social acts [actions & activity] are we always operating FROM a
> perspective?
>
> David Ke, I believe correctly, suggests that perspectives are linked to
> metaphors and that certain metaphors are more useful for "going on".  I
> enjoyed the article as an elaboration of a PARTICULAR metaphor of learning
> and that is the reason I suggested that Andre's article was interesting as
> a
> bracketed perspective.  I read this article in the spirit of David Ki's
> account of "genres" of learning as a particular discursive genre.
>
> Metaphors as basic and embodied [Lakoff] was also a position from which I
> read this article.  Lakoff suggests that a basic metaphor is "container" as
> fundamental for "going on"  Andre's article is pointing to a RETROSPECTIVE
> narrative of how 3 different students were gradually contained within a
> community of practice.  The article suggests identity or dispositions are
> inevitably an aspect of this BECOMING contained.  Salvadore Minuchin used
> the metaphor of the turtle building a "shell" to help a recent widow create
> a new container by going for lunch each day to the same restaurant, buying
> her meat from the same grocer and following  these same routines and
> rituals
> until she "grew a new shell".  Andre's article, as a bracketed genre of
> positioning [as reflective] does not address narrative "practice" as
> exploring anticipatory possible PROSPECTIVE interactivity emerging in
> moment
> by moment engagements.  It also is privileging narrative accounts and
> leaves
> out embodied mimesis as an aspect of interactivity.[see John Shotter for
> his
> exploration of mimesis from a Wittgenstein perspective of the
> emotional-volitional tone in our actions] However, my curiosity and
> understanding of the discursive framework was elaborated by reading this
> article.
>
> Larry
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:15 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I fear I had a lot of trouble reading and interpreting Andre Vagan's
> > article. When I got to the end I went back and read the summary and intro
> > again, then came back to the examples.
> >
> > My difficulty is that when I was done, and even as I write now, I cannot
> > remember the cases in the case study. Without the proposed melding of the
> > different theoretical perspectives, in fact,  would we have been unable
> to
> > say anything useful about examples?
> >
> > Clearly the paper did a lot to please you, Larry. Is it possible to help
> > out
> > here for those of us less in the flow of these ideas?
> >
> > Mike
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > 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