Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

The person who came to mind for me on this issue is Susan Goldin-Meadow who
shows
that children about to display Piagetian conservation in words gesture in
distinctively
relevant ways before they verbalize the correct response. But I could not
find the relevant
material in an article. :-(
mike

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Vera John-Steiner <vygotsky@unm.edu> wrote:

> Larry et al,
> The dichotomy between words and gestures, (the latter being non-rule
> governed and spontaneous) is not quite in accordance with the rich research
> literature on gestures. David McNeil's research reveals interesting
> synchronies between speech and gesture. You may like to look into his work,
> Vera
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Larry Purss
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 5:11 PM
> To: lchcmike@gmail.com
> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz
>
> Mike, Monica, Andy,and others
>
>
>
> Mike, sedimentation as the relatively stable product of joint activity
> materialized in language is an excellent starting point.  I'm still
> attempting to understand what is meant by *materialized* in the statement
> *materialized in language*  In other words, as we participate in the
> *ensemble* of modalities expressing meaning [motor, perceptual, gesture,
> language, artifacts] *as* enactments  questions if one modality (language)
> is conventional and rule bound while another modality (gesture) is
> spontaneous and free and and expressing subjective non-conventional
> [natural] expressions.
>
> I want to return to Martin's exploration of *inner form* as central to
> meaning
> Shpet wrote a book on inner form where he expanded on Humboldt's notion of
> language as a *living* entity. Shept wrote,
>
> "We must look at language not as a DEAD product OF a generative process but
> instead language is a living generative process. This is the central tenet
> he lays out in his phenomenological account of language as *energeia* not
> *ergon* [extending Humboldt's idea].  Language *as* activity of the spirit
> and the immanent work of the soul.  Language is the foundation of the very
> nature of being human. ... Language can be viewed not only as a substance
> but as a SUBJECT. Not only as a thing, product, or result of production
> [instrument or tool to be picked up and used] but *as* production PROCESS
> asenergeia."
>
> The notion that language is a SUBJECT, an activity of the spirit, adds an
> element of dynamism that is often not a part of contemporary Western
> traditions of schorlarship.   Martin's exploration of Merleau-Ponty's
> notion of meaning *as* style explores the same theme.
>
> I would like to add Gadamer's voice to this conversation with his
> notion that sedimented materiality in language may have its *own* being
> that participates and answers the interpreter in genuine conversations
> [living texts].  Conversations & texts are hermeneutically interpreted and
> in THIS dialogical process BOTH subject and living materialized language
> [as subject] are transformed within expanding *fusions* of horizons. This
> suggests that language itself is living spirit [being] with its own
> energeia and its own horizon of understanding that can *open* and *unveil*
> an infinity of the *unsaid* in its enactment with our subjectiviy.
>
> This reflection on language as living energeia may be far too metaphysical
> [with talk of spirit and soul] and I may be mis-understanding Shpet and
> Gadamer and Merleau-Ponty. [I will leave others to comment on Vygotsky].
> However this phenomenological, historical, and metaphorical exploration
> attempting to render the energeia of language in DYNAMIC flight, and its
> infinite unveiling of the *unsaid* within further conversations and further
> unveilings] seems to be a theme inhabiting language.
>
> I may be taking us all down a rabbit hole and if so I apologize. I do not
> have a background in language studies but the materiality of language
> [object *enlightenment*, subject *romanticism*, energeia, convention, rule
> bound, non-conventional, fluid, dynamic, spontaneous, living, product,
> productive] seems to have an ambiguous nature that calls for continuous
> hermeneutical unveiling as we descend deeper into its overflowing
> potential.
>
> Elena Cuffari playing within the traditions of phenomenology, pragmatics,
> and gesture studies as one example of this living energeia [not ergon]
>
> Larry
>
> PS   My jumping off point for these reflections on Vygotsky being
> influenced by Shpet.
>
> http://books.google.ca/books?id=iw4jk11pm_YC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=Phenomenolo
>
> gy+of+language+%22inner+form%22&source=bl&ots=WwslGiIO7c&sig=QPVSgaPHxMdWYQ4
>
> EImKktK-Hcqc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cr6hT4mhCIKyiQKhm8CYBw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&
> q=Phenomenology%20of%20language%20%22inner%20form%22&f=false
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:38 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That is from my memory of lsv, not my idea.
> > mike
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:36 AM, monica.hansen <
> > monica.hansen@vandals.uidaho.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Describing meaning as a "the most stable pole" is that your metaphor for
> >> your interpretation of LSV as a whole or does that come from a
> particular
> >> contextual instantiation?
> >>
> >> When you put it that way, Mike, it does seem daunting! It is amazing we
> >> ever thought to study psychological processes, especially using science
> ;).
> >> There are so many factors that can't be isololated--the nature of the
> >> relationships in question is not easily defined by the types of
> >> relationships we are used to establishing in science. So, all I can come
> up
> >> with is that we continue to work at our understandings.
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] on
> >> behalf of mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:35 AM
> >> To: Larry Purss
> >> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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