Nate, I don't know of a specific CHAT meaning for the word "motive", but it
seems to me that in the wider context "motive" does refer to the subjective
content of the meaning of a person's activity. This is of course quite
distinct from the cultural or societal meaning of an activity and says
nothing about the cultural process of formation of motive. I guess the
word "motive" is etymologically connected to "motor" - what 'moves' someone?
Andy
At 06:09 AM 3/02/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>I may be missing something - but is not "motive" in the context of AT
>referring to the collective rather than the individual per se. If we got
>the hunt or whatever it seems it is not this individual object or motive
>but a collective one.
>
>Would not the farmers activity system be more than just what he does? There
>are consumers who want reasonable prices for milk, children who need to be
>fed at school, laws passed at both the state and local level etc. I guess
>what I'm wondering is this - if I as a farmer do it for the money or to
>carry on tradition does that really get at the motive - is not motive
>something collectives do.
>
>Another thought that keeps coming up for me in regards to AT and its
>history is how much the U.S. may differ in fundamental ways from the
>societies it was most fruitfully (keep up with the farmers theme) developed.
>
>In reading the discussion thus far, which I've enjoyed very much, I have
>come to think of schools which are very much an historical type of activity
>that is rather complex. The motive for me would speak of activity as in why
>do they exist not personal goals. Schools or the 5th D exists for certain
>reasons and not for others. Creating an activity system that could be
>sustainable in which a dialectic of play/school activity could emerge (my
>subjective interpretation). Now I very much doubt that the 5th D kids goals
>are making it sustainable or furthering the dialectic of play/school
>activity, but isn't that where goals come in - at the level of actions.
>
>It seems to me if we begin confusing one AT category for another it loses
>something, or maybe I'm missing something. With a division of labor -
>especially the kind in liberal-capitalist societies it seems a certain
>disconnectedness occurs which AT ethically challenges. If its the farmer or
>this idea that the teacher is an isolated microcosm is schools - there is
>this tendency to see them as separate disjointed systems, but it seems to
>me some version of totality (maybe different from Paul's) is needed in
>order to understand the connections.
>
>Lastly, it seems analysis of AT that is the most useful are ones when
>concrete human relations are central. So while I would agree with Davydov,
>Elkonin, Vygotsky that schools are motivated by learning activity that does
>not mean it is not an area of contestation. While schools as an
>historical entity are motivated by a certain type of activity there is
>movement on what form that takes. For example, <irony>there are those who
>believe that awful progressive experiment - whole language, new math etc -
>contradicted with schools being places that learning take
>place</irony>. But on the other hand, in the current environment with
>testing it seems to me schools are becoming places for testing activity
>rather than learning activity. School boards and PTO's energy are being
>devoted to upcoming tests rather than "learning". Every week my son brings
>home a beta reading test for a test coming up in four months so he can be
>prepared. When these are not returned the principal sends a note home
>explaining our collective responsibility for this upcoming test. And as we
>are becoming more and more aware these events are high stakes and could
>determine through very undemocratic means if the school gets funding or
>remains open in the future.
>
>Now, it seems to me the totality of this is incomprehensible - as teachers,
>researchers etc we would be bringing in perspective that relates to both
>our relationship (division of labor) in this activity system and out
>interests (goals) of what we want to understand and change. But these are
>not separate activity systems are they? I like cascading - going back to
>Eva's paper - in which one view testing/accountability in learning/teaching
>"feedback" (mediate) other parts of that activity system.
>
>But, ? says, " that's nice, but isn't the point the change it". If I
>understand Paul D. correctly this is related to his continual emphasis on
>production/reproduction. So if we take eating dinner, but instead focus on
>the more business type that women have pointed out is one important way
>cultural capital is transferred it seems to matter which reflection of
>activity one would study. One's goals of satisfying hunger is not really
>important to satisfying the totality one wants to change. It was the
>understanding of the motive of the dinner get togethers that facilitated
>collective activities such as mentorship for women professionals. I doubt
>an individual participating in this dinner thing consciously thought I
>am here transferring cultural capital, but it seems nevertheless that was
>the effect of that activity.
>
>
>
>Nate
>
>
>At 06:45 PM 2/2/01 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>I am also curious, Helena and others, how you map out these activity
>>systems -- GIVEN: the laborer is working for wages; the farmer is farming.
>>Does the activity system of the laborer treat "working for wages" as an
>>instrument for, perhaps, "taking care of family" or "purchasing a newer
>>car" -? OR do you define the laborer's motive as "working for wages" --
>>but you can't, if the subject doesn't view it as such.... Once you take
>>account of the subject's "horizon of possibility" you put at risk your
>>(i.e., the analyst's) object, of folding AT back onto the description that
>>would be the intervention. Sorry, I haven't done the analysis myself, so
>>if anyone else can take this to the concrete, I'd appreciate it.
>>
>>Judy
>>
>>
>>>A lobbyist is hired by a corporation to influence legislation. The
>>>lobbyist and a legislator talk and come to an agreement. When they speak
>>>to the public, they say the same words, stand side by side. But they are
>>>engaged in different activity systems: the lobbyist is working to get
>>>paid by the corporation, the legislator is getting paid to represent the
>>>best interests of the people who voted for him or her.
>>>
>>>So in one single enterprise -- be it a family farm, a private business,
>>>government -- we can see how activity systems can look congruent but be
>>>in fact different because they are driven by different motives.
>>>
>>>Helena
>>>
>>>Ricardo Ottoni Vaz Japiassu wrote:
>>><
>>>>?smaller>Since I read your questions I've been looking for answers to
>>>>them, thinking - when there's time to do it - erraticaly... (I'm not
>>>>sure if there is such a word in english. If not, please, understand it
>>>>as a neologism trying to figure out a non-formal or rigorous way of
>>>>thinking) I try, below, answer to them - but, please, have in mind I do
>>>>not have any pretention of being the owner of "the truth"... Just
>>>>convert in words some embrionical ideas affected by the current
>>>>discussion you fired in XMCA.
>>>>>-----Mensagem original-----
>>>>>De: Charles Nelson
>>>>><<<mailto:c.nelson@mail.utexas.edu>mailto:c.nelson@mail.utexas.edu>c.ne
lson@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>>>
>>>>>Para:
>>>>><<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>xmca@weber.ucsd.
>>>>>edu
>>>>><<<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>xmca@weber.ucs
d.edu>
>>>>>Data: Terça-feira, 30 de Janeiro de 2001 17:55
>>>>>Assunto: Different motives
>>>>>Questions:
>>>>>Does motive always determine the activity?
>>>>>I do not think it can, always, determine an activity. Maybe, in turn,
>>>>>engaging in any activity could be possible only through some motive...
>>>>>Or, does different people having different motives change the activity
>>>>>system for each individual even if they physically are doing the same
thing?
>>>>>Yes, I think the personal meaning of a specific activity can be
>>>>>different to those people engaged in it.
>>>>>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?
>>>>>Maybe these multiple motives you refer to, could be summarized or
>>>>>reduced to one: the main one. Despite people engaged in an activity
>>>>>could, personaly, have different motives to be doing it, they would be
>>>>>involved in a very specific socio-cultural object-oriented one. But
>>>>>their actions within it, in turn, yes, could have very different goals.
>>>>>Given the difficulty of determining motive(s), how do we identify the
>>>>>"real" activity?
>>>>>If the "real" activity of a couple is, for example, "to have a dinner"
>>>>>in a very "in" restaurant, the motive of each partner to be engaged in
>>>>>it could be very different one another: Maybe for one of them the
>>>>>motive could be "eat and bannish hungry", to the other, "watch" and "be
>>>>>watched" in company. Even so, the "real" activity still be "having
>>>>>dinner". Don't you think so?
>>>>>Charles Nelson<?/smaller>
>><<<<
>>
>>
>></blockquote></x-html>
>
>
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| - 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 - 01:01:07 PST