These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
Andy and Carol: So the "object" here is the outburst, and it's contested because it is perceived very differently by onlookers, managers and the woman herself? I don't understand the difference between *general* meaning and *universal* Helena On 3/30/13 10:26 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: >Words, and the concepts they are signs for, do tend, as you suggest, to >(1) Become institutionalised, so that they form part of a common fund of >knowledge. This happens through the material objectification of the >concept (in building toilets), the practical objectificationof the >concepts (in using them in one way and not another, and only them) and >the symbolic and semantic objectification (in signage and texts of all >kinds), and (2) Gradually change over time, in a given community, and >from one community to another, or from one subcultural group to another, >due to changes in these forms of objectification. But to look at the >*general* meaning of a symbol or tool or other artifact, we obscure the >importance of what is *universal*. This only becomes an issue if, rather >than taking ordinary objects as our paradigm for concepts and the >objects of activity, we take precisely objects which are contested, >controversial and/or changing. This is what we should do. > >So, for example, let us supposed that the bank-employee in Manfred's >example is female. We can see a possible explanation for her actions in >the fact that she is committed to feminism. In this case her outburst is >far from being a personal, idiosyncratic expression, but is actually a >self-conscious action taken against a bullying male boss, an action >subsumed within the project (or activity) known as feminism, or "the >women's movement." > >The result may well be changing the title of her job, for example, from >secretary to office manager, because, as Vygotsky said, "the concept [of >secretary] had become worn out." > >Andy > >carolmacdon@gmail.com wrote: >> Is it possible that this is simply "common" understanding which is >>negotiated again and again and is subject to change over long periods >>like the work "toilet" which has changed time and again over the period >>of centuries. >> >> Carol >> Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you! >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Raquel Guzzo <rguzzo@mpc.com.br> >> Sender: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu >> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:30:45 >> To: <ablunden@mira.net>; eXtended Mind, Culture, >>Activity<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >> Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >> Subject: Re: [xmca] Polls are closed: Manfred Holodynsk's article is >>choice >> >> >> Raquel S. L. Guzzo >> Pos-Graduação em Psicologia >> Centro de Ciências da Vida >> Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas >> >> rguzzo@puc-campinas.edu.br >> rguzzo@pq.cnpq.br >> rguzzo@mpc.com.br >> >> On 30 Mar 2013, at 20:21, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> >>> So what can be meant by "societal meaning" then, Helena? Material >>>objects (such as the bank building, and the various human bodies >>>involved, and books and ledgers, coins, etc.) are "societal" in the >>>sense of being universal. But "meaning" implies to me an act of >>>"interpretation" of material objects, something particular. And if the >>>Politburo is not there to ascribe the one societal meaning to material >>>things/processes/events, what on Earth can "societal meaning" be? >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> Helena Worthen wrote: >>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> Before this gets too long, I'll just say that I agree, there is no >>>> omniscient observer to tell us what the "societal meaning" of >>>>something >>>> is. In fact, if Manfred and I were standing in line at that bank where >>>> this happened, it might be fun for us to compare our "personal sense" >>>>of >>>> what we saw. >>>> >>>> Helena >>>> >>> __________________________________________ >>> _____ >>> 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 >> > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >*Andy Blunden* >Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ >Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts >http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden > >__________________________________________ >_____ >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