Re: [xmca] Arne Raeithel's "genealogy"

Geoffrey Binder at RMIT has used Activity Theory in Town
Planning, and I think Yrjo Engestrom has too. I have my own
ideas on this, but I don't see, at this point, how CHAT
usefully contributes at that level.

A lot of CHAT people read Critical Theory (few vice versa)
but I am not aware of a significant amount of mutual
interpretation.

Let's see what others know ...

Andy

Jonna Kangasoja wrote:
> Thanks again Andy,
>
> What is happening in the planning theory field is that planning theory
> based on Habermas's Discourse Ethics ('Critical Planning Theory') has
> been heavily challenged for a good while now. There seems to be also
> some miscommunication on what the nature/scope/aim of CPT theory is,
> and whether it actually is a theory of planning at all, or rather a
> philosophy of planning communication.
>
> There seems to be a need for a planning theory, which could provide
> descriptive and prescriptive accounts of actual planning practices.
> Theoretical resources are being sought elsewhere (Foucault, Deleuze,
> STS, CHAT...). This is an ongoing project of which I am part of too.
>
> My question, however, was more on how do people read Habermas'
> influence on today's Activity Theorists.
>
> Jonna
>
>
>
> 2009/11/9 Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>:
>> I think there are a number of people on the list, Jonna, who are familiar
>> with Habermas.
>>
>> Habermas is the youngest of the 2nd generation of the Frankfurt School,
>> elder stateman for the current generation. As per Frankfurt School
>> traditions, Habermas did a lot of "immanent critique". This meant that, like
>> Vygotsky in the 1920s, he trawls around the competing theories of the time,
>> mining them for insights (well that's putting it very crudely, ok?). Among
>> famous appropriations was his appropriation of Piaget, which I personally
>> think was idiotic, leading to H's embrace of the biogenetic hypothesis and a
>> rigid schema of historical development following a Piaget-type program.
>>
>> Among H's many great contributions though was his Discourse Ethics, and all
>> CHAT people should study this. His concept of the public sphere is also
>> something we should all learn.
>>
>> The significance of Discourse Ethics is that he replaces conceptions of
>> objective truth knowable by rational thought, with a dialogic conception of
>> truth, well actually of Right, not truth.
>>
>> He is very old now and his current trajectory is to come into complete
>> agreement with John Rawls.
>>
>> The next generation of his followers are more interested in G H Mead rather
>> than Piaget, which is of course a step forward in theory though backward in
>> time. It is my cherished hope that the Franfurters will one day swallow
>> their pride and read Vygtosky. There are millions of young Marxists out
>> there waiting to be unleashed on Vygotsky if the Frankfurters were to
>> suggest it.
>>
>> As to H. being an Activity Theorist, no, but I included him in my diagram
>> because I think his Discourse Ethics set the Fransfurt School on to a course
>> which leads to CHAT. The fact that many of them are still Marxists gives
>> added reason for hope.
>>
>> My main beef, as I have said earlier, is that Habermas sees no role for the
>> concept of mediation, seeing culture as a kind of resource which can be
>> drawn upon. Here is an article on the question of why followers of Habermas
>> should read Vygotsky:
>>
>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/critical-theory-and-psychology.htm
>>
>> and a review of Habermas's most recent book:
>>
>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/habermas-review.htm
>>
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonna Kangasoja wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I would be especially interested if someone could say something
>>> (anything) about the influence/role of Habermas in the picture. I am
>>> working nowadyas with (urban) planning theorists, to whom Habermas is
>>> a very central, although contested figure. Most of my colleagues have
>>> never heard of Activity Theory, and the one's who have, regard present
>>> day Activity Theorists as 'Habermasian' - I am not sure if this is
>>> quite the way to put it, or at least I never thought Habermas to be
>>> very central in e.g. Engestöm's theory - does anyone have any comments
>>> on this?
>>>
>>> best, Jonna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/11/9 Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>:
>>>> I've been thinking ... What these diagrams lack is any information about
>>>> why
>>>> a writer is included and what they contributed to CHAT. Would anyone on
>>>> the
>>>> list like to put their hand up to write a paragraph (max 100 words
>>>> probably)
>>>> on a writer on the diagram explaining their contribution to CHAT and
>>>> their
>>>> sources? I would be happy to collate them and fix the essays to
>>>> hyperlinks
>>>> on the names of each writer? ... if others do most of the writing ...
>>>> then
>>>> the diagram might be genuinely useful.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>> Mmmmm. I didn't sign up for an intellecual map of the universe here! The
>>>>> French Revolution produced a mass of political theory of course, but
>>>>> also,
>>>>> it is widely regarded as the inspiration for Classical German
>>>>> Philosophy,
>>>>> which is one of our sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> World War One? I don't know, but I have thought in the past that what
>>>>> Vygotsky called "The Crisis in Psychology", viz., the myriad of
>>>>> conflicting
>>>>> currents in psychology suddenly contesting each other after WW1, was
>>>>> some
>>>>> kind of reaction to WW1 and the Russian Revolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Reformation and the Industrial Revolution deserve mention somewhere
>>>>> too, in the atlas of ideas. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> mike cole wrote:
>>>>>> Hmmmmm, like the French revolution or world war I for example?
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both Arne's and mine are listed on
>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/index.html and both are in that
>>>>>> directory. I too would be interested in seeing some other versions.
>>>>>> Something might emerge out of the crowd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is interesting isn't that it is a quite small number of ... what
>>>>>> do you say? ... millieux? events? movements? which produced the main
>>>>>> ideas, via a whole mass of individual writers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mike cole wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think your pictured genealogy is interesting, Andy. I thought
>>>>>> Arne's was too, and I a sure others can make interesting
>>>>>> modifications. If anyone could do this in three D it could get
>>>>>> really fascinating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Part of what makes for the partiality of any such attempt is the
>>>>>> position of the creator. Arne was a radical cultural historical
>>>>>> cognitive scientist of the
>>>>>> 70's-90's (roughly), an importatant odd hybrid and unusually
>>>>>> nice guy.
>>>>>> Maturana, who is on his list, with Varela, were central figures
>>>>>> on bringing
>>>>>> dynamic systems into the discussion but you do not know about
>>>>>> him just
>>>>>> as many of us do not know some of the figures you name, and the
>>>>>> connections such as Dilthey-Wundt or Mead-Dilthey-American
>>>>>> pragmatism are poorly known altogether, but fascinating (to me!)
>>>>>> in their implications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, of course, the historical events that various of us might
>>>>>> highlight as
>>>>>> most relevant are going to vary as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the new tool to think with. I'll try to get Arne's
>>>>>> genealogy put
>>>>>> up where yours is and perhaps others will contribute from their
>>>>>> perspectives.
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, here's my shot at it:
>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Genealogy-CHAT.pdf
>>>>>> I have tried to deal with your very valid point, Martin, that
>>>>>> it is
>>>>>> more the milieux than individuals, but I have also just
>>>>>> omitted
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> billion possible arrows so it is readable. It needs more than
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> person to do this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question about the map is what the links represent.
>>>>>> After
>>>>>> all, one scientist or philosopher may accept the ideas or
>>>>>> another, or react against them, or modify them, or
>>>>>> misunderstand
>>>>>> them. Seems to me each of these is a different link. Also,
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> family tree indicates two parents for every progeny, where
>>>>>> Arne's genealogy seemingly shows spontaneous generation -
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> figure alone can produce another. And wouldn't we want to
>>>>>> have a
>>>>>> way to map the milieus within which people were working?
>>>>>> Perhaps
>>>>>> something along the lines of the social fields that
>>>>>> Bourdieu was
>>>>>> fond of sketching, but with an added historical dimension.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:44 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To tell the truth Louise, there are a couple of names
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> don't know and half a dozen I know so little about I
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> know why they're included ... or not. Two of the three
>>>>>> "outcomes" are people who think humans are a type of
>>>>>> computer, so I am not surpised that this genealogy is
>>>>>> odd to
>>>>>> me. But there is sooooo much out there. So much to
>>>>>> read. :(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Up till a few weeks ago I thought that starting with
>>>>>> Descartes was not justified, but I take that back
>>>>>> now. But
>>>>>> somehow, Rene's nemesis, Aristotle, needs to be
>>>>>> included as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know anything about Vico, but I find Locke,
>>>>>> Berkeley
>>>>>> and Leibniz to be rather peripheral to *our* story.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kant certainly deserves an important place, but I
>>>>>> think his
>>>>>> nemesis, Goethe, may be more important for us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fichte is actually the inventor of Activity as a
>>>>>> philosophical concept (I just learnt that Hegel asked
>>>>>> to be
>>>>>> buried next to Fichte; like Goethe, very under
>>>>>> recognized in
>>>>>> the Anglophone world).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hegel is the inventor of Cultural Psychology, so
>>>>>> agreed there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Stirner and Mach are total diversions from our
>>>>>> tradition. But maybe someone can explain to me their
>>>>>> role.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wundt and Dilthey are important, though I don't know
>>>>>> them well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Feuerbach is a bit of a footnote, but if you're going
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> have Feuerbach, you've gotta have Moses Hess, author
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> "Philosophy of the Deed", and inspiration for "Theses
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> Feuerbach". Of course if you think Frege, Russell and
>>>>>> Turing
>>>>>> are important to the genealogy of CHAT, then you
>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>> want Hess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MARX, obviously, in CAPS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I would have lines from a whole bunch of people
>>>>>> going to
>>>>>> Dewey, as well as Peirce and Mead, but even though
>>>>>> Peirce
>>>>>> was the elder, I don't think you can give him such
>>>>>> priority.
>>>>>> Dewey surely was the leader. Arguable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And where are the Gestaltists? Again, not for computer
>>>>>> cognition, but there needs to be lines between Goethe
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Kant and then to von Ehrenfels, and on to Koehler and
>>>>>> Co.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Russian linguists like Potebnya, but I don't know
>>>>>> where they
>>>>>> came from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And these threads are all tied together with LS
>>>>>> Vygotsky, yes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Freud has to be mentioned (I forget his sources), with
>>>>>> arrows to Luria. And after Vygotsky and Luria you
>>>>>> have ANL
>>>>>> and thus to present day people,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess, you can't leave out Piaget, and I don't know
>>>>>> Piaget's sources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know some people rate Merleau-Ponty, but if you're
>>>>>> going
>>>>>> to give Merleau-Pony a seat, you have to put in
>>>>>> Lukacs and
>>>>>> Horkheimer. I guess Habermas for discourse ethics,
>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea why Husserl and Heidegger get a
>>>>>> mention. I my
>>>>>> humble opinion, as clever as they might be, their
>>>>>> impact on
>>>>>> Activity Theory has only been negative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea why Bergson is mentioned: was he a
>>>>>> source for
>>>>>> Piaget? Don't know why Nietzsche is there.
>>>>>> Interesting guy,
>>>>>> but so are many others. Why von Uexhill?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that Wittgenstein rates a mention, though I
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> know how much of a source he has been for us. He is
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> kind of version of Activity Theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frege, Russell and Turing are nothing to do with
>>>>>> CHAT. What
>>>>>> about anthropologists??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never heard of Maturana.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's my reaction,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Louise Hawkins wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>> I remember seeing this diagram a number of years
>>>>>> ago,
>>>>>> and I found it useful as a big picture diagram to
>>>>>> get my
>>>>>> head around the significant theorist.
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Louise Hawkins
>>>>>> Lecturer - School of Management & Information
>>>>>> Systems
>>>>>> Faculty Business & Informatics
>>>>>> Building 19/Room 3.38
>>>>>> Rockhampton Campus
>>>>>> CQUniversity
>>>>>> Ph: +617 4923 2768
>>>>>> Fax: +617 4930 9729
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>] Sent: Wednesday, 4 November
>>>>>> 2009 01:05 PM
>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: [xmca] Arne Raeithel's "genealogy"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Theoretical%20connections.jpg
>>>>>> I never found this map very useful to be honest.
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>> mike cole wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you found Arne Raeithel's "genealogy" of
>>>>>> cultural-historical, activity theory thinkers
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> several years back. I am sure it is somewhere
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> lchc.ucsd.edu <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>. Perhaps you (and Andy,
>>>>>> and.....) could update it with
>>>>>> more detail. Hegel generated so much that has
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> "laundered" by subsequent "original" thinkers
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> totally amazing, and ditto Mead (whose
>>>>>> writings
>>>>>> i
>>>>>> know far better, although very inadequately).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev,
>>>>>> Meshcheryakov,
>>>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov $20
>>>> ea
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, 
Ilyenkov $20 ea
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca