re: artefacts (primary & sec'y) and rules

Eva Ekeblad (eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se)
Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:07:00 +0100

At 19.16 -0500 97-11-15, Judy Diamondstone wrote...
about rules, norms, artifacts... ideality and materiality.
I assume that the distinction between rules (/norms) and
>tools (the psychological kind) is that tools are both material and ideal.
>Thus, language (when conceived as utterance, not some idealized system of
>signs) counts as a tool because of its effects, its entailments. But then,
>what's the difference between norms-in-use and tools-in-use?

What counts as what?
Well... when signs as well as tools are among the Mediating Artifacts, it
cannot be a matter of pure ideality versus pure materiality. Tools as well
as signs are ideal as well as material. Although Tool typically is what may
have an effect on Object by being a Lump of Matter that can be Applied to
Object. While Signs are typically not used for Banging on Things, but for
the management of Self and Other in relation to Object.

So when's a Sign a Mediating Artifact and when a Rule? ToolSigns mediate
between the Subject and the Object while RuleSigns mediate between the
Subject and the Community. Well, that sounds not entirely clear when I
think of applying the model to examples. To my ear it starts sounding a bit
clearer when I tell myself that the Subject-Object-Mediating Artifact
sub-triangle stands for the Production aspect of the activity system while
the Subject-Community-Rule sub-triangle stands for the Exchange aspect. So
the same item may be found in different slots, depending on the function
under current analysis//current state of the system.

And Rules: yes, they definitely have to come in many guises, varieties of
formality-informality, explicit-implicit, global-local, binding-optional...

Eva