[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Understanding is no method but rather a form of communication
Peter
The question of sources and who speaks for and about the people "inside"
and the people "outside" seems to be a question of boundaries and boundary
marking. As I read about action research this question of boundaries and
who is inside and who outside seems central. Activity theory and Ole
Drier's everyday situations answer this question in a particular way.
In my paid profession or work I am located or placed within multiple
teacher con-figurations [the term role seems too essential and
substantive] engaging in conversations [Gadamer] and communicative action
[Habermas] .
My interest and curiosity and questions [in the way Jack Whitehead asks
questions] is the fluidity of these boundary markings. Peter, at one level
the field of play I occupy excludes Gadamer and Habermas from the field
[when I' m acting *as if* I belong to THIS GROUP acting in this ACTIVITY.]
The "roles" I play do not noticably include contributions from Gadamer or
Habermas. My *folk* psychological narratives are assumed to be
circumscribed to the players on the etic team
However, when I'm operating on another field of play does my activity
partners change??
I am now oriented to the same activity but now HAVE [through conscious
AWARENESS] USING the lens and models of philosophical hermeneutics as a
*way* to proceed.
QUESTION:
Now is Gadamer and Habermas inside or outside MY field of play.
Now, if I [or we] choose to answer THIS question hermeneutically, MY way of
orienting or directing my actions within activity settings does include
Gadamer and Habermas inside IF I'm having LIVING conversations with Gadamer
and Habermas. I am actually "hearing" their "tone" of voice as I proceed
in my actions within activities. Now the questions of boundaries as emic
and etic becomes more fluid. Has the circle of understanding expanded to
circumscribe Gadamer and Habermas within MY circle of understanding?
At another level [or dimension] are Gadamer and Habermas also brought into
my circle at my work sites? Through my conscious awareness are their
voices vented or echoed and expressed through my changing "folk"
psychology? Am I developing new dis-positions or attitudes or styles of
posturing [ways of orienting in the world]?
In other words, as I inter-act with others [or intra-act within
circumscribed fields of con-figurations] is the way Ole Drier describes
psychology boundaries as fluid "situations" in the hear and now changing
its circumfrence to include Gadamer and Habermas in MY ways of orienting to
MY practice?
Peter, your question of whose voices do I as a teacher listen to, as I
reflect on how I understand my circle of understanding seems to be an
expanding circle and that over time includes the voice of Gadamer
and Bruner INSIDE MY circumference of what is becoming MY "folk" psychology.
Peter, your question of "outside voices" as not representing teachers [they
don't hear those voices & texts as LIVING conversations which move them] is
a central question. However, in my own life as I engage with those
"outside voices" and I start to hear their voices as "inside voices" causes
me to turn to hermeneutical perspectives to answer the question of inside
and outside boundaries a fluid question of expanding and contracting
circles of understanding. [which also become ways of life incorporated as
folk psychology]
My way of answering the question:
What is the task of education?"
Education has the goal of expanding the circle of INCLUSION so our shared
folk psychology includes the reflective ability to not become dis-oriented
by uncertainty and fallibility and replaces BOXES that exclude with circles
that are open ended.
Larry
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
> Once again, though, all of the sources are theorists and etic (outside)
> researchers. Recall Luria's inability to understand Uzbekistanian logic,
> which made perfect sense to the people studied and judged as "backward"
> from the outside researcher's perspective.
>
> Peter Smagorinsky
> Distinguished Research Professor of English Education
> Department of Language and Literacy Education
> The University of Georgia
> 309 Aderhold Hall
> Athens, GA 30602
>
> Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education
>
> Follow JoLLE on twitter @Jolle_uga
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Larry Purss
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:26 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Understanding is no method but rather a form of
> communication
>
> Peter, Catherine
> Language is a constant confusion. I was using the term "folk" in the
> manner of Jerome Bruner or D. Hutto who are exploring the "common sense"
> taken for granted psychological explanations and reasons that we use in our
> daily exchanges with each other.
>
> I'm sending a google book excerpt from D. Hutto's book on forming folk
> psychological narratives.
>
> http://books.google.ca/books?id=pqcYHD677jIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=d.+Hutto+Folk&source=bl&ots=aufMgjSJvQ&sig=Yp0sBvio8DQkeiDPFbV-lL-1RB8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oYcHUOGwLYLVqAGXmsnIBA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=d.%20Hutto%20Folk&f=false
>
> I was actually attempting to use the term "folk" in a way I thought was
> common usage when reflecting on how we each USE psychological terms and
> notions currently to explain ourselves to ourselves. As Hutto and Bruner
> emphasize this is a critically important topic.
> How we in North America previously understood and reflected on our
> notions of our selfs [before Freud, Piaget, developmental psychology, etc]
> was radically different from how we understand our our selfs today.
> These differences over time in our taken for granted prejudgements, and
> presuppositions, our taken for granted SHARED narratives of who we are is
> explored as "folk" psychology.
>
> The discussion between Gadamer and Habermas, reflected in Jack Mendelson's
> article, is asking if we can stand outside our folk psychological
> narratives through the USING models or SYSTEMS [theories, explanations, and
> methods] that CONSTRUCT new narrative understandings [purpose built], or if
> we must translate and interpret our current folk narratives as emerging and
> expanding con-figurations or com-positions [Gadamer's fusion of horizons].
> Both Gadamer and Habermas value reflection and critique but in their
> conversations together differ on the centrality of folk knowledge that
> express our prejudgements or taken for granted assumptions.
>
> I would recommend looking over the introduction of Hutto's book for an in
> depth study of this topic.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Cathrene Connery <cconnery@ithaca.edu
> >wrote:
>
> > That is certainly how I am perceiving Larry's message. So sad to see
> > that false dichotomies still polarize us when so much can and needs to
> > be done on behalf of children and our society.
> >
> > Dr. Cathrene Connery
> > Assistant Professor of Education
> > Ithaca College
> > Department of Education
> > 194B Phillips Hall Annex
> > 953 Danby Road
> > Ithaca, New York 13850
> > Cconnery@ithaca.edu
> >
> > On Jul 18, 2012, at 8:20 PM, "Peter Smagorinsky" <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Larry, it seems you're diminishing practitioner knowledge by
> > > labeling it
> > "folk," which I associate with superstition and lore. Am I
> misunderstanding?
> > >
> > > Peter Smagorinsky
> > > Distinguished Research Professor of English Education Department of
> > > Language and Literacy Education The University of Georgia
> > > 309 Aderhold Hall
> > > Athens, GA 30602
> > >
> > > Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education Follow JoLLE on
> > > twitter @Jolle_uga
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 6:35 PM
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Understanding is no method but rather a form of
> > communication
> > >
> > > Martin, Peter
> > >
> > > The question of "folk" understanding and how it links up with the
> > understanding of researchers has profound consequences.
> > > For example the multiple theories &models and systems of "psychology"
> > that have been proposed and configured over the past century
> > dramatically impacts the place where I currently work [public schools]
> > >
> > > Therefore the models we develop change our history.
> > > Also, on a personal level, engaging with Gadamer, and other
> > > scholars,
> > changes what I *see* and how I interact when I go to to work. The "folk"
> > notions of psychology, education and development, when translated and
> > actualized within academic institutions do change our conduct.
> > > Therefore the question,
> > > How do the MULTIPLE competing notions of psychology and education
> > develop and change institutional practices?
> > > This question must engage both "folk" psychology AND philosophical
> > psychology.
> > >
> > > Scholars such as Gadamer and Habermas are engaging in a serious
> > conversation about the place of theory and practice and techne as
> > contrasting notions influencing "folk" psychology as a form of
> > understanding that is taken for granted.
> > >
> > > Eugene Taylor [who has written a history of dynamic psychology] has
> > suggested 3 contrasting notions of psychology that are currently in use.
> > > 1] Academic psychology which is biased towards experiment,
> > > measurement,
> > and empirical statistical notions 2] Clinical practices of
> > psychotherapy, which have little overlap to academic psychology.
> > > 3] Psychology which informs self-exploration as a person tries to
> > develop self-understanding. This 3rd way of understanding psychology
> > is a question of developing dis-positions, attitudes, or ways of
> > orienting within the world.
> > >
> > > William James, over a hundred years ago, discussed these multiple
> > contrasting notions of psychology and 100 years later we continue to
> > generate NEW and novel systems of psychology.
> > > It is THIS hermeneutical process of interpretation and translation
> > > [the
> > multiple theories ans systems of psychology as understanding] which I
> > believe scholars such as Gadamer can illuminate through reflection on
> > how our folk psychology, is constantly under RE-vision. RE-search is
> > one method contributing to the MULTIPLE versions of psychology
> > generated and it is THIS hermeneutical understanding of how systems of
> > psychology develop which may shed some light on the practice of
> > psychology [and psyche] as a historically implicated development.
> > Gadamer would say hermeneutical understanding underlies all the
> > multiple ways of understanding psychology as theoretical systems of
> psychology.
> > >
> > > Peter, I'm not sure if "folk" psychology or "folk" education [as
> > > taken
> > for granted understanding] can answer questions of WHY is there a
> > multiplicity of competing systems of psychology?
> > > Gadamer gives a particular answer to this question. I also believe
> > > he
> > offers a model of reflective practice which can deepen the
> > understanding of critical theory and deepen an understanding of "folk"
> psychology.
> > >
> > > Larry
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Bueno, and my apologies if I misunderstood the intent of your
> comments.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > >> On Behalf Of Martin Packer
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:37 PM
> > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >> Subject: Re: [xmca] Understanding is no method but rather a form of
> > >> communication
> > >>
> > >> Peter,
> > >>
> > >> I was responding to a post about Gadamer, and I replied not by
> > >> giving my own opinion but by describing what someone a lot smarter
> > >> than me has said to Gadamer. I'm not trying to say that highly
> > >> placed theorists are more important than everyday folk; I have
> > >> simply pointed out that some pretty smart people have thought about
> > >> these issues, that I find what they have to say helpful, and I've
> > >> tried to summarize
> > what they have said.
> > >>
> > >> Martin
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Jul 18, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Action research, at least from a teacher-research perspective, is
> > >> something I've always understood to emerge from participants'
> > >> inquiries into their own practice. When teachers write about their
> > >> classroom inquiries, they tend to begin with the story of the
> > >> question, not what Hegel or Habermas thinks. Yet in this discussion
> > >> of action research, the only people given credit for thinking are
> > >> what
> > you've called "researchers"
> > >> who can stand back and take in the whole, rather than those with an
> > >> emic perspective on their own experiences.
> > >>>
> > >>> Or, at least, that's how it's come across to me. I know a lot of
> > >> teacher-researchers, and have worked from that perspective myself,
> > >> so I've been pretty well submerged in their discourse of emic
> > >> understanding and distance from other people's detached study of them.
> > >>>
> > >>> Peter Smagorinsky
> > >>> Distinguished Research Professor of English Education Department
> > >>> of Language and Literacy Education The University of Georgia
> > >>> 309 Aderhold Hall
> > >>> Athens, GA 30602
> > >>>
> > >>> Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education Follow JoLLE
> > >>> on twitter @Jolle_uga
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >>> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > >>> On Behalf Of Martin Packer
> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 3:53 PM
> > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Understanding is no method but rather a form
> > >>> of communication
> > >>>
> > >>> Could you spell this out a bit Peter? I'm not grasping your point.
> > >>>
> > >>> Martin
> > >>>
> > >>> On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> What I find surprising about this whole discussion is that each
> > >>>> and
> > >> every source invoked is a highly placed theorist. It seems a bit
> > >> patronizing to me.
> > >>>
> > >>> __________________________________________
> > >>> _____
> > >>> 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
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca