Re: Michael's paper

From: Helena Worthen (hworthen@igc.org)
Date: Fri Feb 02 2001 - 22:11:08 PST


Dear people --

I've had some back-channel responses to my farmer/helper example on the "different
motives" thread. Several of these seemed to me to be about the way we "read" the
activity system diagrams. So I'd like to get very concrete about how we read these
diagrams. I think we are reading the activity systems diagrams differently.

So does anyone mind if we use the AT diagrams in Michael's paper as an
illustration? I spent some time reading it this afternoon, as Chicago dimmed and
the temperature dropped.

There are two of these diagrams on page 4 of Michael's paper as I downloaded it.
I would like to compare the different ways that we read them. These are
Engestrom's famliar diagrams but it's not until you load them up with concrete
specifics that you begin to see how they can be read differently.

Either one of the two triangle diagrams on page 4 will do fine for this. I guess
I'll choose the one on the right because it represents the more familiar
traditional classroom situation (albeit with co-teachers).

Each diagram has 6 features ranged around the triangle, 3 at the points and 3 in
the midpoints of the sides. The strongest -- or most obvious and familiar --
connection is between the "subject" and the "object," the two features on opposite
midpoints. In fact, you could say that the entire remaining diagram exists in
order to explain the connection between these two features.

The part of the diagram that I think is related to the immediate discussion is the
"division of labor" corner in the lower right. Above it is "object," which flows
in this diagram into "outcome." To its left in the cetner along the bottom is
"community." Here 's how I read the "division of labor" corner: The "division of
labor" mediates between the community and the object. Or, saying the same thing
differently, "The community, through division of labor, creates a way for the
subject to act on the object."

Or, to read that corner entirely: In order to achieve outcome (x) through object
(y), the community (z) produces through the process of division of labor the
social roles which will enable subjects (a) to act on object (y). When I do this
I'm reading the whole AT system as it is engaged from the "division of labor"
corner.

And you can do this with all three corners.

In the case of Michael's paper, I would read the "division of labor" corner of his
right-hand diagram as "The community, meaning both the class and society that
needs to educate its youth and citizens, creates through a division of labor a
system of education that includes teachers and students and researchers who
working together make it possible for students to learn about the world and act in
the world."

This is not how Michael reads the division of labor corner. He does not read it
as the division of labor mediating between the community and the object. He reads
"division of labor" as the social roles adopted by the group immediately around
the subject, not necessarily formed from the community in response to the object.

Now this certainly is reasonable, and other people may read the diagram this way
too. However, to read the diagram the way Michael reads it is to suggest that it
doesn't matter where the labels belong on any of the points of the triangle -- it
suggests that they are interchangeable. I think this is a mistake. Rules
actually do mediate between the subject of an activity system and the community
from which that subject has emerged; tools do actually mediate between the subject
and the object. The labels are on those particular corners for good reasons that
make sense.

So -- I would like to hear how other people read these diagrams. Michael, thank
you for putting your paper up and creating the opportunity for me to ask these
questions which I didn't even know I needed to ask!!!

Helena



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 01:01:04 PST