Re: [xmca] Soft Power and Collective Sense Making

[Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>]

On 18 May 2013 13:57, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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*
>

The main point, for me, is that there is a deliberate elasticity in the
instruction dynamic -- which is referred to here as soft power.  This seems
necessary in order to include the motives of the participants.  Hence
leontiev's contribution is still implicated.

Soft systems views (interpretive dimension) is different to soft power,
here.  Soft power is simply referring to a more free-form conjoint
establishment of authority.

Huw


>
> 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
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca