Re: [xmca] Dialects of Development- Sameroff

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

PS-- One attractive part of Arnie's article is his inclusion of the history
of academic research in the field in accounts of the phenomena "out there"
(nature-nurture antimony). At the same time, one of the shortcomings of his
analysis is weakness of his account of cultural history more broadly
so that there is explicit recognition/representation of the fact that the
social is NOT = to the cultural, that social others are biological creatures
as well as cultural creatures, so that both nature and nurture are
imbricated with culture from "before the beginning."
m

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:27 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> By strange process of synchronic a-causality, Larry, Martin Packer sent me
> a neat picture of a TRIPLE helix representing the dynamic interaction of
> phylogeny, cultural history, in ontogenetic history. I think the linkages
> you make are very interesting and definitely worth fleshing out. By another
> non-coincidence we at LCHC have been discussing Jovchelovich's book
> on social representations and how she develops this idea from within social
> psychology to engage actively with various communities in what could fairly
> be called intervention research.
>
> More on all this when grades are turned in!!
>
> mike
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>            Mike
>> Thank you, thank you, thank you, for this article.
>> Some stream of thought reflections after reading the article.
>>
>> As a Meadian "SIGNIFICANT symbol" the image of the double helix I believe
>> is an excellent psychological tool to support a dialogue and help us
>> coordinate and negotiate the TENSIONS inherent in our notions of
>> development. Mead's notion is that a symbol represents a
>> monological relation whereas a SIGNIFICANT symbol is ontologically
>> dialogical and MEDIATES meaning BETWEEN self/other (other includes "you" and
>> "institutional other") see Alex Gillespie's book "Becoming Other" for
>> elaboration.
>>
>> I would also suggest the double helix is a "social representation".  As
>> Moscovici explains social representation's they are:
>>  "systems of values, ideas, and practices with a two-fold function: first,
>> to establish an order which will enable individuals to orientate themselves
>> in their material and social world and to master it; secondly, to enable
>> communication to take place among members of a community (1973, p.xiii)
>>
>> Moscovici's notion of OBJECTIFICATION, as the process that conceptualizes
>> the solidification of abstract knowledge into TANGIBLES is also significant
>> in reflecting on Sameroff's article. Objectification is our tendency to turn
>> verbs into nouns. (Moscovici, 1984, p.42)  That is our tendency to turn the
>> DYNAMIC PROCESS into tangible and often VISUAL IMAGES at the core of social
>> knowledge (epistemology).  Sameroff's  3 visual images of the double helix,
>> the Ying/Yang symbol, and the figure 5 image [that captures the
>> transactional relations between self-regulation and other regulation through
>> time] are all significant social representations (combining Mead's term
>> "significant"and Moscivici's term "social representation)  I believe all
>> three visual images can each open dialogue for further threads on chat and
>> how the mind works.
>> I'm curious about when and how a significant symbol becomes objectified.
>> For example when the double helix moves from "the double helix is LIKE ...."
>> to "the double helix IS ....".
>> The above comments are to point out the dialectical tension within the
>> concept of "representation" (see Markova, 2003) She points out that the
>> French in the 13th century used the concept of representation to point to an
>> act of COMMUNICATION between self/other and representations were dialogical.
>> In the 14th century the concept of representations were translated into
>> Enlish BUT in the process the term went through a transformation and became
>> a subjective notion located IN the mind. The concept "representation" is
>> also a significant symbol that has a tension between monological and
>> dialogical explanations. (Markova, 2003)
>> This is a round about way of suggesting that Sameroff's article and his
>> notion of development as a "dialectical" tension BETWEEN nature and nurture,
>> in a figure/ground configuration or two sides of a coin is pragmaticly
>> USEFUL for helping me to think out loud. [The coin metaphor is a process of
>> objectification (Moscovici) through constructing a visual image of a DYNAMIC
>> PROCESS] The double helix by holding the TENSION of nature and nurture is a
>> powerful SIGNIFICANT SYMBOL that encourages us to socially communicate
>> in order to SHARE PERSPECTIVES and Discourses and orientate our
>> conversations (dialogue). Gillespie's notion of social representations
>> points out that Meadian significant symbols and perspective taking are
>> IMPLICIT in Moscovici's theory and Gillespie's project is to make this
>> relation explicit. He has also operationalized Mead's and
>> Moscovici's synthesized theory in his research on how Western tourists and
>> Ladakh in the Himilaya mountains learn to exchange positions in their
>> formation of dynamic identity.
>> Within the double helix image as a significant symbol are visualized or
>> constructed other social representations such as the social representation
>> of "social RECOGNITION" and the development through history of this
>> self/other tensions. This THEMATA (Moscovici) of social recognition is
>> obviously my project. I am preoccupied with exploring this particular
>> antinomy but want to engage with a community of inquirers as I personally
>> work out the centrality of OTHER in the notion of social recognition but
>> within a larger framework. The double helix model of development may be this
>> larger framework as this social representation is historically constructed
>> within a community of inquirers through time.
>> I could go on and on as obviously this article has me reflecting on
>> multiple levels and having numerous discourses in my head.
>> What do others think of the double helix (and/or the other visual images
>> in the article). How central is the double helix (either as an "is Like" or
>> "IS" objectification) to your notions of the human sciences?
>> Larry
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>> Date: Saturday, March 13, 2010 1:11 pm
>> Subject: [xmca] Dialects of Development- Sameroff
>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>
>> > A while back Ulvi asked about Arnie Sameroff. Here is a pdf of
>> > his recent
>> > presidential address to the Society for Research in Child Development.
>> >
>> > Perhaps worth discussion on xmca?
>> > mike
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca