These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
I dare not say "Naaaaay." mike On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote: > > Yes, Mike, there is nothing to bring a fossil back to life like > re-contextualizing its meanings with a new backstory, even one slightly > different from what we have long been used to. > > We can have both a kind of stability and respect for tradition, for what we > have come to share as common touchstones of meaning and discourse that help > us cohere as a community, AND joy at finding ever new ways of re-thinking > and making unanticipated uses of and connections with the old warhorses. > > Which is what keeps some of us horses going, eh? > > :-) > > JAY. > > > Jay Lemke > Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010) > Educational Studies > University of Michigan > Ann Arbor, MI 48109 > www.umich.edu/~jaylemke > > Visiting Scholar > Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication > University of California -- San Diego > La Jolla, CA > USA 92093 > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 2009, at 3:56 PM, mike cole wrote: > > I think that what makes issues of definition simultaneously so difficult > an"d so thought provoking in the cross-linguistic cases we have been talking > about, Jay, is that we have > both sympathy for the ideas-as-translated which has been a (somewhat) > common source of our ideas AND that what you refer to as "theory" or > Discourse is a whole world view with a long history. > > At least I am knocked over repeatedly by the new perspectives on > "fossilized" ideas I have by these encounters. > mike > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote: > >> I am backtracking through recent topics on the list as I play catch-up. >> >> It might be worth noting in regard to a number of recent discussions about >> un-translatability and cross-language terminology, that (a) words don't >> really work according to our folk-theory that they can be individually >> "defined", or translated; (b) meanings get made with systems of interlinked >> words, which form somewhat more stable "sets" (what I've called thematic >> systems or thematic formations); and (c) to define the meanings and >> relationships among the terms in such a set, you generally need to explicate >> the whole "theory" or Discourse (ala Gee) in which they function. You then >> get the sense of each of the terms as part of this larger discourse whole. >> You can translate essays, and maybe even paragraphs, but certainly not >> words. >> >> JAY. >> >> PS. Mathematics and science have been trying to force language to fit our >> folk-theory of how it should work, with for example, stable definitions of >> individual terms, but for the most part have failed (esp. in science when >> dealing with concepts), and only in some areas of pure, abstract mathematics >> may have partly succeeded, though I still have my doubts. I think one can >> learn, as a member of a specialist community, to read and interpret "as if" >> bottom-up from the individual terms and definitions, but only because of >> being immersed in a culture which enables one to background the inevitable >> "backstory" which meaning requires. >> >> >> Jay Lemke >> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010) >> Educational Studies >> University of Michigan >> Ann Arbor, MI 48109 >> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke >> >> Visiting Scholar >> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication >> University of California -- San Diego >> La Jolla, CA >> USA 92093 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 22, 2009, at 4:22 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >> obuchenie without obshchenie is a little difficult to imagine, helen. >>> communication devoid of affect seems to offer a similar set of problems. >>> >>> Again, in every case of "definition" we have (a largely unexplicated, >>> because you can never say everything about anything) a large, >>> pre-supposed set of theoretical assumptions about the processes being >>> defined. >>> >>> What makes discussion of these cases always (potentially) useful >>> is that different ways of defining/interpreting provide glimpses of the >>> theoretical field which provides the lens through which we and our >>> interlocutors are interpreting/delimiting the processes of (potentially!) >>> common interest. >>> >>> mike >>> (PS-- My spelling and typing are no better in transliterated Russian than >>> in >>> English) :-(( >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Helen Grimmett < >>> helen.grimmett@education.monash.edu.au> wrote: >>> >>> A group from my university attended the Vygotsky/Golden Key Summer >>>> School earlier in the year and returned home all talking about the >>>> importance of obshchenie (this is the spelling we have been using - >>>> funny that it is a cross between Mike and Katrina's). While they said >>>> that Elena Kravtsova translated it as 'social communication' she also >>>> made it clear that this was not really an adequate translation for >>>> capturing the true expansive meaning of the word. >>>> >>>> In reference to my earlier message, pasted below, I'm wondering whether >>>> it is actually 'obshchenie' that is the unique property of 'obuchenie' >>>> (teaching/learning)? - i.e. it is all about the special social/emotional >>>> relationships between and among teachers and learners in the joint >>>> activity of obuchenie that make the difference. >>>> >>>> Perhaps some Russian speakers can help further? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Helen. >>>> >>>> Earlier message: Helen wrote.... >>>> I am currently attempting to use obuchenie as a central >>>> concept in my PhD research, arguing that perhaps using a 'new' word with >>>> teachers makes it easier for them to think about teaching and learning >>>> in a new way (as a conjoint practice that both teachers and learners >>>> engage in together). >>>> >>>> I have argued that it is difficult to assign new conceptualisations to >>>> existing terms we have traditionally conceptualised in different ways >>>> and that perhaps using teaching/learning still provides an image of >>>> simply bringing together the two contradictory practices of teaching and >>>> learning (as understood in their old way) rather than helping teachers >>>> think about it in a new way as a dialectical unity which has its own >>>> unique properties (more than the sum of its parts). >>>> >>>> I then go on in my proposal for confirmation of candidature paper to >>>> spend nearly 6000 words trying to explain what the unique properties of >>>> obuchenie are. In a nutshell I talk about the ZPD (although taking a >>>> holistic approach to development recognising the importance of the >>>> affective dimension alongside the more typical cognitive approach); >>>> intersubjectivity and perezhivanie; authentic meaning and motives for >>>> participating in the activity; and recognising that all of this occurs >>>> within a particular cultural-historical context that both determines and >>>> is determined by the interactions of the participants. >>>> >>>> I would be interested to hear what others think are the unique qualities >>>> of obuchenie and why/whether translations as even teaching/learning or >>>> teaching-learning may be inadequate for generating new understandings >>>> amongst teachers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Katarina Rodina <katja@student.uv.uio.no> >>>> Date: Monday, November 23, 2009 4:30 am >>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Communication/social relations/obshenie >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >>>> >>>> The problem with terminology is a tricky one. The understanding of >>>>> terminology in Russian Psychology as "communication", "social >>>>> interaction"and "Obchenie" is far from being straightforward. >>>>> >>>>> I've tried to investigate the problem of communication (obchenie) in >>>>> Vygotsky's, Leontiev's and so-called neo-Vygotskian research (see >>>>> belowRodina (2006)) . >>>>> >>>>> The problem of communication as a social relation (rus. obchenie, >>>>> German"Verkehr") is highlighted in the works of A.N. Leontiev, >>>>> Zaporozhets and >>>>> M. Lisina, i.e. the concept of early ontogeny of communication >>>>> (obchenie)as a communicative activity (not speech activity as an >>>>> object of study as >>>>> in psycholinguistics). Lisina's theory of early emotional >>>>> communication/obchenia as a Leading Acitivity has much in common with >>>>> Trevarthen's concept of early inter-subjective communication and >>>>> socio-emotional development in early ontogeny. Bodrova & Leong >>>>> (1996: 51) >>>>> could also be mentioned as a contemporary variant of Elkonin's and >>>>> Lisina's psychological concept of early emotional >>>>> communication/obcheniawith Tronick`s (1989) "interactional synchrony". >>>>> >>>>> Lisina's understanding of communication/obchenia as a psychological >>>>> category was based on Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory of >>>>> developmentof HMF and Leontiev's activity theory (see for example >>>>> Lisina, M. (1985) >>>>> Child-Adults-Peers: Patterns of Communication. Progress Publishers; >>>>> Karpov,Y.(2005). The Neo-Vygotskian Approach to Child Development. >>>>> Cambridge University Press; Bodrova, E. & Leong, B.(1996). Tools of >>>>> theMind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education. >>>>> Prentice-Hall, >>>>> Inc., pp. 50-55; Rodina, K. (2006).The Neo-Vygotskian Approach to >>>>> EarlyCommunication: A Cultural-Historical and Activity based >>>>> Concept of >>>>> Ontogeny. Nordic Psychology,Vol.58, No.4, 331-354). >>>>> >>>>> Katarina >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, November 21, 2009 17:22, mike cole wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> " Since communication is the precise measure of the possibility of >>>>>> >>>>> social >>>>> >>>>>> organization, of good understanding among men (sic), relations >>>>>> >>>>> that are >>>>> beyond its range are not truly social.. >>>>> >>>>>> GH Cooley, 1894. >>>>>> >>>>>> for Cooley, like Pierce, "mind is made concrete in culture." >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------- >>>>>> Cooley's first book: The theory of transportation. No accident that. >>>>>> >>>>>> mike >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> xmca mailing list >>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu >>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Katarina A. Rodina >>>>> Research Fellow (PhD)/Logoped,MNLL >>>>> Department of Special Needs Education, >>>>> University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1140 Blindern, >>>>> NO-0318 Oslo, Norway >>>>> Phone: +47 41 108 408/Fax: +47 22 85 80 21 >>>>> E-mail: katarina.rodina@isp.uio.no >>>>> http://staffdirectory.uv.uio.no/singleview/v1/index.php?user=katja >>>>> http://katarinarodina.blogspot.com/ >>>>> >>>>> Head of Russo-Norwegian Academic Relations, >>>>> The Vygotsky Institute of Psychology/RSUH >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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