[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Activity & Dialogue



Haydi
Thank you for this attachment.
I especially appreciate the format in which the ideas [as a transcription
of an actual conversation] are presented.
Do I believe in activities.
I do believe in activities as Anna Stetsenko and Igor Arievitch ae
articulating the notion of activity.  The mind is profoundly sociocultural
and historical not simply because it is "situated" IN a sociocultural
world, but because it is produced from within , out of, for the sake of,
and driven by evolving activity that connects INDIVIDUALS to the world,
other people AND THEMSELVES.
This understanding of "mind" AS A RELATIONAL act in the world, means the
"mind" does NOT need to be ITSELF related, by some sort of process, TO the
environment because mind EXISTS as a form OF relation. Mind IS a relation
to the world [as contrasted to the perspective of relating psychological
processes "as entities" TO cultural, institutional, and historical contexts]

Activity is not viewed as "forces" acting ON organisms.  Activity forms a
new level of "self" regulated and "self" determined processes. Therefore
the mind is inherent in the activities of persons that make USE of cultural
and natural resources BUT also are CONSTRAINED by these resources.
Nonetheless mind develops according to activities dynamics.

Haydi, I'm trying to find ways to link Anna's description of "activity"
with the Gadamerian notion of "perspectives" as sociocultural resources
that are inherent within cultural frameworks. [CHAT is one example of a
perspective or framework]

I sense that activities are becoming more "fluid" [Bauman] with growing
levels of unpredictability and uncertainty [and therefore more difficult to
main identities that orient towards being sovereign]  How does CHAT respond
in its development to the actuality of identity formation becoming
profoundly more unpredictable, uncertain, and fluid??  I happen to believe
this fluidity is exposing the reality of persons fundamental finitude
[vulnerability] and going forward we will need to develop notions of
activities within worlds as inherently more unstable, and precarious.  I
intuitively wonder if another "kind" of "self" may be forming as a response
to the inherent unpredictability and uncertainty of an emerging
cosmopolitan cultural formation???

Is it possible that scholars such as Gadamer, Merleau-Ponty, Shotter,
Patchen Markell, & Anna Stetsenko
may be manifesting new expressions of identity within cosmopolitan activity
settings calling for new forms of subjectivity and agency &
self-determination.  Less "sovereign" and possessive within identity
formation but still agentic.

Anna, from my readings, has developed within a CHAT framework, but believes
there are cracks in the foundational framework of CHAT. She sees the cracks
as not adequately addressing human sujectivity and agency within the social
and relational nature of human development. The goal of social
transformation marks the uniqueness of CHAT, but inherent to that
transformation is the emergence of new  formations of subjectivity and
agency.

Anna and Igor argue that in CHAT's early formation striving to overcome the
profound dichotomies and dualisms of classic perspectives in psychology,
there was the concern to under theorize the reality of subjectivity and
agency as the price to pay for abandoning dualistic views.  For Anna and
Igor, the call to return to theorizing subjectivity and agency within CHAT
is to view to  human subjectivity as social and individual AT THE SAME
TIME. It is the notion of individual CONTRIBUTION to sociocultural
practices as the ESSENCE of humanness and SELF that must now be theorized

"...if CHAT is to be developed into an integral account tof human
development. We suggest that this notion directly points to a crucially
important intersection and essential unity of individual and social planes,
and entails viewing individuals as ineluctably social in all their
activities.  We believe that advancing this notion and exploring its
implications are sorely needed as steps forward to OVERCOME some recent
incarnations of individualism - i.e., conceptions that EXCLUDE the
individual dimensions from relational theories of development and REDUCE
them to collective dynamics, thus, firmly (and ironically) remaining in the
grip of a vision of individuals as isolated and separate entities. This
notion also has a number of advantages compared to the notion of
PARTICIPATION currently popular in sociocultural studies (Lave & Wagner;
Rogoff) due to the MORE AGENTIVE character of social contribution - namely,
as entailing COMMITMENT, ETHICS, DIRECTIONALITY, and DETERMINATION. [
Stetsenko, & Arievitch, 2010]

Haydi,  It is the last sentence above, pointing to commitment, ethics as
central to directionality and determination where I believe the dialogical
and hermeneutical perspectives may have the potential to be linked to Anna
and Igor's vrsion of CHAT.

I look forward to reading the article you sent.  It may help me overcome
further "gaps" in our "understanding".
Haydi, I appreciate the time you have given to this conversation and the
frustration that I often seem to misunderstand more than understand.  For
some reason, I find Anna's writing style and perspectives easier to
understand than Leontiev. However, I am struggling to  pass through that
"threshold" of the conceptual [as referenced on the other post today]

What is the relation between perspectives & activities???  I'm struggling
to find links.

Larry

On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>wrote:

> Larry
>
> Again thanks for all solemnity !
> Now I can come up with my own ideas vis a vis yours more easily which I
> never claim will be an appropriate response .
> My premises once again :
> 1. My problem is first whether you believe altogether in the
> existence/reality of 'activities' , second how you prove culture is prior
> to activity IN A FINAL COUNT and which is more directly closer to the
> living .
> 2. Living is a non-stop process (death implied) ; hence an activity .
> 3. 'Reification' is the end-point of a round of an activity , the
> starting-point of another round of activity , hence successive activities .
>
> 4. Ideal , when reified , is no longer ideal .
>
> 5. By 'objectivity' of the material world , we don't mean objects and
> corporealities up there ; They should be taken SUBJECTIVELY , that is both
> REFLECTIVELY AND AGENTIVELY and that is why we take processes and relations
> , too , as being material .
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, 31 December 2011, 17:10:11
> Subject: [xmca] Activity & Dialogue
>
>
> Haydi
>
> Thanks for this reply to my thinking out loud and pointing out that I may
>
> not be entering into the main arena of discussion.  You also recommend we
>
> try to distinguish our gaps in order to have a conversation.   In your
>
> words you wrote,
>
>
> You know I'm talking within the domain of the 'activity theory' ,
>
> Leontevian version .
>
> Now look how you start your response :
>
>
> You collect , goal , purpose , perspective , all together . You know by
>
> 'goal' I mean the point or focus one orients herself so that she , taking
>
> advantage of the most comfortable 'operations' , succeeds in realizing an
>
> 'action' , a moment of an activity . Perspective is sort of a world-view ;
>
> being conscious of a worldview one might be involved with , takes you to
>
> the realm of the whole personality you've got , your dealing with Nature ,
>
> your dealing with social relations , your belonging or lack of it vis a vis
>
> a SOCIAL CLASS , the whole of your ideological stance , so on so forth .
>
> It's with respect to all these which a NEED arises and to satisfy this need
>
> , you have to orient on a corresponding 'object' and that 'object' in
>
> itself does not motivate you , it should BECOME a MOTIVE of an activity .
>
> It's here that Leontiev is charged with 'passivity' ; the opponents seek to
>
> believe in a reverse process , already and internally stuffed with kind of
>
> 'faith' , 'morality' , (maybe God Terminus which I don't know about) , deep
>
> spring of incessantly flowing / poring out of all kinds of motives , drives
>
> , desires , incentives , etc . just laid there . We say one becomes
>
> sacrificial socially having passed through all hierarchy of versatile
>
> motives until she has reached the highest step , having tested all results
>
> of different motives (reifications) .
>
>
> next :
>
>
> [[ I would suggest for humans many of the "meaningful" acts are
>
> dialogically and hermeneutically  expressed WITHIN material [artifactual]
>
> contexts. ]]
>
> --"meaningful" acts ====> my 'action-based meanings' . You are identifying
>
> and recognizing the 'acts' through testifying of 'meanings' and you don't
>
> emphasize on dialectics of processes . Then for you meanings are prior to
>
> acts and this is against all I said . You can have your own firm belief but
>
> you cannot present what I've said so clearly as SHELL , KERNEL , ETC.
>
> reversibly .
>
> --are dialogically and hermeneutically expressed ====> my 'practically
>
> weighed' . You test your 'dialogues' 'hermeneutics' even the TRANSFORMATIVE
>
> ONES with PRACTICE and results (reifications) not vice versa .
>
> --Within material [artifactual] contexts . =====> my first/third layer
>
> (tied to the direction you take) . I say in a dialogue either SHELLS are
>
> exchanged ====> communication lost .
>
> or : KERNELS are exchanged =====> might lead to transformative status or
>
> stance (Christine's reference) , a potentiality on the threshhold of ACTUAL
>
> realization . Compare with so-called deep-hidden desires . so think
>
> Vasilyuk takes this to the realm of the 'unconscious' .
>
> --interactions are due ====> realm of my focus .
>
> Then dear Larry , we should first of all distinguish our 'gaps' . Otherwise
>
> communication is impossible .
>
> Now I fear really more lengthening the response . however , I'll read your
>
> message to the end for the second time .
>
> --We use 'reification' for the end-point of an activity rather than the
>
> end-point of a 'dialogue' . The latter acts just as an ARCHIVE .
>
> -- [[*for example the God Terminus [as a perspective] expressing particular
>
> social arrangements*]] ====> you put your point of departure a priori 'God
>
> Terminus' . Then I could ask what your premises are . God Terminus ,
>
> whatever , comes from itself ? Just falling down ? , what about evolution ,
>
> history ? You know we believe in historical socio-economic formations . We
>
> have base and superstructure . We say in the days of feudalism with such
>
> kind of particular social relations , the feudal class had to administer
>
> society in such and such kinds of affairs , superstructurally leading
>
> people towards and propagating them with such kind of worldview/ideology as
>
> God Terminus (a conjecture) destroying all kinds of Pagan Gods as Idols
>
> putting them in an unseeable Monotheism which could correspond and be in
>
> parallel with that kind of base and that kind of social relations , as it
>
> could be with Capitalism , too . Then I could conclude that , you dear
>
> Larry , with so fluent a speech and so flowing a pen . do not really enter
>
> the main arena of discussion , you , in  fact , wayward it , you come with
>
> your own separate treasure-house of ideas . Then , you're not , in fact ,
>
> responding , you're perhaps ? uni-vocally/unil-laterally narrating your own
>
> tale (forgive) .
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> Haydi, I'm going to try to "communicate" by attempting to find some "common
>
> ground" by staying close to your phrases. This still may leave confusion
>
> because how I "read" [understand] what you wrote may not be what you
>
> intended to communicate.
>
>
> I will begin with "perspectives" which is a key word I'm using. Your
>
> interpretation of "perspectives", using your words is,
>
>
> "a sort of world-view; being conscious of a worldview one might be
>
> involved with takes you to the realm of the whole personality you've got,
>
> your dealing with Nature, your dealing with social relations, your
>
> belonging or lack of it vis a vis a social class, the whole of your
>
> ideological stance, and so forth. It's with respect to all these that a
>
> NEED arises and to satisfy THIS need, you have to orienton a corresponding
>
> 'object' and that object IN ITSELF does not motivate you, it should BECOME
>
> a MOTIVE of an activity".
>
>
> Haydi, I will move to a concrete example to explore how I may be seeing
>
> this term "perspectives" not as "merely" the "whole personality" that
>
> encompasses my unique personality.  I'm trying to use perspectives as a
>
> cultural-historical concept that does develop over time but once developed
>
> [reified??] has profound constraints on the personalities of all the
>
> participants who operate within its framework.
>
> a. One is not born a 'personality' .
> b. I said : ...takes you to the REALM of the whole personality you've GOT
> , ...We say one BECOMES a SACRIFICIAL socially having passed through all
> hierarchy of versatile motives until she has reached the highest step ,
> having tested all RESULTS of different motives (reifications) .
> Besides , what I want to say is : tell me what personality she has , I
> will tell you to what worldview she sticks (my previous quote from L days
> back) .
> If you consider the content of what I've said above , you will not see a
> contradiction concerning your 'unique' personality . We are not dealing
> with fixed for ever concepts .
> c. I wonder why you use 'perspective' 'personality' 'participant' in
> plural . I'm of the idea we should beware of these inconsistencies because
> of an imposed interpretation not because of playing with 'words' .
> 'perspectives' as A 'concept' .
> d. In the context we are talking , I will not take a
> 'perspective/worldview' as a 'concept' because what I gather from the
> content is so vast and expansive that encompasses the whole life , an
> umbrella which preserves you from being influenced by any transient push of
> breezes and drops . A worldview , so I think , comes into being when all
> concepts one is dealing with at each stage of one's life come into a
> conclusion through their interactions .
> e. I prefer to say : ...has profound constraints on the ACTIONS
> #personalities of all the participants who OPERATE within its framework . I
> see a 'redundancy' here leading to a conflictual stance . See if you
> unknowingly , in spite of all you have said about 'perspectives' being
> 'evolutionary' 'historical' 'over time process' , might have taken it/them?
> as something being innate affecting 'personalities' .
> f. My problem is not solved : [[I'm trying to use perspectives as a
> cultural-historical concept that does develop over time but ...]] How ? Is
> it just C-ultural and H-istorical and not A-ctivity T-heory based ? Even if
> you might jump from Birth to a DEVELOPED WORLDVIEW , you still have to use
> 'OPERATE' within, quite automatically . Our problems seems to be first with
> 'action' rather than the activity theory . You don't try to locate 'action'
> in your long journey from birth to death .
>
>
> The concept of "agency" as a "perspective" is a concrete example of a
>
> cultural-historically developed concept [emerging from
>
> particular historically constellated social relations] that comes to be a
>
> framework for helping to "orient" future acts. There are MULTIPLE
>
> perspectives on "agency" and each perspective articulates and expresses
>
> alternative "types" of personality formations.  Now as these alternatives
>
> circulate within a specific historical moment some of these perspectives on
>
> "agency" have more or less salience [are cultural-historically validated
>
> and appreciated]
>
> Some examples of alternative perspectives on agency [which come to orient a
>
> particular person's personality] are:
>
>
> Contractual agency:  Where your agency is recognized through an "exchange"
>
> of mutual recognition and you develop your agency through MUTUAL
>
> SYMMETRICAL recognition.  Acting from this particular framework forms
>
> particular "types" of personalities
>
>
> voluntaristic agency: This is a framework that posits an identity that
>
> transcends context and through one's own voluntaristic agency can "choose"
>
> how to act in the world. This also is a particular historically developed
>
> framework which orients and has rofound cultural consequences for how we
>
> constellate our social relationships.
>
>
> Possessive Agency: This is the perspective or framework on agency which
>
> Patchen Markell is challenging as "merely" another form of "sovereign"
>
> agency [as are the contractual and voluntaristic]  This framework posits
>
> "identities" that exist "a priori" and require  struggles and conflict in
>
> order to be recognized as who we ARE.
>
>
> Non-possessive agency:  This is a perspective which the Buddhists call
>
> "self-emptying" Greg's email's suggest there is a Western trope
>
> [perspective] which has historically developed in the West that shares a
>
> family resemblance with the Buddhist perspective on agency.  This
>
> alternative perspective embraces "action" at the center of agency but an
>
> action that is non-possessive and ACTIVELY attempts to develop a
>
> perspective that makes a committment to dialogue and communication that
>
> requires a turning away from all the previous perspectives of "sovereign
>
> agency"
>
> ****
>
> a. The concept of "agency" as a "perspective" ...  . I accept 'agency' as
> a 'concept' but not as a 'perspective/worldview' . Do you use Shaupenhaur's
> agency , Heidegger's agency , whatever ? We can say his perspective is
> based on taking 'agentivity' as a non-deterministic view of man . Besides ,
> you are going to narrate the different definitions different perspectives
> present on 'agency' . Then how can it be itself a 'perspective' ? Larry ,
> my ever be friend , how easy-going you are with the flow of words :-))
> b. Your contractual agency seems to be contradictory to my taking of the
> 'class struggle' . If yesterday , with the collapse of the Soviet Union ,
> you said 'no class' , now with the %1 versus %99 which is the 'word' of the
> 'day' plus many other phenomena , you still say : 'no class' ? Contract
> between who and who ? I'm , in my turn , expecting the 'agentivity' of the
> 'OPPRESSED' .  Andy on his wish of the New Year pleaded the Arab Spring to
> get GLOBALIZED . Amen ! With so many controversies you still believe in
> equal folk ?
> But in less than three months , we'll be having our first day of the New
> Year . Don't want us to see Nato's super-jet aircrafts over our heads  ! as
> we don't want you accountable for a minority's oppression .
> Larry ! Please don't reply to this unfinished message . Let me go to the
> end this time . You seem to be so orientated . No problem ! Wait Plz .
> I don't agree with David Bakhurst . However , the attached might be of
> interest . Read individually :--))
> Best Regards
> Haydi
>
>
>
>
> What motivates trying to "possess" agency" Patchen says it is the denial of
>
> our FINITUDE. For him this is a central motivation and desire to develop
>
> along the path of "becoming sovereign".
>
>
> Haydi, as a "worldview" the impulse to recognize MY SOVEREIGN identity also
>
> extends to concepts such as  the identity of sovereign state or the
>
> identity of sovereign private property. Perspectives have real consequences
>
> in our practices and our institutional formations as they express our
>
> cultural-historically constituted personalities [our concepts, affects, and
>
> actions]  Being sovereign requires FIRM BOUNDARIES and limits. In contrast
>
> non-possessive agency embraces uncertainty, fallibility, ambivalence at the
>
> HEART of our humanness.  From Patchen's perspective embracing the reality
>
> of our VULNERABILITY to entering generative dialogues is avoided to
>
> maintain our security needs to be recognized as "sovereign".
>
>
> Back to Activity Theory. I hope I've shown that the concept "perspectives"
>
> as I'm attempting to use it is much more inclusive than just "a person's
>
> personality.  I believe we can operate from ALL four of the above notions
>
> of agency at different moments and move between them as all four
>
> perspectives on agency are recognized culturally.
>
> Ethically and evaluatively I would promote the non-possessive form of
>
> agency [as a particular perspective and position] Over time if this
>
> perspective becomes shared with many others, then a personality
>
> "disposition" MAY develop IF WE ACT on this particular perspective.
>
>
> Haydi, and everyone else
>
>
> Happy New Year in 2012
>
>
> Larry
>
>
> Haydi, I hope this concrete example
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>
> From: Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>
>
> To: Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>
>
> Cc: "xmca@weber.ucsd.edu" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
> Sent: Saturday, 31 December 2011, 6:00:52
>
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Interpreting Leontiev: functionalism and Anglo Finnish
>
> Insufficiences
>
>
>
>
> With a bit of corrections if this time the Internet works !
>
> __________________________________________
>
> _____
>
> 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