Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz

[Phil Chappell <philchappell@mac.com>]

Hi All

I happened to be reading McNeil and Goldin-Meadow recently. Mike, I think the article you might be referring to is Goldin-Meadow, S. & Beilock, S.L., (2010), Action’s influence on thought: The case of gesture, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), pp. 664-74  (see attached and also extract below). I think Vera is right that McNeil has some interesting contributions, too.

The same phenomenon occurs in tasks that elicit metaphoric gestures, as in the following example: Children asked to solve and explain math problems such as ‘‘6 þ 4 þ 2 1⁄4 ___ þ 2’’ routinely produce gestures along with their explanations, and those gestures often convey information that is not found in the children’s words. For example, a child puts 12 in the blank and justifies his answer by saying, ‘‘I added the 6, the 4, and the 2’’; that is, he gives an add-to-equal-sign problem-solving strategy in speech. At the same time, the child points at the 6, the 4, the 2 on the left side of the equation, and the 2 on the right side of the equation; that is, he gives an add-all-numbers strategy in gesture.2 Here again, children who convey different informa- tion in their gestures and speech are more likely to profit from instruction than are children who convey the same information in the two modalities (Alibali & Goldin-Meadow, 1993; Goldin-Meadow, Alibali, & Church, 1993; Perry et al., 1988).3 Gesture thus predicts changes in thought. But gesture can do more––it can bring about changes in thought in (at least) two ways: The gestures that learners see and the gestures that learners produce can influence what they learn. 


Cheers

Phil


On 03/05/2012, at 10:20 AM, mike cole wrote:

> 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

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