[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Soft Power and Collective Sense Making

in the introduction to Eddy Spicer's article he is exploring the linkage
between authority AS an attribute of the dialectical relationship of social
and individual *motives*. This concept *social motives* is a key concept to
reflecting on how persons *position* within institutions.  my question is
exploring how appropriate it is to refer to institutional *motives* as
institutional *values*. is it appropriate to translate *motives* AS
a second question is if institutions can be considered as *memorial*
structures and if it is appropriate to link *memory* and *values* within
institutional structures.
Institutions as places of *memorial values* shifts the conversation to
include memory and values within the conversation of "the motivational
middle level" as taken-for-granted forgotten memorial values within
institutionalized motives which are *deemed appropriate* [p.165]
Spicer is exploring patterns of positioning AS *units of analysis* that
bridges the concern of sociocultural analyses with semiotic mediation and
the concern of cultural-historical perspectives with historically formed,
object-oriented activity. within THIS unit of analysis within institutional
*motives* how central is concepts of *memory* and *values*? my question is
circling around questions of *shared memory* and *shared values* and the
crisis experienced when transitioning between contrasting memory and
values. [taken-for-granted and forgotten as emerging AS shared values.

 on page 152 Spicer writes,
"A cultural-historical perspective provides the means for exploring how
such features of setting, which Engesteom (1998) referred to as the
"motivational middle level" (p.77) condition the everyday interactions
among teachers and between teachers and students. MOTIVATIONAL in these
terms refers to the cultural-historical notion of object motive,
the "relationships that organize a person's action in the situations in
which they are acting."
In this conceptualization of institutional motives
particular institutions are expressing particular values and navigating
contrasting values in moving or transitioning from one value orientation to
another can create a crisis. Institutions *transmit* values through time
and therefore institutions which transmit motives are transmitting a  type
of memory.
I'm questioning if the use of  particular mediational means is often based
on factors having to do with memorial [historical] institutional motives as
expressing particular values which are discussed as *positioning* which is
This understanding of values within institutional motives is implicit, but
I wanted to open up a space for values and memory to be more explicit.
Mike, I have attempted to stay within the spirit of the article's unit of
analysis [authority as positioning] while also circling around
institutional values and memorial forgetting involved in taken-for-granted


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 13 May 2013 15:46, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Everything is related to everything else, Larry. Still, if we simply
>> engage
>> in Vygotskian chaining, it makes more effective concept development a
>> little iffy.  :-)
>> I think your question is related to Martin's regarding power and
>> positive/negative
>> effects. I found David ES who is cc'ed on this note. Like more than a few
>> of us,
>> this is a busy time of year for him, but he has been on xmca before and
>> hopefully
>> will join the conversation. If we are lucky we might get Harry to
>> participate as well -- as I said, the discussion of Bernstein is
>> important,
>> and, I might add, of Hasan and Halliday as well. But first, Spicer Eddy!
> Yes, it would be good to get Harry's voice too.  For me, David's article
> presents some stepping stones (the "positioning") between the
> institutionalised implicit mediation that Harry references (Daniels, 2010)
> and the materialised forms of mediation that Wertsch has typically focused
> upon.
> Regarding the sign-activity divergence.  My interpretation (which the
> article does not point to) is of the divergence in conceptualisation of
> development according to sociocultural and Activity-Theoretic
> orientations.  As I understand it, In the conventional _developmental_
> understanding the sign manifests and moves as part of the learning dynamic
> (tool & symbol, Luria & Vygotsky) whereas in Activity Theoretic approaches
> the "social development" is a more overt designed process.  In this regard,
> I interpret the object-oriented and semiotic aspects as being the other way
> around... because the Activity-Theoretic (i.e. Engestrom's approach) is not
> focused on the object-oriented activity, rather it is focused on social
> reflections.  The use of "semiotic" here is rather ambiguous for me, I am
> inferring it to mean the symbolic form that is manifest and derived from
> the social work or praxis (Ratner, 1997, p. 103; Daniels et al, 2010, p.
> 106).
> Huw
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/tool-symbol.htm
> Daniels, H. (2010). Mediation in the Development of Interagency Work. In
> H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y.
> Engestrom, T. Gallagher, & S. R. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity Theory in
> Practice: Promoting Learning Across Boundaries and Agencies (pp. 105–125).
> Routledge.
> Ratner, C. (1997). *Cultural Psychology and Qualitative Methodology:
> Theoretical and Empirical Considerations* (p. 262). Springer.
>> g'day!
>> mike
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
xmca mailing list