This article, as I understand it, provides arguments that identity and learning are intimately related, but not that they are distinct processes. While I agree with this statement that I highlighted, I wonder in what ways we can look to studies like this one to provide the nuance Nasir and Cook are looking for and claiming. It seems that Holland et al.'s description fits more with an understanding that identity and learning are not distinct processes.

Reminds me of the AA example. One cannot identity as a member of AA if the other members do not accept that person as a member. Similarly the track identity here is dependent on the coach.

This connection is important. Figured worlds can also be viewed as produced by structural systems of power and privilege. Could this a view of figured worlds be grounded in Critical Theory as well as Marxist theory?

(Highlight should continue to the end of the paragraph)

Happenings, for Holland, are ways the figured world is reproduced, through the participants actions (such as learning to tell their story). In this too is LW idea that the same process of learning to tell your story is part of LPP and becoming a member in a CoP. These two uses of story telling highlight the interactive nature of the formation of both the CoP/Figured world and the participant's place in it as a member.

Importance of context. meaning only comes through connection