Ch 5 Intra-Intersubjective Field
Speaker 1 and speaker 2 are having a conversation
Theory A: Independent speakers
The old way to look at it, perhaps associated with the early Vygotsky:
We have speaker 1 and speaker 2. The speakers are theorised as independent entities. Each speaker is caught up in their subjectivities so intersubjectivity becomes a problem. To solve the problem we invent sign mediation. The sign, eg. the word, has a physical body and an ideal meaning. It makes the connection between the material and the ideal world, the non physical or metaphysical world. The sign creates the capacity to bridge the gap between the 2 speakers. First we create a gulf between 2 independent speakers, then we create the sign to bridge the gulf we have created.
Theory B: Common, intersubjective speech field
A better way to look at it, Roth's interpretation of the late Vygotsky:
The speakers create with words a common or intersubjective speech field, a semantic field common to the interlocutors. The connection to consciousness, the struggle to achieve sense, occurs in that field. The sign, eg. the word, does not stand between two people but is the reality for two. The sign does not stand between the activity and 'meaning'. It is just a part of the making sense that the speakers embark on.
Constructivist viewpoint: Mind is constructed from interaction with materials out there in the world, what happens on the inside is explained through interaction with the outside. There are 2 distinct worlds, the mind inside, and the material world outside. The inner world, the mind, somehow creates reference to interpret the outer world.
Mathematical objects do not exist independently of people but are produced intersubjectively through dialogue and convention. Mathematics becomes a series of intersubjective social constructions.
In theory A the Self is isolated and intersubjectivity becomes a hard problem.
In theory B intersubjectivity is not a problem. It becomes a natural part of the joint labour that naturally occurs in tackling a problem.
eg. Consider the maths problem: How to divide 9 pies amongst 12 individuals? We can focus on the maths of the activity. There is no need to explain how the concepts that emerge in discussion get inside the minds to be retained by the students. Just do the maths, collaboratively.
Other theories:
Constructivist: discussed above
Enactivist / Autopoietic (Maturana): the cognizing organism is considered informationally closed
Behaviourist: the sign is not a mediating link in the behaviourist S-R model (Mikhailov reference, The "Other Within", not clear to me)
Historical-Philosophical Considerations
Human essence is societal relations. Societal relations are expressed in language, which is a tool of labour.
Language is our existing practical consciousness. It originates from our need to relate. Language is the key to consciousness, the historical realisation of Being.
Any tool of labour, like language, is inconceivable outside a common (intersubjective, not individual) field of purpose, sense, consent, sympathy and action.
How do we explain difference? Different thinking bodies have different movements and this produces different ideas.
The word is absolutely impossible for one person but possible for two (Vygotsky quoting Feuerbach)
When writing or reading private notes in a diary. A form of behaviour that initially involved another person is now directed by a person to the other in itself.
Even if there is only one person doing a proof there are two in proving. In proving the thinker divides into two: he contradicts himself and is only proven when it has held up to and overcome this juxtaposition.
What is the difference between Thought and Being?
Thought: Think you are hold $50 in your hand
Being: Actually hold $50 in your hand. You can feel it, see it, others can see it, it becomes societal, universal
Intersubjectivity is being with others.
We channel our thinking by modifying our material environment. In the old days, when we had handkerchiefs, you might organise to remember something by tying a knot in the handkerchief. More generally, speech is a material thing we have in common. (and today we have mobile phones)
The Transactional Field
Reference:
Felix Mikhailov, The 'Other Within' for the Psychologist (2001)