Mike,
here is a link to the edited book by Bert Van Oers, Wim Wardekker, Ed
Elbers, and Rene Van Der Veer: The title of the book is "The Transformation
of Learning Advances in Cultural Historical Activity Theory.
The chapter by Rene on Multiple Interpretations of Vygotsky is what I
referenced. If the link I supplied does not work, it can be accessed at
*google books*
http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item1174084/?site_locale=en_GB
The scholars Cintia Rodriguez and Christiane Moro [who Rene referenced]
have a chapter titled "Production of Signs and Meaning Process in Triadic
Interaction at the Prelinguistic Level A Task for Sociocultural Analysis
- The Case for Ostention"
The chapter by Rodriguez and Moro is in the book "Innovating Genesis
Microgenesis and the Constructive Mind in Action by the editors Emily Abbey
and Rainer Diriwwachter. Here is a link to google books for Rodriguez
article:
http://books.google.ca/books/about/Innovation_Genesis.html?id=BD-cqSaIKeIC&redir_esc=y
Mike, the article by Ines Langemeyer & Wolff-Michael Roth I will send as an
attachment: This article explores Hegel's understanding of the concept of
dialectics and Marx's questioning of Hegel's interpretation. The article
underlines that dialectics is foundationally a method of questions and
answers. On page 22 of this article Langemeyer & Roth in discussing Hegel's
understanding of *thinking*
"Everything we know is a product of this movement of thinking (thought).
This can be critically reflected upon only by making the movement available
to another movement of thinking."
Langemeyer & Roth on page 23 discuss Marx's *questioning* of Hegel's
"mystified form" of dialectical thinking. Langemeyer and Roth write;
"For Marx, the problem is that 'Hegel fell into the illusion of conceiving
the real as the product of thought concentrating itself, probing its own
depths, and unfolding itself out of itself by itself ' (Marx, 1973, p.101)"
Langemeyer & Roth further comment;
"To avoid the 'speculative dialectics of Hegel, Marx emphasizes in each
case the the *limits of dialectics* need to be determined and that the
difference between the real object and the epistemic object , between
reality and thinking, should not be neutralized. This may clarify why Marx
claimed that his VERSION of dialectics is 'not only different from the
Hegelian, but is its direct opposite.(Marx)' ".
Vygotsky, in *reading* Marx's VERSION of dialectics, questioned how
dialectics was understood through the LENSES of Hegel and Marx, but as
Langemeyer & Roth emphasize, Vygotsky took dialectical questioning and
answering into new historical interpretations. They *read* Vygotsky's
"dialectical thinking" as transferring and transforming Hegel and Marx's
versions in view of specific objects of study and its determinations
through scientific research. Langemeyer and Roth write;
"Most salient about Vygotsky's dialectical thinking is that it radically
takes into account that human practice as social interaction,
collaboration, and human development cannot be adequately theorized if it
is reduced to a self-reliant, thing-like *object*. It IS a
socio-historical, shifting, multi-dimensional object of study (Gegenstand)
that cannot be investigated by looking at isolated elements or components
but by determining relevant 'units' of it only." (p.26-27)
Langemeyer and Roth then on page 27 extract a more GENERAL understanding of
the multiple dimensions of dialectics and list five principles. They
summarize this section of their article with the general comment;
"Dialectical thinking BECOMES a challenge to constantly QUESTION a variety
of presuppositions concerning research practices."
This is a good place to pause. My questioning of soft power in David's
article is the *position* of nonverbal actions such as gestures within
institutional *motives* which are prescribed?
If we are to return to the *genesis* of phenomena, then soft power as
negotiation of *prescribed ends* (as internalization of institutional
motives) contrasts with *genuine goal formation*.
David Eddy's article described positioning within an organizational
structure in which they were moving to a semester system in the school
BECAUSE they had failed an audit and were threatened with outsiders coming
in and imposing controls. To reflect on this process of soft power, can
*genuine goal formation* develop within this imposition of *prescribed
ends* of moving to a semester system which must increase student
achievement [OR ELSE!!!].
How soft can the power be when the institutional motives are so clear and
*motivating*?
Larry
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:09 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for all those linkages, Larry. Perhaps it would be possible to get
> a copy
> of Renee's article or send us reference for Rodrigues which may be web
> accessible.
>
> I think that what may be emerging out of this discussion is a distinction
> between the analysis of development toward pre-scribed ends
> ("internalization") (often by pre-scribed means) versus analyses that allow
> genuine goal formation and something more like what many refer to as
> "mutual appropriation").
>
> Soft power would be the preferred mode for the latter orientation because
> it leaves more space for negotiation of meaning.
>
> Anyway, need to see the papers cited.
> mike
>
> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Further reflections on semiotic means for exploring development.
>> Bert ores edited a book *the transformation in learning advances in
>> cultural-historical activity theory*.
>> A chapter in this book by Rene van der veer explores two distinct ways of
>> reflecting on the method of double stimulation.one way is using material
>> external objects as mediational tools as a step in the process towards
>> *internalization* [leontiv's experiments were reviewed].
>> The other interpretation prioritizes semiotic preverbial mediation. Rene
>> references Rodrigues work on double stimulation with 7, 10, and 13 month
>> old babies. Their model prioritizes *showing* and *demonstrating* as
>> mediating processes prior to *pointing* or * verbal* GESTURES to develop
>> babies conventionalized enculturation.
>>
>> Contrasting material object mediation with semiotic dialogical mediation
>> [as a triad of infant mother and task] takes a *position* on the centrality
>> of *gestures* semiotically mediating enculturation processes as modeling
>> cultural conventions.
>>
>> Ines langemeyer suggests vygotsky excavated 3 dimensions of mediational
>> process [use of sign, use of tool, and social cooperation] [reference is
>> "is cultural-historical activity theory threatened to fall short of its own
>> principles and possibilities as a dialectical social science"
>> rene's article gives a concrete example of the play among these 3
>> dimensions of mediational means.
>>
>> Langemeyer [and wolff-michael Roth] also explores the understanding of
>> dialectical movement within cultural historical theories. Dialectics is NOT
>> an *instrument* to overcome the shortfalls of traditional forms of
>> investigation. This would misunderstand dialectics as merely a method that
>> can be *applied* like a tool.
>> Instead dialectical *thinking* becomes a challenge to constantly QUESTION
>> a variety of presuppositions concerning practices.
>> Langemeyer writes, "This questioning is paramount when a critical
>> approach is elaborated and when scientific thinking is developed as a
>> practice of emancipatory intervention."
>> To return to David eddy spicer's introduction to his article exploring
>> the apparent opposition between an *emphasis* on the sign-mediated semiotic
>> nature of collective meaning making [including proverbial conventional
>> gesturing] and the *emphasis* on object-oriented *activity* the two
>> articles I reference explore the dialectical relationship [as questioning
>> presuppositions] that may bring together semiotic and activity based
>> analyses.
>>
>> larry purss
>> Ps langemeyer's article is published in the journal *outlines* which can
>> be freely downloaded
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:46 AM, 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!
>>>
>>> g'day!
>>> mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Attachment:
may 22 2013 Ines and roth cultural historical theory and action res3arch.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca