Dear Friends,
Still being new to this type of discourse, and having spoken too much (I
apologize), I must say that I have
literally been stunned at the discussion on Leontiev in general, and the
levels of power within that discussion.
I realize that many of you have gone through this amazement many times,
but it is still very new for me.
I wanted to thank Nate for the challenging comments, and Paul for his
"reflections." And, I 100% agree with Peter Jones, from my background
and perspective. Most of all I have been completely overwhelmed at
discovering more about Russian Activity Theory and how it is perceived.
Yrjo wrote: "To me, the promise of activity theory lies in the idea that
in order to understand human beings we need to understand how they
change and create the world. This is quite different from BOTH views
that emphasize only internalization of given culture AND from views that
emphasize only the creation of uniquely personal, individual worlds."
Can one only take a social view of human beings within change? I am
totally amazed (in many messages) at the attempt to dichotomize the
individual and the social, something very close to Cartesian dualism for
me. In reading some of the postings, I do not get a feel that there is a
focus on the "active" side of human/social nature, but on the "passive"
side, something that reminds me of much criticism from around the world
regarding Western psychology in general. I truly thought that the
fusion of individual/social was a given within the cultural-historical,
activity theory tradition. The thoughts from Paul are very interesting,
and it links into the writings of Plato and Aristotle on mimesis, so
perhaps this is a discussion that will be with humankind forever. For
me, the missing element is still a fundamental discussion of what
internalization really means, in a much more extended understanding. I
had the feeling from some responses to my comments that I was viewed as
only being interested in internalization, hence an individualistic
approach to any theory. I also felt that others are truly focused on the
social/external only. I took the initial assumption that in all
discussions, the individual/social were fused.......my questions
regarding chapters one and two are: what are the overall intentions of
Russian Activity Theory? is there no focus on the individual as an
individual (with an internalized social)? Is it simply a systems
approach in the abstract to better understanding the social? how much of
Russian A.T. is really connected to the intentions of Vygotsky? Does
Russian A.T. view both the individual and social as fused? if so, how
does Russian A.T. overcome the positioning of the "objective" and
"subjective"? Or, better, where is the focus on the individual within
Russian A.T.? How do people "change and create the world" if not through
the "internalized social through the individual"? For me at least,
Vygotsky is the one who answered these questions to the fullest. Thanks
for your help. I do feel that other Russians who studied with A.N.
Leontiev and his followers would be a very valuable resource at this
point.
Dot
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:17 PST