Ahh! Possible source of misunderstanding.
My principle experience in "activity systems" is also industrial relations,
as I was the local union rep in almost all jobs I have had over 27 years.
In my time at Melbourne Uni I have also been mainly the negotiator for
union 'contract' negotiations with the administration. So I'm with you
entirely there!
When I talk about a "unity" between two apparently disparate groups or two
groups being party to the same activity system then that by no means puts
an equals sign between them. ON THE CONTRARY! It more likely puts "not
equal" sign between them.
For example, if a University researcher is studying a community, it is not
at all (in my view) normally the case that the community is involved in one
activity system where cerain precepts apply and the researcher is part of
another, an academic community, kind of "visiting" the community which she
thereby transforms into her object.
With your and Bill's explanations I came to see that side of it and the
importance of recognising that. However, there is also the fact that the
researcher may be perceived as a privileged representative of an oppressive
outside force, the research may be perceived as threatening to improve the
effectiveness of the oppressive force threatening the community, and in any
case may be paid for out of their taxes (all hypothetical of course). I
wouldn't think it would be useful for the researcher to see these
perceptions as simply 'misunderstandings' resulting frombeing part of
different activity systems - as you know, in many cases they may be
pefectly accurate!
So what I am saying is that while I accept the need to recognise the
mutually foreign frameworks that each side bring to the table, it is *also*
vital to recoognise the *origin* of those differrences. Otherwise, how do
you progress?
BTW, the HR department at Melbourne Uni are behaviourists. They even have
an "industrial psychologist" who is a rampant behaviourist to boot, sitting
at the table with them during negotiations, doubtless analysing all our
body movements etc., etc.. Everything from there side is structured via
reward-and-punishment. They are the most reactionary administration in the
Australian Higher Ed. system. They swap advisors with the Liberal (i.e.
conservative) government. They're a real handful!
Andy
"A small farmer hires a helper to work on the harvest. We might say they
are both engaged in the activity of farming. But the famer works to get
the harvest in, the helper works to get paid."
The activity system both are engaged in is called extraction of surplus
value by means of buying-and-selling human labour power. The buyer and
seller are always engaged in the same act - that of exchange - but by that
very act their interests, motives and world-views are totally different,
even opposed.
At 10:33 AM 2/02/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Andy, I get a little hot under the collar about this stuff because in my
field
>-- Industrial Relations -- there is tremendous pressure to study and publish
>as if the bargaining table is flat (workers and employers are equal in power
>and engaged in one big happy activity system) and everyone comes to the free
>market with the same resources of choice, information, etc. This is why I
>value the perspective-separating motive-differentiating power of AT so much.
>It enables me to look at people engaged in work -- or in planning or
>legislating around work -- and ask, "What activity system are they actually
>engaged in here? Who is in it, what are their tools, who is their
>"community", what determined the division of labor, what i the object --
>etc." I find AT to be an enormous help in analyzing these situations,
but if
>the power to distinguish between activity systems by distinguishing motives
>was lost, then I'd be back at square one.
>
>Glad you find us "comradely." Me, too.
>
>Helena
>
>Andy Blunden wrote:
>
>> Helena, Bill, and others,
>>
>> Firstly can I say that I am in awe of the participants on the list for the
>> comradely and intelligent way you have conducted your list over such a long
>> time, and anything I should say may be interpreted in that spirit!
>>
>> >From Bill's explanation I better understand Helena's original comment and
>> that whole discussion. While I stand by what I said, Bill has focussed my
>> attention on the Particular, and perhaps my comments were concerned with
>> Individual and Universal and overlooked the crucial role of mediation by
>> the Particular. Paul raises this aspect in his comments.
>>
>> So, thank you! but I think this is the relation of
>> Individual-Particular-Universal, and there always is a relation between,
>> for example, researchers and the objects of their study, between activity
>> theorists and their behaviourist colleagues, and so on. If there were no
>> pont of contact there would be no friction.
>>
>> And I don't mind physical metaphors. As a Civil Engineer by training, I
>> couldn't manage without them!
>>
>> Andy
>> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> | - Andy Blunden - Home Page - http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm - |
>> | "Spirit, so far as it is the immediate truth, is the ethical life of |
>> | a people: - the individual, which is a world. Phenomenology, Hegel |
>> Spirit, Money & Modernity, Melbourne Uni Summer School 23/24 Feb '01
>> Reading material at http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/23feb00.htm
>> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| - Andy Blunden - Home Page - http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm - |
| "Spirit, so far as it is the immediate truth, is the ethical life of |
| a people: - the individual, which is a world. Phenomenology, Hegel |
Spirit, Money & Modernity, Melbourne Uni Summer School 23/24 Feb '01
Reading material at http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/23feb00.htm
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 01:01:04 PST