Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Parsing the multi-phased, overlapping, seemingly cyclical processes
involved in joint mediated action in real time seems like a task that must
be specified in the particulars of the case, Larry. Avoiding the pothole
that opens up when we murder to dissect seems essential, but rendering
accessible the process in flight also seems essential.

We have to make sense at the same time that we are making meaning, seems to
me. If, a la lsv, meaning is thought of as "the most stable pole" of
externalized sense making, materialized in language, perhaps it can be
thought of the sedimented (relatively stable) product of joint activity.

How to obtain empirical evidence of these multi-temporal, simultaneous, two
way processes at multiple time scales seems a question worth asking.
Especially in micro time (relative to ordinary experience) getting
access to observation of the processes at work seems a daunting challenge.
mike

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike
>
> You wrote,
>
>
>  from this perspective, meaning is retrospectively
> constructed. That idea seems entirely consistent with joint-mediated
> activity as a unit of analysis for lots of the phenomena we discuss
>
> The queston that comes to mind is, Do  we grant the backward glance the
> royal road *to* meaning?
> Where do we locate the *dialogical* notion of mediation that posits
> meaning as located *in* the answering of the other?  Until our playful
> encounter *in* the conversation [conversation as having its own living
> experience or being] is answered meaning continues in transition to
> becoming. This notion of meaning points more to the centrality of
> *translation* within the dance rather than locating meaning in the
> completed actuality of our anticipated projection, as determinative.  At
> least within the conversation I'm having with myself.
>
> Mike, as Martin is expressing, what is the relation BETWEEN *the backward
> glance* as completing the arc AND the *answering of the other* as the
> completion of the arc?
>
> Are these alternative ways of *forming* meaning? The backward glance as a
> particular TYPE of consciousness and the *answering other* as another
> TYPE?  The centrality of the permeable relational boundary between inner
> and outer and the reciprocity and movement back and forth between these
> forms of meaning?  Or does one type subsume the other?
>
> Both point to *joint mediation* but one seems to privilege *cognition* as
> located in subjectivity [MY backward glance] while the other form of
> mediation seems to privilege the *play* as having its own being *in* which
> *we* [not *I*] participate.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 9:32 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To me what stands out is the fact that from this perspective, meaning is
>> retrospectively
>> constructed. That idea seems entirely consistent with joint-mediated
>> activity as a unit
>> of analysis for lots of the phenomena we discuss, teaching/learning
>> processes for example.
>> I am not so sure about the "reflective attitude" part being necessary.
>> mike
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On page 4 of  the article on multiple realities Schultz writes,
>> >
>> >
>> > it makes us - in our language - either live within our present
>> experiences,
>> > directed toward their objects, or turn back in a reflective attitude to
>> our
>> > past experiences and ask for their meaning.*[7]*
>>  >
>> >
>> >
>> > In the same spirit as Martin was reflecting on the *relation between*
>> > realization and instantiation [*play* in Gadamer's language] the
>> either/or
>> > language in the above quote [directed toward objects OR turning back]
>> may
>> > be interpreted *as*  a reciprocal hermeneutical relation of continuous
>> > moving back and forth and interpenetrating with more permeable
>> boundaries
>> > and more dynamic flow [in other words *fusing* of the horizons of
>>  present
>> > experiences and reflective attitude]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > As I understand Gadamer, he would suggest Schultz is operating from a
>> > particular prejudice-structure of  understanding reflective conduct
>> > [subject-object reflection] whereas Gadamer is pointing to an
>> alternative
>> > form of what he terms *effective* reflection.  I acknowledge I may have
>> be
>> > *mis*-understanding Gadamer, and what I'm suggesting is tentative, but
>> I am
>> > hearing a particular type of reflection being articulated as I read the
>> > article.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Larry
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Andy, Mike, Martin
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for this lead.  I have been reading Gadamer's response to
>> Habermas
>> > > and the interplay between his notion of *traditions* and Habermas
>> notion
>> > of
>> > > *emancipation* within social theory.
>> > >
>> > > The two chapter's of Martin's book will help further the
>> conversations on
>> > > these themes.
>> > >
>> > > Martin, your conversation with David on the interplay of realization
>> and
>> > > instantiation and the centrality of the *relation between* these
>> concepts
>> > > seems central to this discussion.
>> > >
>> > > I also wonder about the interplay between realization and reflection
>> and
>> > > Gadamer's notion of multiple TYPES of reflection. Assertive
>> reflection,
>> > > thematic reflection, and what Gadamer names as  *effective reflection*
>> > > where one engages with developing the skills to enter and participate
>> > > effectively in playing the games without holding back and *merely*
>> > playing
>> > > at playing the game.  Effective playing as having its *own* being and
>> > *we*
>> > > enter this play and get *taken up* and *carried* along within the
>> play.
>> > Not
>> > > privleging either *subjective* consciousness or *objective*
>> consciousness
>> > > but rather privileging the play in which subjectivity and objectivity
>> > have
>> > > their *ground* [metaphorically]
>> > >
>> > > Martin, I'm not sure if this was the direction you were taking
>> > > theconversation, but it what I interpreted you saying.
>> > >
>> > > Larry
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi Andy et al -
>> > >>
>> > >> Martin's book, the science of qualitative research has a chapter that
>> > >> traces Kant-Husserl-
>> > >> Schutz - BergerLuckman that we r reading at Lchc. It helped me a lot
>> to
>> > >> sort out this branch
>> > >> of thought. It is followed by a chapter that traces Heidegger -
>> Merleau
>> > >> Ponty- garfinkle.
>> > >>
>> > >> I have heard there is an electronic version, but do not know how to
>> get
>> > >> it. Working from actual hard copy!
>> > >> Mike
>> > >>  On Apr 28, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Andrew Babson <ababson@umich.edu>
>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > He was very influential to Garfinkel, and so from an intellectual
>> > >> > historical perspective, the development of ethnomethodology,
>> > >> > conversation analysis and modern sociolinguistics.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On 4/28/12, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>> > >> >> I'd just like to share the attached article, written in 1945 by
>> > Alfred
>> > >> >> Schuetz, a refugee from the Frankfurt School living in New York,
>> like
>> > >> so
>> > >> >> many others. In the article he appropriates Wm James, GH Mead and
>> J
>> > >> >> Dewey, whilst coming from the Pheneomenology of Husserl, to adapt
>> the
>> > >> >> concepts of Pheneomenology to social theory. It is quite
>> interesting.
>> > >> He
>> > >> >> remains, in my view within the orbit of Phenomenology, but readers
>> > will
>> > >> >> recognise significant points of agreement with AN Leontyev's
>> Activity
>> > >> >> Theory. What he calls "Conduct" comes close to "Activity," and he
>> > >> >> introduces the concept of Action which is certainly the same as
>> it is
>> > >> >> for CHAT, and instead of "an activity" (the 3rd level in ANL's
>> > system)
>> > >> >> he has "Project." But although this project has the same relation
>> to
>> > >> >> Action, it is a subjectively derived project posited on the world,
>> > >> >> rather than project discovered in the world, and having a
>> basically
>> > >> >> societal origin. This is the point at which I think he confines
>> > himself
>> > >> >> to Phenomenology, and fails to reach a real social theory. The
>> whole
>> > >> >> business about "multiple realities" which gives the article its
>> title
>> > >> is
>> > >> >> very tedious, but actually is valid in its basics I think.
>> > >> >> Some of us on this list may appreciate him. He's a recent
>> discovery
>> > >> for me.
>> > >> >> Andy
>> > >> >> --
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> >> *Andy Blunden*
>> > >> >> Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
>> > >> >> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>> > >> >> Book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1608461459/
>> > >> >>
>> > >> > __________________________________________
>> > >> > _____
>> > >> > 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