Re: [xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

I am away from home and this next week will not be a good time for serious
responses.

I clearly have lots of views on inter-disciplines and history of the
development of those we have. Its GREAT having Charles B back in the
discussion after a long vacation and to great effect.

BUT

I think the Luria book is interesting and darned if most xmca-ites did not
jump straight on the need for CHAT folks (at least!) to focus on that
general issue and ignore the luria book and its key ideas!

Like DARN!

The combined motor method, subject to abuse like all of science, is to me
a brilliant way to delve into the problem of knowing other minds and it is
not irrelevant that Freud and Jung were up there on ARL's reading list
a century ago.,.. and address in the book! It was psychiatrists who were
central to getting it published (look at a copy). It has been re-invented
many times during my professional career with zero recognition of the
principle involved: the selective discoordination of voluntary behavior.

The idea of functional barrier?

The treatment of quasi-motives and Lewin? (and were'nt we interested in
Lewin once of twice within living memory "here""?).

Mike-gone-fishing

PS- For one example of a way to bring social sciences, philosophy, history,
the anthropology, sociology, etc together check out the curriculum at
communication.ucsd.edu. Now who would of thought up something like
that??  :-)

science as practiced by not-only-Ed these days

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Charles, Greg
> Thank you for this emerging topic and theme of interdisciplinary
> possibilities.
> Charles, has there been an *historical effect* of your writing this article
> on the journal *Psychiatry*.
>
> The emergence of *family systems therapy* was strongly influenced by the
> William Alanson White institute [for example Salvador Minuchin studied
> there.
> Psychoanalysis is also impacted through *interpersonal psychiatry*  in its
> relational turn.
>
> A central motif emerging within this tradition is the understanding of
> *anxiety* [as POSSIBLE or anticipated stress].
>
> A central question becomes, "How do I [or we] make ourselves safe?"
>
> How central is this question concerning *anxiety* as a factor that
> motivates actions? I often ask this question when exploring communicative
> praxis or pragmatic understandings. Many of the examples in the 12 issues
> of the journal explored are exploring the possibility of [or avoidance of]
> perceived anxiety.
>
> Fascinating topic.
> Thanks,
> Larry
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Charles Bazerman <
> bazerman@education.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the Group Processes reference.  I will have to wait until
> after
> > travels this summer to get a hard copy, as the ecopy seems to be locked
> > down.
> > Peirce, I agree makes an important move by recognizing the importance of
> > interpretation, but despite looking at his works a number of times on the
> > recommendation of people I trust, I find he does not get us far enough.
> >  This is what I have to say about him in my soon to be released volume A
> > Theory of Literate Action.
> > best,
> > Chuck
> >
> > Peirce's semiotics with interpretation
> >         Charles Peirce, among the founding generation of pragmatists,
> > looked most directly at language and semiotics, making some first steps
> > towards articulating the implications of a pragmatist view for language
> and
> > language use. Most importantly, he recognized a major role for the
> > interpreting speaker and interpreting hearer in the meanings conveyed by
> > communication, rather than assuming meaning was immanent in an abstracted
> > language system (Peirce, 1958). It is people who attach meanings to
> > experienced worlds and issues of concern. This recognition of the
> > importance of interpretive processes might lead to an investigation of
> how
> > differences in individuals and groups of individuals might influence the
> > bases and procedures of interpretation within specific situations
> > (potentially a psychological, sociological, anthropological and even
> > historical inquiry). Peirce, however, chose to seek clarity through a
> > semiotic taxonomy of the relations among signs, objects, and
> interpretants
> > (t
> > hat is interpreted meanings), a taxonomy that he kept adjusting
> throughout
> > his life. His account does suggest some of the instability of semiosis,
> as
> > meanings are dynamically produced through interpretation, which is
> > potentially infinite; nonetheless, he seems to believe that this
> > instability can be contained by establishing an abstract philosophic
> > vocabulary about the relations of signs, objects, and interpretants. His
> > taxonomy does not provide any specific leads about how we might inquire
> > into the psychological or sociological variables of meaning making and
> > interpretation. In not pursuing the motives of the individual nor the
> > development of the individual in satisfying needs within the social and
> > material worlds, Peirce leaves us with a mystery of the individuality of
> > interpretation creating indeterminacy of meaning, with no way to get back
> > to the sources, needs, and mechanisms for meaning making. Yet it is these
> > underlying forces that drive all utterances including writin
> > g and lead to the proliferation of new texts, new genres, and new fields
> > of literate interaction. Pierce, therefore, does not yet provide us with
> an
> > understanding of how and why people use language to produce the creative
> > inventions that are at the heart of the pragmatic worldview.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> > Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:33 am
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >
> > > Many thanks for this article - it is wonderful. And I totally agree
> that
> > > language-as-activity is the place to look for an interdisciplinary
> > science
> > > of human behavior (and I'd agree that Vygotsky doesn't quite give us
> > enough
> > > of a theory of language, but I might add Peirce to your additions of
> > > Volosinov and Bakhtin).
> > >
> > > When I started reading your article I thought for a minute, based on
> the
> > > list of scholars, that you were describing the Macy conferences held
> > > between 1948 and 1953, published under the name Group Processes. These
> > > were
> > > an incredibly eclectic collection of scholars, including
> anthropologists,
> > > psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, biologists, mathematicians,
> > > engineers, and linguists.
> > >
> > > I found these to be particularly fascinating b.c. there aren't many
> times
> > > when you can actually read the words of advice that margaret Mead and
> > > Gregory Bateson gave to Erving Goffman - it really puts things in
> > > perspective to see how much criticism was heaped on these geniuses
> > (perhaps
> > > we should think of the criticism from others as a part of their
> genius?).
> > > Here is a link to the google books ref for the second volume:
> > >
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Group_processes.html?id=goMIAQAAIAAJ
> > >
> > > and here is a review of the second volume (on the bottom of the page -
> > > not
> > > the neuropharmacology one on LSD - although I think that was in the
> same
> > > series!):
> > > http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/19/2/173.2.full.pdf
> > >
> > > Note that Volume 2 includes one of Bateson's earlier formulations of
> the
> > > problem of the message "This is Play". Fascinating to watch ideas
> form...
> > >
> > > And honestly I can't imagine a conference today approaching the
> > > intellectual breadth of the Macy conferences. So maybe this isn't just
> > > a
> > > pendulum swinging closer and then further from interdisciplinarity.
> Maybe
> > > we are getting further and further away from the possibility of a true
> > > and
> > > lasting interdisciplinarity?
> > >
> > > -greg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Charles Bazerman <
> > > bazerman@education.ucsb.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You might look into the history of the journal Psychiatry, which was
> > > part
> > > > of an attempt to reunify the social sciences around the problems of
> > > living.
> > > > On the board were the founder of linguistic anthropology Edward
> > > Sapir and
> > > > the founder of modern propaganda studies Harold Lasswell
> > > > took major roles alongside the founding editor, psychiatrist Harry
> > Stack
> > > > Sullivan. Its lead article of the first volume was in particular
> Edward
> > > > Sapir ‘Why cultural anthropology needs the psychiatrist,’
> (Psychiatry,
> > > > 1938, 1: 1, 7–12). This was republished as
> > > > Edward Sapir (2001). Why Cultural Anthropology Needs the
> Psychiatrist.
> > > > Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes: Vol. 64, No. 1,
> > > pp.
> > > > 2-10.
> > > >
> > > > I have done an analysis of the early volumes Practically human: The
> > > > pragmatist project of the interdisciplinary journal Psychiatry, which
> > > > appeared in the initial issue of Linguistics and the Human
> > > > Sciences. LHS vol 1.1 2005: 15–38.
> > > > I am attaching it here as it raises the entire dilemma of the
> > fragmenting
> > > > of the social sciences and the attempts to reunify them.
> > > >
> > > > Chuck Bazerman
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> > > > Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 8:49 am
> > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF
> > > > To: Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>, "eXtended Mind,
> Culture,
> > > > Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > >
> > > > > Carol,
> > > > > I like your suggestion that psych students should take anthropology
> > > > > courses, and would add that anthro students should take psych
> courses
> > > > > as
> > > > > well so that they don't see psychological researchers as a kind of
> > > > > bogeyman.
> > > > > But maybe there needs to be something more since this can create a
> > > Necker
> > > > > cube either/or effect - where the student feels that these are two
> > > > > incommensurate fields and that they must choose one or the other.
> > > > > Maybe everyone should take a course in Cultural Psychology? (okay,
> > > that's
> > > > > not going to happen, but it would be a nice way to introduce the
> > > > > concept of
> > > > > "interdisciplinarity" in a more serious manner).
> > > > > -greg
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:00 AM, <carolmacdon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well I was thinking about that claim this morning and I think
> > > that our
> > > > > > psychology dept within itself offers very different courses now
> > > but
> > > > > all
> > > > > > under the same department. In education we have very different
> > courses
> > > > > > under the rubric of psychology in education eg cultural
> > > psychology in
> > > > > > education. Of course we think that activity theory is where it's
> > > all
> > > > > at but
> > > > > > we are minuscule proportion of the psychologists in the country.
> > > Of
> > > > > course
> > > > > > I would be happy to work in linguists and anthropologists but
> > > > psychologists
> > > > > > here are not able to make that leap. Perhaps if psych students
> were
> > > > > advised
> > > > > > to take anthroplolgy
> > > > > > Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> > > > > > Sender: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:36:56
> > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > > > > Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I imagine Nicholas would find mikes suggestion of ethnographic
> > > > psychology
> > > > > > to be BORING. Why no call for the integration of philosophy or
> > other
> > > > > > humanities into the social sciences?
> > > > > > This sounds to me like the very old argument that the social
> > > > > sciences need
> > > > > > to be more like the natural sciences.
> > > > > > Old whine, new bottle...
> > > > > > Greg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Jul 23, 2013, at 3:25 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The NY Times ran an op-ed on Sunday that might be of interest
> > > to
> > > > people
> > > > > > dissatisfied with the current state of academic disciplines:
> > > > > > > Gray Matter
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's Shake Up the Social Sciences
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By NICHOLAS A. CHRISTAKIS
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Published: July 19, 2013
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TWENTY-FIVE years ago, when I was a graduate student, there
> were
> > > > > > departments of natural science that no longer exist today.
> > > > > Departments of
> > > > > > anatomy, histology, biochemistry and physiology have disappeared,
> > > > replaced
> > > > > > by innovative departments of stem-cell biology, systems biology,
> > > > > > neurobiology and molecular biophysics. Taking a page from
> > > Darwin, the
> > > > > > natural sciences are evolving with the times. The perfection of
> > > cloning
> > > > > > techniques gave rise to stem-cell biology; advances in computer
> > > science
> > > > > > contributed to systems biology. Whole new fields of inquiry, as
> > > well
> > > > > as
> > > > > > university departments and majors, owe their existence to fresh
> > > > discoveries
> > > > > > and novel tools.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In contrast, the social sciences have stagnated. They offer
> > > > essentially
> > > > > > the same set of academic departments and disciplines that they
> have
> > > > > for
> > > > > > nearly 100 years: sociology, economics, anthropology, psychology
> > > and
> > > > > > political science. This is not only boring but also
> > counterproductive,
> > > > > > constraining engagement with the scientific cutting edge and
> > > > > stifling the
> > > > > > creation of new and useful knowledge. Such inertia reflects an
> > > > unnecessary
> > > > > > insecurity and conservatism, and helps explain why the social
> > sciences
> > > > > > don't enjoy the same prestige as the natural sciences.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One reason citizens, politicians and university donors
> > > sometimes lack
> > > > > > confidence in the social sciences is that social scientists too
> > > > > often miss
> > > > > > the chance to declare victory and move on to new frontiers. Like
> > > > natural
> > > > > > scientists, they should be able to say, "We have figured this
> topic
> > > > > out to
> > > > > > a reasonable degree of certainty, and we are now moving our
> > > > > attention to
> > > > > > more exciting areas." But they do not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not suggesting that social scientists stop teaching and
> > > > > > investigating classic topics like monopoly power, racial
> > > profiling and
> > > > > > health inequality. But everyone knows that monopoly power is bad
> > > for
> > > > > > markets, that people are racially biased and that illness is
> > unequally
> > > > > > distributed by social class. There are diminishing returns from
> > > the
> > > > > > continuing study of many such topics. And repeatedly observing
> > these
> > > > > > phenomena does not help us fix them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So social scientists should devote a small palace guard to
> > settled
> > > > > > subjects and redeploy most of their forces to new fields like
> > social
> > > > > > neuroscience, behavioral economics, evolutionary psychology and
> > > social
> > > > > > epigenetics, most of which, not coincidentally, lie at the
> > > > > intersection of
> > > > > > the natural and social sciences. Behavioral economics, for
> example,
> > > > > has
> > > > > > used psychology to radically reshape classical economics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Such interdisciplinary efforts are also generating practical
> > insights
> > > > > > about fundamental problems like chronic illness, energy
> > conservation,
> > > > > > pandemic disease, intergenerational poverty and market panics.
> For
> > > > example,
> > > > > > a better understanding of the structure and function of human
> > social
> > > > > > networks is helping us understand which individuals within social
> > > > systems
> > > > > > have an outsize impact when it comes to the spread of germs or
> the
> > > > spread
> > > > > > of ideas. As a result, we now have at our disposal new ways to
> > > > accelerate
> > > > > > the adoption of desirable practices as diverse as vaccination in
> > > rural
> > > > > > villages and seat-belt use among urban schoolchildren.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is time to create new social science departments that
> > > reflect the
> > > > > > breadth and complexity of the problems we face as well as the
> > > > > novelty of
> > > > > > 21st-century science. These would include departments of
> biosocial
> > > > science,
> > > > > > network science, neuroeconomics, behavioral genetics and
> > computational
> > > > > > social science. Eventually, these departments would themselves be
> > > > > > dismantled or transmuted as science continues to advance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some recent examples offer a glimpse of the potential. At
> > > Yale, the
> > > > > > Jackson Institute for Global Affairs applies diverse social
> > sciences
> > > > > to the
> > > > > > study of international issues and offers a new major. At
> > > Harvard, the
> > > > > > sub-discipline of physical anthropology, which increasingly
> > > relies on
> > > > > > modern genetics, was hived off the anthropology department to
> > > make the
> > > > > > department of human evolutionary biology. Still, such efforts are
> > > > generally
> > > > > > more like herds splitting up than like new species emerging. We
> > > have
> > > > > not
> > > > > > yet changed the basic DNA of the social sciences. Failure to do
> > > so
> > > > might
> > > > > > even result in having the natural sciences co-opt topics rightly
> > > and
> > > > > > beneficially in the purview of the social sciences.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > New social science departments could also help to better train
> > > > students
> > > > > > by engaging in new types of pedagogy. For example, in the natural
> > > > sciences,
> > > > > > even college freshmen do laboratory experiments. Why is this
> > > rare in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > social sciences? When students learn about social phenomena, why
> > > > > don't they
> > > > > > go to the lab to examine them - how markets reach equilibrium,
> how
> > > > people
> > > > > > cooperate, how social ties are formed? Newly invented tools make
> > > this
> > > > > > feasible. It is now possible to use the Internet to enlist
> > thousands
> > > > > of
> > > > > > people to participate in randomized experiments. This seems
> radical
> > > > > only
> > > > > > because our current social science departments weren't organized
> > > to
> > > > > teach
> > > > > > this way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For the past century, people have looked to the physical and
> > > > biological
> > > > > > sciences to solve important problems. The social sciences offer
> > > equal
> > > > > > promise for improving human welfare; our lives can be greatly
> > improved
> > > > > > through a deeper understanding of individual and collective
> > > > > behavior. But
> > > > > > to realize this promise, the social sciences, like the natural
> > > > sciences,
> > > > > > need to match their institutional structures to today's
> > intellectual
> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nicholas A. Christakis, a physician and sociologist at Yale
> > > > University,
> > > > > > is a co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > > > xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > > > > > On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:16 PM
> > > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Greg, I think you are completely right with the way you
> > > describe the
> > > > > > interdisciplinary blindness inquestion. Michael Hedelberger (for
> > > yet
> > > > > > another example) referred to the "folk psychology" of natural
> > > > scientists,
> > > > > > neuroscientists in particular, when they unwittingly step
> > > outside their
> > > > > > discipline and talk about psychology instead of brains.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I think you are completely right in disagreeing with
> > > > suggestions
> > > > > > to replace the relevant interdisciplinary gulf with a dichotomy
> > > beween
> > > > > > thinking and speaking, and insisting that actions always include
> > > > thinking
> > > > > > and that speaking is an action. Otherwise, we are not talking
> about
> > > > > > actions, but behaviour. Behaviour is the result of abstracting
> > > > > actions away
> > > > > > from consciousness. And thinking cannot be abstracted away from
> > > > voluntary
> > > > > > motor actions  which was the topic of Luria's book, of course.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And this is the point isn't it? Whether a sensible social
> science
> > > > > can
> > > > > > abstract from (individual) consciousness and rely only on
> > > > > objectified forms
> > > > > > of mind (such as the recorded word), and whether a sensible
> > > > > psychology can
> > > > > > absrtact away from the formative processes of the practical and
> > > > material
> > > > > > objectifications of thought inherited by every individual from
> > their
> > > > > > societal environment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Greg Thompson wrote:
> > > > > > >> Michael,
> > > > > > >> I'm still having a hard time figuring out how any instance of
> > > > speaking
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> even thinking about speaking is not action.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> But Philip's post suggests a slightly different way of
> thinking
> > > > about
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> discourse/action distinction.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Perhaps the discourse/action distinction is better captured by
> > > > > > individual
> > > > > > >> vs. group than by ideal vs. material, with discourse being
> > > the group
> > > > > > level
> > > > > > >> phenomena that makes certain ways of thinking about things
> more
> > > > > or less
> > > > > > >> available, and action being the way that people use discourse
> > > in
> > > > > actual
> > > > > > >> practice (and which, in the collective, becomes discourse).
> > > > > Discourse is
> > > > > > >> the thing that circulates in society and is instantiatable in
> > > any
> > > > > > >> individual instance of bringing discourse to life by action
> > (whether
> > > > > > >> speaking or doing).
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I'd be happy to talk Treyvon, but maybe better to stick to the
> > > > question
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> why a google search of "ethnographic psychology" turns up
> > > only a
> > > > > > handful of
> > > > > > >> articles and no insitutional centers? This is a fantastic
> > > idea -
> > > > > so why
> > > > > > >> hasn't it caught hold?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thinking through discourse and action (which have to be two
> > sides
> > > > > of the
> > > > > > >> same coin), "ethnographic psychology" doesn't take hold
> > > because it
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > >> fit with discourse or with action (and I would still prefer to
> > > > > put these
> > > > > > >> together, b.c. in academia, let's face it, if discourse isn't
> > > > action,
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > >> we are doing a whole lotta nothing! But I'll keep them
> > > separate in
> > > > > > order to
> > > > > > >> try them on). Where discourse includes the predominant ways of
> > > > thinking
> > > > > > >> about what psychology is and action involves things like
> > > > > publishing in
> > > > > > >> actual journals that will allow one to keep one's job. The
> > > > configuration
> > > > > > >> that rules out "ethnographic psychology" is thus very
> > > complex. I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > >> that changing discourse or actions is really going to change
> > > things
> > > > > > unless
> > > > > > >> the supports of discourse and action are altered in some way.
> > > And
> > > > > I
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > >> think it is just one single support that can be knocked out
> > (e.g.
> > > > > > >> capitalism). Rather, I think there are lot of interconnecting
> > > > supports
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> make "the way things are (e.g., no "ethnographic psychology")"
> > > > > appear to
> > > > > > >> most to be right and good and true. These include such myriad
> > > > > things as
> > > > > > >> language (in the broadest sense of Western languages, but
> > > also in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> specific sense of the arcane lingos of different disciplines),
> > > > > > >> institutitutional structures ("joint" appointments remain the
> > > > exception
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> most universities), sociopolitical arrangements, and, yes,
> > > > capitalism.
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > >> isn't a perfect impenetrable Althusserian structure, some of
> > > the
> > > > > > supports
> > > > > > >> may contain contradictions that make them prone to collapse,
> > > and
> > > > > others
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > >> be less well interconnected. This is all just to say that
> there
> > > > > is hope,
> > > > > > >> but the challenge is to identify where the shaky supports are
> > > and
> > > > > to
> > > > > > figure
> > > > > > >> out how to encourage their collapse. And I'll do my part at
> > pointing
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > >> out.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> So, yes, discourse and action are the place to start.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> -greg
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:52 PM, White, Phillip <
> > > > > > Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Michael, in response to your multiple questions here, i'm
> going
> > > > > to
> > > > > > hazard
> > > > > > >>> a guess based on my experiences teaching children who are
> > > > > learning a
> > > > > > second
> > > > > > >>> language as well as teaching teachers how to teach second
> > language
> > > > > > learners.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> for me, the communicative discourse drives our actions.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> when working with second language learners, when the
> > > learners had
> > > > > > language
> > > > > > >>> supports, particularly visual and auditory, they were often
> > > > > stronger in
> > > > > > >>> mastering an activity.  for example, in science when
> > > comparing two
> > > > > > objects
> > > > > > >>> and finding similarities and differences.  if on the board
> that
> > > > > > statement
> > > > > > >>> was posted, "I noticed that _____________ was similar to
> > > > > > ________________
> > > > > > >>> because ___________________."
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> in time, i noticed that when the teachers were learning
> > teaching
> > > > > > >>> strategies, and, say, i'd focus on utilizing open questions,
> > > > > when i
> > > > > > >>> provided them with a piece of paper with specific open
> question
> > > > > > prompts,
> > > > > > >>> they were more easily and more quickly able to change their
> > > > questioning
> > > > > > >>> behaviors.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> while the teachers knew the difference between a closed
> > > > > question and
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > >>> open question, they didn't have the language structures,
> > > say, on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > tip of
> > > > > > >>> their tongue.  as time passed and they became more fluent
> > > with open
> > > > > > >>> questions, then they were better able to control their
> > questioning
> > > > > > >>> strategies, which also demanded that the students then had to
> > > > respond
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >>> more than "yes", "no" or other monosyllabic discourses.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> my two bits.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> phillip
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Phillip White, PhD
> > > > > > >>> Urban Community Teacher Education Program
> > > > > > >>> Site Coordinator
> > > > > > >>> Montview Elementary, Aurora, CO
> > > > > > >>> phillip.white@ucdenver.edu
> > > > > > >>> or
> > > > > > >>> pawhite@aps.k12.co.us
> > > > > > >>> ________________________________________
> > > > > > >>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [
> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > ]
> > > > > On
> > > > > > Behalf
> > > > > > >>> Of Glassman, Michael [glassman.13@osu.edu]
> > > > > > >>> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 12:16 PM
> > > > > > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > >>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> There is, it seems to me, a really big problem, or divide,
> that
> > > > > has
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > >>> haunting the issue of communicative discourse and action.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Which is primary?  And I don't think this is a frivolous
> > > > > question - and
> > > > > > >>> the idea that it is in a constant cycle has a difficult time
> > > > working
> > > > > > >>> because the question always comes up where do we as
> researchers
> > > > > enter
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > >>> cycle?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Does communicative discourse drive our actions?  And do we
> > > > > change our
> > > > > > >>> actions by changing communicative discourse?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Or does action drive our communicative discourse?  And we
> > change
> > > > > our
> > > > > > >>> communicative discourse through changing our actions.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Do we change racism in America by getting people to change
> > their
> > > > > > >>> communicative discourse about Treyvon Martin?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Or do we get people to engage in more just actions and allow
> > > > > this to
> > > > > > lead
> > > > > > >>> to a change in communicative discourse.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> One of the difficulties with Vygotsky, at least from my
> > > view, is
> > > > > that
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > >>> can be interpreted both ways, depending of course on what
> > > you are
> > > > > > reading
> > > > > > >>> and level of confirmation bias.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Michael
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > > > > > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > > > > > > Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> > > > > > > http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > > > > Visiting Assistant Professor
> > > > > Department of Anthropology
> > > > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > > > > Brigham Young University
> > > > > Provo, UT 84602
> > > > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > > Visiting Assistant Professor
> > > Department of Anthropology
> > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > > Brigham Young University
> > > Provo, UT 84602
> > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> > >
> >
> >
>
>