[Xmca-l] Re: Object of activity (was: Swedish activist Elon Ersson wins the day)

Thu Jul 26 08:54:53 PDT 2018

Andy/Huw and all

Elin (sorry I put Elon by mistake in my original) went to the airport to rescue a young refugee from deportation…  I guess this was a coordinated effort by her refugee campaign group who would have helped her plan, buy the ticket, etc (and the Americans would have dragged them off and sent the lot to guantanamo bay on conspiracy charges … ?) but in fact she found a different, older refugee was being deported (the young man they expected to be there having been deported on a different route). So she did not fulfil her initial intended conscious goal, but something happened during the activity and she still did get a refugee off the plane and appear to win the day. The initial goal was not achieved, but a new goal developed during the activity… that made complete sense within the activity context. The activity was not just about the young man (or the old guy) …  obviously.

Ultimately, anyway, probably (like the workers’ struggles Andy mentions) this older refugee will also be deported at a later date. A loss then, because even the amended goal (to rescue him, and save his life) will be undone, but it would still be right to say that the action/activity was successful, because the campaign continues more strongly, and many people know better what is going on ‘in our name’ than did before.

The idea of goals and motives developing in activity is an important one (in any terminology) and I think Leontiev affords that by making the distinction (and offering a potential contradiction) between individual conscious acts (related to ‘goals’) and the object-motive of collective activity (which rarely aligns with the conscious goals of many of the acting subjects jointly engaged). A student may study the text because it is required for the exam (eg a history text), but become interested in it for the sake, developing a new social motive of the wider history-object (to make sure history doesn’t repeat itself!)

What is not clear in Leontiev, I think, is that actions sometimes have conscious goals/motives at several levels: I think Elin knew what she was doing in the Particular case, but also acted consciously with a Universal principle in mind … this might help explain how she is so easily able to change the particular goal in line with the more general principle.  And winning a bunch of passengers on that particular flight was an important moment – the football team that stood up also and maybe was supportively refusing to sit down , it is a symbol for footballers everywhere -  while technology linked that to a worldwide movement.

On the Object: I find in English language texts (which is all I can read) that the conception of Object is very slippery, yes: a lot has been written about this on xmca in the past. But I quite like this slipperiness, because it more suits a dialectic, where the ‘thing’ being worked on changes/develops over time and space, and over the consciousnesses of the many subjects working on it.

But if someone could help nail all this down conceptually I think it would help clarify a lot of us.

Julian

From: <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Date: Thursday, 26 July 2018 at 14:55
To: "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Object of activity (was: Swedish activist Elon Ersson wins the day)

Sure, the terminology is so variable, it is the meaning not the word which must be paid attention to. But it is not about *multiple* goals, or *plurality*. The crucial distinction, the distinction which is constitutive of consciousness, is the "task goal" and the reason for the task. That's a definite "two-ness." Though, this does not rule out "plurality."

a

________________________________
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 26/07/2018 11:46 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
In this terminology the object is simply the artefact pertaining to the activity. I doubt very much whether there is alignment with Engestrom other than potentially some basic referents.

As I said, the terms do not change my own system of relations. I simply bow to a custom articulated by a Russian speaker with a long history in the tradition of activity theory.

On the matter of multiple goals, this is not ambiguous to the degree that it reflects the nesting that takes place in such activity, i.e. the plurality is authentic.

If you wish to engage any thinking in the matter, I suggest you'd be better off starting from Gregory Bedny's chapter. I'll email Gregory to see if he is willing to share the chapter.

Best,
Huw

On 26 July 2018 at 11:28, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org<mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:

So "object" in your sense, the same sense in which Engestrom uses "object." This is something quite different from "goal" in Leontyev's sense, which is what the subject intends to transform the object into. Except that that concept of "goal" (intention) does not exist in Engestrom's system, only "outcome", which is clearly not the same thing as "goal" because things don't always go as intended. But from what I gather of "according to the activity goal", the "activity goal" is what Leontyev called the "motivation" - the reason for doing something. What you (and Engestrom) are calling "object" is like what Marx refers to as Arbeitsgegenstand - or "object of labour" (the "something" in your quote) whose form is changed. I think that's the Russian predmet. Fair enough.

So you are contrasting "task goal" and "goal of activity". Fair enough, but isn't it confusing to use "goal" for both? That means you can never use the word "goal" without qualifying it as the "task goal" or the "goal of activity".

Andy

________________________________
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 26/07/2018 7:13 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
Since my original endeavours I have switched to referring to the task goal or goal of activity, in conformance with Bedny et al's terminology. Personally this does not change my systemic formulations, but it does seem to point to holes in others', whilst reducing ambiguity.
"An object of activity that can be material or mental (symbols, images, etc.) is something that can be modified by a subject according to the activity goal (Bedny and Karwowski, 2007; Leont’ev, 1981; Rubinshtein, 1957; Zinchenko, 1995)." Bedny (2015, p. 91)

This is from the chapter "Basic Concepts and Terminology" which offers further elaboration (ref below).

Best,
Huw

Bedny, G. Z. (2015) Application of Systemic-Structural Activity Theory to Design and Training. Boca Raton: CRC Press

On 26 July 2018 at 02:54, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org<mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:

... to continue this dialogue on winning and losing, a now-departed friend who was a writer once commented to me after we had together watched an inspiring play performed by Melbourne Workers' Theatre, that for the working class *every* struggle, every story of victory, ends in defeat, simply because the object of the workers' movement lies if at all in the future; the road to socialism is a series of small victories followed by defeats. Until .... So Elon is acting in a fine tradition.

The distinction between goal and object (by whatever names) was relevant for the recent xmca discussion around the Brazilian social movements, which kept popping up with different goals, but, one suspects, shared a common object.

Andy

PS. For the distinction between goal and object, I rely on A N Leonytev's succinct definition of action: "Processes, the object and motive of which do not coincide with one another, we shall call ‘actions’." but choice of words for object, goal, aim, motive, etc., is problematic. I have chosen "object" for what Hegel calls "Intention" and Leontyev calls "motivation" and "goal" for what ANL calls "object" in the above quote.

________________________________
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 25/07/2018 10:21 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:

She achieved her goal. Her object will take longer to realise. Important to recognise the difference.

Andy

________________________________
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 25/07/2018 10:18 PM, Julian Williams wrote:
Andy

She wins and yet she doesn’t – the guy she went to ‘rescue’ was deported on another flight, but she got the support of people on the plane (some even joined her protest) and is being applauded by millions worldwide now: this is a growing aspect of resistance activism, losing and winning.

And the battle against deportations, and indeed fascism, in Sweden and elsewhere continues….

Julian

From: <<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd>.edu> on behalf of Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org><mailto:andyb@marxists.org>
Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu><mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 13:11
To: "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu"<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu><mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Swedish activist Elon Ersson wins the day

Yes, you can see the stress on his young women's face and she stands strong under enormous pressure and she wins. Wonderful!

andy

________________________________
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 25/07/2018 10:07 PM, Julian Williams wrote:
I think you and xmca may like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/25/swedish-student-plane-protest-stops-mans-deportation-afghanistan

☺

Julian

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180726/c32503e2/attachment.html 