1 Charles Goodwin Co Op Action Cooperation v Co Operative Action
The videos shown in all of these clips were recorded by Charles Goodwin. C. Goodwin wants to thank all of the participants in his Co-Operative Action Lab who helped me discover the richness of these materials.
Clip 1 — Co-Operative Action versus Cooperation
This clip tries to clarify the distinction between Goodwin’s notion of Co-Operative Action and the more familiar concept of Cooperation used in fields such as biological anthropology and psychology. In essence, rather than being defined and analyzed in terms of mutual benefit, mental attributes of actors, or the opposition between mutual benefit and competition, Co-Operative action focuses on public practices for the organization of action. In brief, actors construct new action by performing systematic operations on materials placed in a public environment by those who came before them. These practices frequently involve de-composition and re-use of the resources used by others in the construction of their action. Sitting at the center of Co-Operative Action are processes of progressive accumulation and transformation through time. To make the difference between the traditional analysis of Cooperation and the notion of Co-Operative Action as clear as possible an animal experiment demonstrating cooperation in elephants is examined. In essence while the beneficial action in progress could not be accomplished by either animal alone, the separate animals do not perform transformative operations on what each other is doing, with the effect that there is no accumulation leading to the path-dependent diversification of culture, settings, social organization etc. that are the hallmark of human sociality.
Co-Operative Action does not rely upon timeless mental states, such as the ability to recognize communicative intentions, but instead on public practices that have an intrinsic temporal organization.
Originally this clip occurred later in the presentation excerpted here (it was felt important to make these distinction as early as possible since may hearing the talk assumed that it was in some way about cooperation). There is a brief section beginning about 2 minutes 49 seconds into the clip and ending about 3:40, that relies upon a sequence originally shown earlier in the talk. In that sequence Chil, an aphasic man, uses pointing to try and get his son Chuck to do something. However, Chuck is unable to figure out what Chil is pointing at, and thus recover the action. Different possible actions lead to different possible referents for Chil’s points — grapefruit if Chil is asking for more fruit, the kitchen if Chil is asking Chuck to remove dirty dishes etc. This is used to contrast Tomasello’s theory of reference with the one developed here, where reference emerges within the task of grasping a relevant action. With this in mind the clip can be easily followed.
Видео 1 Charles Goodwin Co Op Action Cooperation v Co Operative Action канала Revue Tracés
Clip 1 — Co-Operative Action versus Cooperation
This clip tries to clarify the distinction between Goodwin’s notion of Co-Operative Action and the more familiar concept of Cooperation used in fields such as biological anthropology and psychology. In essence, rather than being defined and analyzed in terms of mutual benefit, mental attributes of actors, or the opposition between mutual benefit and competition, Co-Operative action focuses on public practices for the organization of action. In brief, actors construct new action by performing systematic operations on materials placed in a public environment by those who came before them. These practices frequently involve de-composition and re-use of the resources used by others in the construction of their action. Sitting at the center of Co-Operative Action are processes of progressive accumulation and transformation through time. To make the difference between the traditional analysis of Cooperation and the notion of Co-Operative Action as clear as possible an animal experiment demonstrating cooperation in elephants is examined. In essence while the beneficial action in progress could not be accomplished by either animal alone, the separate animals do not perform transformative operations on what each other is doing, with the effect that there is no accumulation leading to the path-dependent diversification of culture, settings, social organization etc. that are the hallmark of human sociality.
Co-Operative Action does not rely upon timeless mental states, such as the ability to recognize communicative intentions, but instead on public practices that have an intrinsic temporal organization.
Originally this clip occurred later in the presentation excerpted here (it was felt important to make these distinction as early as possible since may hearing the talk assumed that it was in some way about cooperation). There is a brief section beginning about 2 minutes 49 seconds into the clip and ending about 3:40, that relies upon a sequence originally shown earlier in the talk. In that sequence Chil, an aphasic man, uses pointing to try and get his son Chuck to do something. However, Chuck is unable to figure out what Chil is pointing at, and thus recover the action. Different possible actions lead to different possible referents for Chil’s points — grapefruit if Chil is asking for more fruit, the kitchen if Chil is asking Chuck to remove dirty dishes etc. This is used to contrast Tomasello’s theory of reference with the one developed here, where reference emerges within the task of grasping a relevant action. With this in mind the clip can be easily followed.
Видео 1 Charles Goodwin Co Op Action Cooperation v Co Operative Action канала Revue Tracés
Показать
Комментарии отсутствуют
Информация о видео
Другие видео канала
