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

Re: [xmca] Soft Power and Collective Sense Making

Hi Huw,
Where does your distinction :
"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"
come into play in David's article?

David exposes the reader to many topical notions that have interested him
through his social relationships forming working at Bath, which you read
and  refer to as 'stepping stones' this appealing metaphor might also be
used for an amalgam of notions, how can we consider its contribution as
useful 'theoretically'?

My knowledge is limited, criteria that would seem to be candidates would
arise from principles of 'genetic method' and activity theoretic thinking
on  motive ( brought into the paper) and genetic method.

Firstly, the research observation/participation seems to have been carried
out before any intention of deriving the analysis in the paper. So we have
a posterior sense-making , and the object seems to be to synthesis a
theoretical amalgam into 'system'. Does this research value correspond to
depth of 'knowing' through practice of pursuing 'genetic method'? ( where
concept formation is achieved and thereby revealed through participation of
an intervention approach? ).  How would this have been framed in a bid for
research funding?

Secondly, is there a contribution from Bernstein ( I take it this is what
you look for from 'Harry's voice) that makes a contribution to 'genetic
method' that provides it with a 'missing' aspect - and that David's paper
develops discussion of this.  Although this appears to be 'filtered' by
refeence through  the 'post-Vygotskian'  - I'm not sure where this comes
from , it may be that H. Daniels draws on Wertsch for this term and to
Harry it  means: '

Returning to the post-Vygotskian notion of "motives" in activities

(Wertsch, 1985), school effectiveness research tacitly assumes that all
schools share the same "motive".
[ Though this does not show an understanding of 'common -universal for '
motive' as  , say, Ilyenkov would theorise it]
(From his 1987 thesis - available through Ethos at the British Library free
to UK residents , I attach a couple of excerpts for those that are not UK
residents as an aide). If then 'motive' as a contribution of activity
theoretical work after Vygotsky is  useful, then how does Bernstein's logic
sit with study of motive in a genetic form, where 'motive' can't be studied
separate to what is produced ?

It seems to me that 'interaction' is not distinguished  ( in David's paper
or made clear in H. Daniels' work)  carrying 'motive' in an
activity-theoretic sense.It seems to me important to consider this, much of
British Philosophy has an undercurrent of 'logical types' and this seems
relevant here - it seems to come 'through the back door' in Bernstein's
argument for codification ( for this i have extracted H. Daniel's
explanation of Bernstein's,where he was being supervised in part by
Bernstein, from his thesis as it is presented in depth there - attached in
lieu of 'Harry's voice')

Which then seems to be a basis of Bernstein to use a dualistic separation
of 'levels' of individuals interacting' and societal.

As a seperate comment , and going back to Martin's comment on 'soft ' power
, this was also confusing. 'Soft' as a designation in 'soft systems'
doesn't mean 'informal' which is an everyday notion that appears to be
popular. It's meaning is 'interpretive' , that 'system' is an abstraction -
a phenomenological research stance argued to be recognised through
Husserl's work, with the relation of real and abstraction as under
scrutiny, as problematic.  I can't follow the use here of two categories of
'power'  as in a universal abstraction - but seemingly posited as two
logical types - though  I haven't  read the source work to grasp their

 Anyway, David's work in his paper throws these questions up, thanks David
- and hope your new post is very fruitful for you.

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:43 PM, 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
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

Attachment: Bernstein in H daniels thesis.docx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

xmca mailing list