Wow! I was hoping for the opportunity to reflect on this one before
weighing in! It's a complex topic.


It is true that individuals participate in activity for different motives
and the outcome is their collective external or objective activity, "the
resultant of many intersecting wills", but one could only separate the
intention of an individual and their objective activity with others, with
considerable qualification and some risk.


What must also be part of the consideration is the formation of
intentions, and this is very much a social process as well, which
conducts itself through individuals.


Although there may be many different intentions in play in a particular
social conflict or activity, it is by no means the case that their
different intentions can be understood at the level of individuals, any
more than can the outcome.


All sorts of ideals, particular human relationships and the individuals
themselves are social constructed.


my hurried thoughts,

Andy

At 07:50 PM 1/30/01 -0500, you wrote:

>>>> 

<excerpt>

I know there are many xmca-ers who can help me here. Nate? Andy? someone? 


At 03:20 PM 1/30/01 -0500, you wrote:

>>>> 

<excerpt>This, I think, gets right to the heart of debates lately. The
"real" motive in AT is supposedly objective, right? So while individuals
may participate in an activity for different reasons, the difference
between their version of affairs and the "real" social motive is
irrelevant, unless it affects their actions, in which case they become
the subjects of analysis and the disjunctions between what they think
they're doing/their reasons for doing it and the collective object
becomes the 'object' of analysis. Or do I have this wrong?


In Yrjo's interpretation of the contradictions in Stanislavski's methods
and of the workshops conducted as an intervention into theatre, the
subject's version of affairs does not define the object -- on the
contrary: the ideal of theatre is enunciated by the analyst. I buy it
because it's illuminating, inspirational, but we don't know what
participants in the workshop might have commented on Yrjo's analysis. So
what makes the ideal he identifies the 'real' objective ....? 





At 11:41 AM 1/30/01 -0800, you wrote:

>>>> 

<excerpt><smaller>Questions:



Does motive always determine the activity? 

Or, does different people having different motives change the activity
system for each individual even if they physically are doing the same
thing? 

Because people can have more than one motive while engaging in work
(e.g., survival, pleasure, social influence, etc.), can one person with
multiple motives doing the same thing be engaged in more than one
activity? 

Given the difficulty of determining motive(s), how do we identify the
"real" activity?



Charles Nelson 

</smaller>

</excerpt><<<<<<<<




</excerpt><<<<<<<<



</excerpt><<<<<<<<



**************************************************

* Andy Blunden, Teaching Space Support Team Leader

* University of Melbourne 9344 0312 W, 9380 9435 H

* Email ablunden@unimelb.edu.au W, andy@mira.net H

* http://www.ists.unimelb.edu.au - Work 

* http://home.mira.net/~andy/ - Home

**************************************************