CONSTRUCTING COMMON GROUND: - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

CONSTRUCTING COMMON GROUND: MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING ACROSS CULTURAL DIVIDES

Yrjö EngeströmCRADLEUniversity of Helsinki

LECTURE 3

JOHN DEWEY LECTURES 2013:

Concept Formation in the Wild as Educational Challenge: An Activity-Theoretical Research Program

CREAD – Research Center on Education, Learning and Didactics

Brittany Institute of Education

University of Western Brittany, Rennes, France

November 2013Slide2

WHAT MIGHT MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR TWO GROUPS OF PEOPLE TO CONSTRUCT MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING DESPITE DEEP CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND LACK OF DIRECT CONTACT?Slide3

HERBERT CLARK’S THEORY OF COMMON GROUNDTHE COMMON GROUND BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE IS THE INFORMATION THE TWO OF THEM SHARE; THE COMMON GROUND CONSISTS OF THE KNOWLEDGE, BELIEFS, AND SUPPOSITIONS SHARED BY THEM [Clark, 1992, p. 68]Slide4

COMPARE WITH GILBERT RYLE’S POINT“A spectator who cannot play chess also cannot follow the play of others (…) understanding is a part of knowing how.

(…) roughly, execution and understanding are merely different exercises of knowledge of the tricks of the same trade. (…) Nor does this account of understanding require or encourage us to postulate any mysterious electric sympathies between

kindred souls. Whether or not the hearts of two chess-players beat as one,

which

they will not do if they are opponents, their ability to follow one another’s play

depends not

on this

valvular

coincidence but upon their competence at chess

…”

[Ryle 1949, p. 54-55]Slide5

BY DEFINING IT AS “INFORMATION” OR “KNOWLEDGE, BELIEFS, AND SUPPOSITIONS” SHARED BY PEOPLE, CLARK PUTS COMMON GROUND INTO THE HEADS OF INDIVIDUALS BY CONTRAST, I SEE THE CORE OF COMMON GROUND QUITE LITERALLY AS GROUND, AS OBJECTS OUT THERE IN THE WORLD BETWEEN SUBJECTSRYLE’S CHESSBOARD IS SUCH A MATERIAL OBJECT; BEING INVOLVED IN AND UNDERSTANDING CHESS MAKES IT POSSIBLE THAT CHESS PLAYERS UNDERSTAND ONE ANOTHER, IN SPITE OF CULTURAL DISTANCES AND DIFFERENCES

OBJECT-MEDIATED COMMON GROUND Slide6

BUILDING COMMON GROUNDTHE BUILDING OF OBJECT-MEDIATED COMMON GROUND MAY BE COMPARED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF TERMS, ARTIFACTS, RULES, AND ROUTINES NEEDED FOR MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND HANDLING OF AN OBJECT IN OTHER WORDS, COMMON GROUND IS NOT PRIMARILY IN THE HEADS OF INDIVIDUALS BUT IN THE SOCIO-MATERIAL “INFRASTRUCTURE” BUILT AND MAINTAINED AROUND THE OBJECT Slide7

DIFFERENCES ARE THE KEY, NOT SIMILARITYINSTEAD OF SAMENESS OR SIMILARITY, OBJECT-MEDIATED COMMON GROUND SHOULD BE SEEN AS A MEETING PLACE BETWEEN DIFFERENT TAKES ON AN OBJECT

“It is quite clear that the concrete (empirically obvious) essence of the link uniting the various individuals in some ‘one’, in a common multitude or plurality, is by no means posited and expressed in an abstract attribute common to them, or in a determination that is equally proper to the one and the other. Rather such unity (or community) is created by the attribute that one individual possesses and the other one does not. And the absence of a certain attribute binds one individual to another much more strongly than its equal existence in

both.

Two

absolutely equal individuals, each of which has the very same set of

knowledge

,

habits

, inclinations, etc., would be absolutely uninteresting to

one

another, and the one

would

not need the other. They would simply

bore each

other to death. It is nothing but

a

simple doubling of

solitariness.” [

Ilyenkov

, 1977, p. 349-350]

Slide8

DIMENSIONS OF VARIATIONTHE NOTICING OF DIFFERENCES LEADS TO A SEARCH FOR DIMENSIONS OF VARIATION: GREEN IS DIFFERENT FROM BLUE ALONG THE DIMENSION OF COLORIT IS THE IDENTIFICATION OF THESE VERY DIMENSIONS WHICH ALLOWS THE NEGOTIATION, ELABORATION AND EXPANSION OF OBJECT-MEDIATED COMMON GROUND Slide9

OBJECT-MEDIATED COMMON GROUND AND BOUNDARY OBJECTSBOUNDARY OBJECTS ENHANCE COORDINATION BETWEEN ACTORS WITH DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, POSITIONS, AND TASKS (STAR & GRIESEMER, 1989) I AM INTERESTED IN THE DISCOVERY AND CONSTRUCTION OF OBJECT-MEDIATED COMMON GROUND BETWEEN ACTORS WHO DO NOT HAVE TO COORDINATE THEIR ACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES, WHO ARE SEPARATED BY VERY LARGE GEOGRAPHIC, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL DISTANCE AND WHO WOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER WITHOUT RESEARCHERS COMING AND ASKING THEM ABOUT THEIR UNDERSTANDINGS OF EACH OTHER

I AM INTERESTED IN THE POWER OF OBJECTS TO GENERATE COMMON GROUND EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A PRACTICAL NEED FOR COORDINATION Slide10

TWO SETTINGSTWO ACTIVITIES OF BUILDING WOODEN BOATSSlide11

THE ACTIVITY OF BUILDING LARGE WOODEN FISHING BOATS

IN A VILLAGE AT THE GULF OF BENGAL IN INDIASlide12

THE INDIAN ACTIVITYFISHING BOATS NEEDED FOR MAKING A LIVINGTHE BUILDING CREW COMES TO THE VILLAGE EACH WINTER TO BUILD ONE OR TWO BOATS FOR THE FISHERMENNO BLUEPRINTSBUILDERS HAVE LITTLE OR NO SCHOOLING; MANY OF THEM CANNOT READ OR WRITE

SIMPLE HAND TOOLS, MOST OF THEM SELF-MADETHE BOATS ARE LARGE (18 METERS), FUNCTIONAL AND EFFECTIVE; THEY STAY FISHING OFF-SHORE FOR 12 DAYS, THEY MUST PASS GOVERNMENT INSPECTION Slide13

THE ACTIVITY OF BUILDING A REPLICA OF A 17

TH CENTURY WOODEN GUNBOAT IN HELSINKI, FINLAND Slide14

THE FINNISH ACTIVITYREPLICA OF A 17TH CENTURY GUNBOAT, TO BE USED TO CARRY TOURISTSHIGHLY LITERATE MASTER CARPENTER SPECIALIZED IN WOODEN BOATS, PLUS APPRENTICES, AND A MANAGER RESPONSIBLE FOR ORGANIZING AND FINANCES

BLUEPRINTS BASED ON THE HISTORICAL MODEL (THE CARPENTER USUALLY PREFERS TO WITHOUT BLUEPRINTS)DIVERSE POWER TOOLSTHE BOAT WILL BE LARGE (20 METERS LONG); IT MUST CORRESPOND TO THE ORIGINAL MODEL, YET THE CARPENTER ALSO MAKES MODIFICATIONS Slide15

WORKING HYPOTHESISSlide16

PHOTO ELICITATIONPHOTOS SERVED AS MEDIATORS – EVOCATIVE OBJECTS AND MINIMAL CULTURAL BROKERS - TO PROMOTE DIALOGUE AT A DISTANCE BETWEEN BOAT BUILDERS FROM TWO VERY DIFFERENT CULTURAL SETTINGS FEATURES SPECIFIC TO AND CHARACTERISTIC OF THE GIVEN SITE AND WORK PROCESSES WERE SHOWN IN ORDER TO ELICIT A RESPONSE

THE PHOTOS DEPICTED THE BOAT ITSELF, THE WORKERS, AND THEIR TOOLSSETS OF 17 PHOTOS FROM FINLAND AND 18 PHOTOS FROM INDIA WERE USED; TWO OF THE INDIAN PHOTOS WERE SELECTED BY THE WORKERS THEMSELVES Slide17

SAMPLES FROM THE TWO SETS OF PHOTOSSlide18

RE-MEDIATION BY PHOTO ELICITATION Slide19

SEVEN TYPES OF EXPRESSIONS OF DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO INTERVIEWS Slide20

EXPRESSIONS OF DIFFERENCE ACCORDING TO TYPES OF THEMATIC CONTENTS Slide21

KEY DIMENSIONS OF VARIATION IN THE FINNISH INTERVIEW Slide22

KEY DIMENSIONS OF VARIATION IN THE INDIAN INTERVIEW Slide23

DIMENSIONS OF VARIATIONTHE FINNISH ACTIVITY WAS ORIENTED AT VARIATION ULTIMATELY STEMMING FROM THE CUSTOMER’S DEMANDS DEFINING THE PURPOSE OF THE BOAT, AND FROM THE NATURAL CONDITIONS IN WHICH THE BOAT WILL BE USED THE INDIAN ACTIVITY, HAVING BASICALLY ONE STABLE TYPE OF CUSTOMERS AND BOAT MODELS, WAS MUCH MORE ORIENTED TO VARIATION ULTIMATELY STEMMING FROM COSTS OF PRODUCTION, DETERMINED BY THE LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY AND NUMBER OF WORKERS EMPLOYED Slide24

DIFFERENCES AND COMMON GROUNDTHESE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS OF VARIATION DID NOT HAMPER THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THE TWO ACTIVITY SYSTEMS THE FINNISH SHIPWRIGHT SHOWED THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE LACK OF VARIATION OF BOAT MODELS IN THE INDIAN ACTIVITY: “

This is the best boat for the purpose. It has to be. Otherwise they would have changed it during the years.” HE ALSO UNDERSTOOD THE INDIAN CREW’S CONCERN FOR COSTS: “It is easier and faster, they lose less wood [by doing the planking before a skeleton].”

THE INDIAN BUILDERS UNDERSTOOD THE ADVANTAGES OF TECHNOLOGY

:

“They

have a system that runs on electricity – now you understand, right? With two people, they can make it work. For us, if you have to lift, you cannot do it with two people. […] We have four-five people, with ropes and all that, and this is how we move on

.” Slide25

ADMISSIONS OF IGNORANCE“I am working on my own. And there, there are how many?” (Finnish interview)“Who is doing their carpentry work? Who is doing the pieces? Who has the eye? […] I do not know. You have to ask them.” (Finnish interview)

D [pointing at a photo]: “What is this? This one?” B: “A factory? A factory shed?” (Indian

interview)Slide26

COMMENTS ON RELATIONSHIPS AND INTERACTIONS* MH: “The differences are not that big. I could go there and work.”

Interviewer: “Do the same work?” MH: “Do the same

.”

Interviewer

:

“But

do you think they can come

and

work here

?”

MH

:

“Why

would they? They live there

.”

(

Finnish

interview)

*

D:

“Can

this head carpenter come to our country? Could he come and

visit

here

?”

R

:

“What

he is saying is that if he can arrange his travel funds, and sees

that

the work is similar to what he does, the tools are similar, then it is

worthwhile

for him to come … make sense

?”

B

:

“What

does he gain otherwise

?”

D

:

“Seeing

this, he will be able to make his own. […] Wants to see with his

own

eyes

.”

(Indian

interview)

Slide27

COMMENTS OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONDITIONS“Here we have to think about money all the time. They [the Indian boat builders] also have to [think of it]. […] You could build a nice beautiful boat if you had money. If somebody comes and says what kind of a boat he wants, and it doesn’t matter how much it costs… But always there is a limit of money.” (Finnish

interview) B: “In earlier days, when we used to hoist the keel, it was lighter.” R: “Hmm, we used to push it by hand

.”

B

:

“Then

it gradually got heavier and we started using an instrument

run

on a

rope

. Now

we

are using chain on a pulley to pull up the keel.

Similarly

, in a

factory

, they are moving

their

wood. They have

machines

, mechanical devices

[

that] run on electricity. You press a

button

and –

oooo

– the whole thing is lifted

.”

D

.

“Yes!”

R

:

“Think

of the advantage [of having] electricity [for] running these

machines

… all it

needs

is someone to tie it up properly. Press the

switch

and it will be at its desired location.

And

for us, pulling it by

hand

, you need many [of us] right there

.”

(Indian

interview

)Slide28

THE TEXTURE OF EMERGING COMMON GROUND BETWEEN TWO ACTIVITIES OF BOAT BUILDING Slide29

IMPLICATIONSContested materially grounded collective objects, such as land for the movements of landless people in Latin America and South Africa (e.g., Wolford 2010), or homes

for anti-eviction movements in Europe, United States, and South Africa (e.g., Miraftab and Wills 2005), are generating large-scale common ground across geographic and cultural distancesThese are examples of vitally important objects that do not require esoteric expertise or lifetime

specialization

Such

foundational objects might be a good starting point for efforts to foster intercultural understanding in our age of global

capitalism Slide30

REFERENCEYrjö Engeström, Swapna Mukhopadhyay, Marco Pereira Querol & Liubov Vetoshkina (submitted). CONSTRUCTING OBJECT-MEDIATED COMMON GROUND: MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING ACROSS CULTURAL DIFFERENCES