Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

The exploration of gesture as communication action and how we conceptualize
its place as conventionalized in contrast with its being spontaneous is the
topic of Elena Cuffari's paper as she calls for being reflective on our
guiding assumptions.

Exploring deaf culture is another perspective on this fascinating topic.
I want to draw attention to Joseph J. Tobin's work on deaf culture in
Japan.  Tobin's mentor's were Robert LeVine and Takeo Doi [a Japanese
Psychiatrist. I ing this confluence of mentors intriguing.

At AERA in Vancouver there was a session honouring Robert Le Vine who has
developed the field of cognitive anthropology. Barbara Rogoff presented her
work exploring development within Mayan Culture [she was a student of
Robert].
 Joseph Tobin also presented his FASCINATING work with Japanese Deaf
children. He present ed video that captures the centrality of language *as*
gesture in a very deep and moving [and revealing] way.  Robert takes this
video to various cultures and asks members of the culture to RESPOND to the
video of deak kindergarden children being schooled in Japan. This format
Joseph suggests is a profound window into how various cultures *compose*
notions of child development as the topic of early childhood practices
draws out emphatic responses in all cultural groups.

This method seems to hold out promise for capturing the contrasting
normative *images* or *styles* expressed AS meaningingful in different
cultural groups.  I would recommend exploring Joseph Tobin's ground
breaking methods and conceptualizations that *show* visually what we are
discussing verbally.

Exploring *gesture* offers promise for exposing our basic normative
assumptions of development and the contrasting normative images grounding
particular traditions or styles.  The interplay of *inner form* and
*normative images* as style may also open up further reflection contrasting
spontaneity and normative conventional communicative actions [as styles of
expression]

Larry

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:

> Plus, I take Merleau-Ponty to be saying that at the right level of
> analysis, talk *is* gesture.
>
> Martin
>
> On May 2, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Vera John-Steiner 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