Cliff On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:30 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
Cliff,To further reflect on the other central term *intersubjectivity* within thearticle. In the native community the adults observed the youth and reflected from a distance and composed reasons [within the adultconversations] ABOUT the youth. John Shotter would describe that type of knowing [knowing-that] The youth also reflected on the adults and composed reasons why they were turning away from the adult community [knowing- that] Shotter is drawing our attention to a realm of intersubjectity which occurs as [knowing from within]. This is not an intersubjectivity that is formed [past tense as reflected intersubjectivity]. It is an intersubjectivityforming within our ways of talking as direct conversation [con=with]This is reminiscent of Mead's conception of "calling out the response ofthe other" Alfred Schultz also explored *intersubjectivity* as a situation of elliptical communicative practices: one situation, two subjective perspectives. Schultz assumed the two subjects within the situation if sharing complementary or common purposes would relegate the coexisting individual differences to the background as the communicative commonsituation *constitutes* a "we-relationship. Notice the highlighting of the relational we-relationship as primaryand not highlighting the *I* or the*other*.Schultz said it was in the face to face TURNING towards the other [and the other responding by turning] which constituted the *we-relationship* withinthe action of intentionally turning toward the other. I read Mead, Schultz, Shotter, exploring a different realm of forming intersubjectivity in contrast to formed intersubjectivity. Schultz used the term *intercommunication* to draw attention to the contrast of focusing on one way communication [knowing-that, or knowing-how] on the one hand, TOWARDS what he, Mead, and Shotter are privileging as *knowing-within* as we-relationship.The act of each turning toward the other as reciprocal intersubjective forming within conversation contrasts with the reflective [past] awareness of formed intersubjectivity as we come to share common meanings and goals.The quality Mead is presenting [calling out the response of the other by turning toward the other] I read as a *moral question* about how we ought to respond to the call of the other. This is an intersubjective conceptionbut may emphasize another aspect of intersubjectivity.Community and culture within this understanding of intersubjectivity mustinclude both shared meanings, shared activities, but also include howculture and community encourage calling out and turning towards the calland responding. Cliff, the question of intersubjectivity [forming and formed] within activity settings, which brings in other discourses [genres] exploringintersubjectivity may be my own idiosyncratic perspective. Shared meaning may form when perception and action are mediated TROUGH affective turning towards the other, as well as shared activities where activity developsshared meanings. I sense the forming and formed intersubjectivity ascomplementary but wanted to bring to the fore another realm of knowing. What Shotter calls knowing of a third kind [knowing from within as a moralactivity] LarryOn Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Cliff O'Donnell <cliffo@hawaii.edu> wrote:Thanks for your thoughts, Lubomir and David. We agree that community andculture can be defined many ways for different purposes. One of thepurposes of our article was to invite others to offer ways that they would unite the concepts. We also agree that individuals in the same cultural community may differ in their personal understanding of the shared meanings of the cultural community, just as individuals differ in their skills, thoughts, experiences, and emotions. All of us are a combination of the cultures of gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, social economicstatus, etc.In our formulation, defining community by shared activities allows the assessment of communities by the degree and attributes of the activities they share. Also, defining culture by shared meanings allows the assessment of cultures by the meanings they share. In our example of the youth and adults in a Native American community, the activities and meanings of thoseactivities differed dramatically between the youth and adults. Thedifference was so pronounced that the groups formed different cultural communities, even though they all lived in the same small town and were all from the same Native American tribe. Knowledge of their activities and shared meanings was essential in developing an intervention plan and is anexample of cultural community psychology using CHAT concepts. Thanks again for your contributions to this discussion. Cliff On Aug 13, 2013, at 11:50 AM, David H Kirshner wrote: Just to add a thought on the tricky notion of "shared meaning" thatLubomir focusses on in discussion of culture and community; it seemsimportant to differentiate shared meaning from shared understanding. What is shared in a culture or community are categories of meaning. Individuals who are participants in the culture, or members of the community, may draw quite differently from the shared categories in constructing personal understandings. To push this a bit further, we might say that a culture maybe comprised of (or may encompass) a range of discrete categories orparadigms of meaning. Cultures can be distinguished from one another by substantially different constellations of categories. However, communities, as more local entities constituted within cultures, are defined in terms of a politics of interpretation. Personal understandings within a community are bounded by community norms regarding appropriate categories of meaning that can be drawn upon with respect to those critical matters of interestthat define the community. David -----Original Message-----From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.**edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >[mailto: xmca-l-bounces@**mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l- bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>] OnBehalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:25 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Activity Setting Dear Cliff, Just to respond to your request:You have good grounds for the integration of culture and community. In sociology and anthropology, it is pretty common to treat a community as a culture. On the other hand, a culture can or might define a community,build cohesion, we-feeling, etc. Of course, thedefinition/conceptualization of community is very complex, but I am talkingonly in respect to the question you formulated.Culture can be conceptualized in the framework of the subject; in the framework of activity, and as on object of study by itself. Culture is also materialized in the object of activity, but this forms a different plane ofstudy. Other options are possible too. I need to keep short here.Community can be conceptualized as an activity system, as a culture, as a social group, etc., depending on the scholarly objectives. When community is conceptualized as an activity system, culture can be treated as an inherent component of activity. However, this is not the only way to treat culture in this situation. I just mention this one. Culture is about shared meanings, but it is also more than shared meanings. Of course, you can keep that shared meaning definition if you interpret many other components asshared or shared meanings.You focus on the development of shared meanings in shared activities. However, the concept of community can be delineated with different foci depending on the scholarly objectives. We cannot describe or analyze all aspects of a phenomenon. We have to select several. I mean when we are interdisciplinary. Otherwise, we select only one aspect that is core for aparticular discipline or a research goal.Community is a very complex category. It stands for many types of social groups and also for many other social and cultural phenomena. I will stophere. Best wishes, Lubomir -----Original Message-----From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.**edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >[mailto: xmca-l-bounces@**mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l- bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>] OnBehalf Of Cliff O'Donnell Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:06 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Activity Setting Thanks, Larry. You are highlighting a key point in our article. Quoting again, "If we define community by shared activity and culture by shared meanings, the basis for a theoretical integration of the concepts ofcommunity and culture into cultural community psychology becomes apparent. The key concept needed for such integration is one that can show how sharedmeanings develop from shared activities. That key concept is intersubjectivity." (p. 23)Following up on that point, we would greatly appreciate the thoughts of the XMCA group on the value of integrating the concepts of culture and community. Our article presents the implications of doing so for cultural community psychology. What implications does the XMCA group see for CHAT?Cliff On Aug 13, 2013, at 7:36 AM, Larry Purss wrote: Cliff,The shift from the individual TO *intersubjective* within activity settings seems central. As we explore activity settings, *inter-subjectivity* is also a central term LarryOn Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Cliff O'Donnell <cliffo@hawaii.edu >wrote: Thank you for your response, Lubomir. Roger Barker was an importantinfluence on my thinking earlier in my career. His work is highlyrespected in community psychology. Quoting from our article, here is the distinction we see between behavior setting and activity setting:"The subjective focus of activity settings distinguishes them from the behavior settings developed by Barker(1960 , 1968 ). In behavior settings, the focus is on objective molarbehavior specified by time and place. Behaviors are defined by theroles or positions of people in the setting and activity is used tocoordinate their behaviors. Suggestions have been made to alter behavior setting theory to include a wider range of individualbehaviors, cognitions, and interventions in the setting (e.g., Lukeet al. 1991 ; Schoggen 1989 ; Wicker 1987 ). In contrast, activity setting theory unifies the objective and subjective by showing how activity is influenced and intersubjectivity developed. Rather than a collection of individual behaviors and cognitions,intersubjectivity develops as a setting characteristic that becomesthe shared meanings of culture and provides the basis for cultural community psychology." (p. 24) For a more thorough presentation of our use of the concept of activity setting, please see:O'Donnell, C. R. & Tharp, R. G. (1990). Community intervention guidedby theoretical developments. In A. S. Bellack, M. Hersen, & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), International handbook of behavior modification and therapy, 2nd Edition (pp. 251-266). New York: Plenum Press. Cliff Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division 27) University of Hawai'i Department of Psychology 2530 Dole Street Honolulu, HI 96822 On Aug 12, 2013, at 7:12 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote: Hi Andy,I am also interested to find the term "activity setting" inVigotsky's writings or those of his followers, including everyone inthe East European activity theory tradition. I would appreciate articles or specific references and page numbers. I need this to anchor some ideas and to pay tribute to earlier theorists if they have worked on this. I am also interested if there are people on this list who work on the development of the concept of activity setting or on activitytheory in relation to the planning and design of built environment.They can contact me at the e-mail below my signature or via this list, whichever is more convenient. I was going to make such arequest on this list some time ago, but now is a good occasion forthis. To my knowledge, no one in the East European activity theory tradition has used the term "activity setting," at least till the late 1980s. If I have missed something, it is good to catch up. I personally work (on and off) on the concept of activity setting since the early 1980s. However, I develop it as a methodologicalcategory for the study of built environment. I have to acknowledgethat I got the idea for activity setting from Roger Barker's "behavior setting." At that time, in East Europe, the concept of behavior was considered one-sided and with less explanatory power than the concept of activity. There was no way to introduce thebehavior setting concept without setting the reaction of mainstreamsocial scientists. Even if someone dared to suggest the behavior setting concept in an article, the reviewers will automatically recommend to rework it as "activity setting." In East European social science of that time, behavior referred mostly to the visible, mechanistic aspects of activity or in the sense of "demeanor." Bob Bechtel has done a good work in the early 1980 expanding onBarker's behavior setting, operationalizing his ideas for the fieldof Environment and Behavior (Architecture and Human Behavior; Man-Environment Systems).However, this work didn't continue. On the other hand, at that time, it was too early to talk about activity settings in the USA. It isearly even now, in particular in the field of Environment and Behavior. Many people in that field resent the idea of ditching behavior for activity. They believe that the concept of behavior setting is good enough and there is no need to introduce one more concept of similar kind.In relation to the field of Environment and Behavior, I personallybelieve that Barker has offered very useful ideas and they can become a stepping stone for developing the concept of activity setting. The activity setting concept will allow us to use theapparatus of activity theory which is more powerful than the conceptof behavior. I also believe that the development of the activity setting theory for the fields of teaching or management or socialwork and community building will be somewhat different. Their focuswill be different and this will lead to working on differentdetails. As usual, it is not possible to study everything about one object of study. We have to make difficult choices regarding aspectsand depth: what to study first, what to defer, and what to skip. Barker had a lot of conflicts with main stream psychologists (not activity theorists). I have heard from Bob Bechtel (a student of Barker)that psychologists were telling Barker: Roger, you think just like a sociologist, which in psychological parlance meant Roger, you are aSOB. This illustrates the disciplinary biases and divisions. Best wishes, Lubomir Lubomir Popov, Ph.D. School of Family and Consumer Sciences American Culture Studies Affiliated Faculty Bowling Green State University 309 Johnston Hall, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403-0059 Lspopov@bgsu.edu 419.372.7835Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division 27) University of Hawai'i Department of Psychology 2530 Dole Street Honolulu, HI 96822Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Professor EmeritusPast-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division 27)University of Hawai‘i Department of Psychology 2530 Dole Street Honolulu, HI 96822
Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Professor EmeritusPast-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division 27)
University of Hawai‘i Department of Psychology 2530 Dole Street Honolulu, HI 96822