大先生から「これ知ってるよね」とメールが来たので慌ててひとさまに複写していただいて読むスレ。
ぱらぱらと。著者の人はレッジョ・エミリアの教員のようです。
|
Claudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli, The relevance of interactions in functionally differentiated society: The contribution of conversation analysis to theory social systems, In: Soziale Systeme, 13.Jg.(2007), S.125-135 http://www.soziale-systeme.ch/hefte/2007.htm |
|
I Towards and integrated analysis of interaction
- II節： 相互作用を社会システムととらえ、
- III節： 相互作用は社会の機能的サブシステムに埋め込まれていること、および
- IV節： 相互作用の社会変化に対するレリヴァンスを論じることにより、
社会システム論と会話分析の相補性について検討するよ。[p.126]
だってさ。
なんだまた「統合系*」か。
II Interaction as a social system
According to CA, therefore, language is a medium for both actively participating and constructing meanings. This use of language can produce social reflexivity, which is a particular »condition of complexity« for interactions (Luhmann 1987). Reflexivity is self-reference of communication processes, such as learning to learn or negating a negation. In interactions, the linguistic structures can reframe previous actions, for example by repairing previous misunderstandings, interpreting the meaning of previous turns differently, changing footing (Goffman 1981), and so on. In these cases, the interaction creates reflexivity where a communication process interrupts the routine of autopaietic reproduction by repairing, interpreting or redirecting the ongoing communication process. [p.127-128]
- Luhmann, Niklas (1987): The evolutionaty differentiation between society and interaction. Pp. 112-131.in: Jeffrey Alexander/Bernhard Giesen/Richard Miinch/Neil Smelser (eds.), The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley: University of California Press.［ISBN:9780520060685 → ISBN:4787798200］
- Goffman, Erving (1981): Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.［ISBN:9780812211122］
><
III Structures of interaction in functional systems
Ian Hutchby (2005; 2007) analyses formulations in a system of child counselling which has the function of helping children to overcome mental diseases caused by parents' divorce. According to Hutchby, in this system, formulation is systematically included in a specifically structured sequence of actions, Question-Answer-Formulation (QAF).
- The counsellor asks a question (e.g. How does your mum get your dad to hear what she wants to say?),
- the child answers (e. g. She shouts really loudly because she is a teacher) and
- the counsellor develops the gist of the child's answer, through a formulation, which is generally opened by a prefatory So (e.g. So, she is good at sort of shouting like, like she is being a teacher).
The sequential as well as the tum structure are associated to the cultural presupposition that
- the expert is supposed to listen to the child actively, reflecting the quality and the intensity of the child's feelings, which means that the counselling is »centred« on the person of the child (Mearns/Thorne 1999).
This is a specific programme of counselling, which gives relevance to particular roles of counsellors and patients and aims at promoting patients' personal self-expressions. The »person-centred« programme and the connected roles are presupposed in the system of counselling, and are reproduced through pre-structured sequences of actions in the interaction. [p.129-130]
「機能システムが与える文化的前提-が-相互作用によって再生産される」という描像。
「文化的前提は-機能システムが-与える」という、この──どこから出てきたのかよくわからない──「議論の前提」自体は、この論文の中で何度も繰り返して主張されるかわりに、それがこの論文のなかで検討される気配はまったくなく、「実際のところ、具体的には、それはどういうことなのか」はさっぱりわからない。
たとえばこのように：
The autopoiesis of functional systems creates and selects the cultural presuppositions which are patterned in reflexive expectations in interactions, and interactions produce contextualization cues which indicate these presuppositions. QAF maybe considered one such cue. Structures of interaction and structures of functional systems are thus closely connected. Symbolically generalised coding, programmes, roles and persons shape what can be expected in the interaction: these structures provide the presupposition for participants' turn-taking, which in its tum reproduces the cues of these presuppositions and makes them evident. [p.130]
IV The relevance of interaction in changing functional systems
V Some consequences for social systems theory
In this way, the generalised cultural presuppositions of functional systems, and the linguistic structures of interaction cooperate in reproducing communication:
- 1) generalised cultural presuppositions select meanings and support interaction;
- 2) the linguistic structures of interaction enhance understanding and generalised participation. [p.133]
「generalised」ってなに？ どういうこと？
The main contribution of CA to SST can be summarised as follows:
- 1) interaction is observed in the continuity of turn-taking, based on adjacency pair and made relevant or non relevant through next positioning;
- 2) social reflexivity in interaction is associated to active generalised participation;
- 3) interaction is structurally coupled with generalised expectations in functional systems, about coding, programmes, roles, and persons, that is with generalised cultural presuppositions;
- 4) these presuppositions can be observed in interactions through specific linguistic cues;
- 5) the linguistic structure enhances generalised participation in interactions;
- 6) for this reason, it can change the cultural presuppositions of functional systems producing both variations and selections;
- 7) the probability of these changes is linked to the variety produced through personalised expression and their force in changing the patterned expectations. [p.133]
なんで「social reflexivity」だけがこんなに重要視されるんだろう。その理由がわからない。
