Re: [xmca] Soft Power and Collective Sense Making

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Huw, Christine,
Your commentary on the article is circling around the questions I have on
the *unit of analysis* - positioning.
Christine, your interpretation of *soft power* AS *interpretation* shifts
the conversation to more open or free dialogic engagements, less logically
differentiated and determined placing of persons.
Huw, your comment,
" in order for this dialogic encounter to be the actual site of the work
.... these gambits need to be *appreciated* by  all concerned as not
infringing on their *valuation* of the content (planning) -- otherwise the
meeting becomes a formality of presenting planning which is done elsewhere"
also shifts the focus and foregrounds the interpretive dimension of *soft
power*

larry


On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 17 May 2013 16:21, Christine Schweighart <schweighartc@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> Hi Christine,
>
> Quoting David, "Post-Vygotskian theorists have long wrestled with the
> apparent opposition between an emphasis on the sign-mediated nature of
> collective meaning making associated with sociocultural analyses and a
> focus on object-oriented activity and practical action in
> cultural-historical perspectives."
>
> Perhaps the "apparent opposition" is overly foregrounded, here.
> Contrasting studies of object-oriented activity and studies of changing
> work relations (i.e. change workshops), the meaningful objects of concern
> are referred to from a different temporal perspectives.  Wherein the change
> workshops may attend to the institutionalised manner of conducting the
> work.
>
> The manifestation of "positions" presents a means of appraising the
> movement in meaning in an engaged form.  In these particular examples, in
> which the authority of the lead teachers is not presented in a closed,
> hierarchical fashion both the manner of conducting the work and the content
> of the work are responsive to the situation.
>
> The positions adopted address aspects of the content and the manner of
> conducting the work.  But in order for the this dialogic encounter to be
> the actual site of the work (planning, negotiation, resolution of task
> complexity), these gambits need to be appreciated by all concerned as not
> infringing upon their valuation of the content (the planning) -- otherwise
> the meeting becomes a formality of presenting planning which is done
> elsewhere.  The positioning achieves a historical movement, in
> consideration of all these factors, by which a firmer plan may be reached.
>
> This is simply my interpretation of the paper.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>
> > 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
> > distinction.
> >
> >  Anyway, David's work in his paper throws these questions up, thanks
> David
> > - and hope your new post is very fruitful for you.
> >  Christine.
> >
> >
> > 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
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > 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