[Xmca-l] Re: Wikipedia CHAT entry

[Huw Lloyd]

Re "The work you do by calling it 3rd generation is making a distinction
with other forms of AT. That's all."

Of course it isn't all, Michael. It is misleading anyone new to the field
(and who has not had the experience of knowing how knowledge gets reduced
or made superficial) into thinking that this is where the new work is done
and that this is supposed to represent the leading edge of the work. It is
political in that this unwarranted status functions as an attractor for
such research-related attention, which is further supported in other ways.

Best,
Huw

On 28 January 2018 at 12:51, Wolff-Michael Roth <wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Huw,
> you may be hung up with words, perhaps in search of these elusive meanings.
>
> I am not doing that kind of work anymore, but I think using the adjective
> distinguishes other forms of theory use from the one that has evolved
> around the Helsinki triangle. The work you do by calling it 3rd generation
> is making a distinction with other forms of AT. That's all.
>
> And your comment about politics---this appears a truism if you take the
> stand of Voloshinov.
>
> Michael
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Anyone who has carefully studied the historical works of AT, which are
> > psychological, would know that it is nonsense to call this a "third
> > generation". Calling it a "third generation" is a political manoeuvre.
> >
> > Best,
> > Huw
> >
> > On 28 January 2018 at 01:56, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Huw,
> > >
> > > I had worked on those ideas as well:
> > >
> > > Roth, W.-M. (2007). The ethico-moral nature of identity: Prolegomena to
> > the
> > > development of third-generation cultural-historical activity theory.
> > > International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 83-93
> > > Roth, W.-M. (2007). Emotion at work: A contribution to third-generation
> > > cultural historical activity theory. Mind, Culture and Activity, 14,
> > 40-63.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is anyone other than Engestrom claiming that their work is 3rd
> > generation
> > > > AT? Are there any Russian psychologists clamouring to understand what
> > > > improvements have been made to their system in this "3rd generation"?
> > It
> > > > doesn't seem like a careful depiction to me.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Huw
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 27 January 2018 at 18:49, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I just stumbled across the wikipedia page. Someone put a lot of
> work
> > > into
> > > > > that entry. It would be
> > > > > interesting to discuss with whose who put it together so carefully.
> > > > >
> > > > > Check it out.
> > > > > mike
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural-
> > > > > historical_activity_theory&action=history
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>