Wednesday, October 05, 2005

We've been "framed"

The more we read in this class, the more I feel it's a set-up, and it's a good one at that. Every book is framed, or "situated," within the context of previous books. For example, as we read about the individual nature of cognition, my mind still wonders to what extent that cognition is limited to the breadth of ideas in our thought collectives. Shore tells stories of different peoples, and I wonder how much of his analysis is "situated" in his own personal experiences. And immediately when he mentions "schemas," I define that as Strauss and Quinn did. My reading of Shore is so entirely framed within the context of this course so far that I wonder how different my take on his ideas would have been had I read his book first....

That said, I struggled to take Shore too seriously. His style was nice to read, but that meant it lacked the feel of "scientific rigor" found in the previous readings. I know that shouldn't have influenced me, but it did. I felt like shore did a good job of providing historical context and making me feel "good" about linking culture and cognition instead of polarizing the two concepts, but it seemed to lack the "bite" of previous works. If so much of cognition is situated in experience, how does that affect psychic unity? I like the idea of psychic unity, but what forms the underlying, shared foundation?

Golly, it's only been a few weeks and I feel so jaded. I should say that I loved reading Shore--it was really an enjoyable read.


Blogger jmj said...

GFP: ditto on the enjoyability factor when reading Shore. His text was much easier to grasp than anything we've read since Fleck.

5:53 PM  
Blogger Alison said...

GFP - I totally feel "framed" as well!

1:05 PM  
Blogger IB said...

Isn’t it interesting that the more we read the more we can relate our readings to the processes that go in our class and in our personal understanding? It started with Fleck and the thought community that are building in this class. Then there was situated learning with Lave, Chaiklin and colleagues making us realize that even what we do in class is situated and our very discussions provide us with legitimate peripheral participation exerting centripetal forces on us. Then came along Strauss & Quinn and at last I was relieved to find that there is something going on in my mind that is my way of interpreting the world and this class. Now we have Shore with his institutionalized models and mental models which we could certainly in a multitude of ways relate to the processes in our class. And this takes me back to your posting and to our very first reading of Fleck: By now, how much are we influenced by our readings and the interactions in class and online? How much are we “framed” by the setting which we experience? Are we still able to think beyond this setting? I was just wondering because I am beginning to bring the concepts we read and talk about to other classes, which makes me a little bit uncomfortable and uneasy.

2:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home