object(s)(ives)

From: Dale.Cyphert@uni.edu
Date: Sat Jun 14 2003 - 09:20:42 PDT


Mike,
That is the issue, isn't it? We're so bound up in our own language
that it's hard to think in "verb-ish" ways.

The phrase I liked in Kirsten's article was the object as "a complex,
multifaceted, ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE OF AN ACTIVITY that evolves over
time." Yes, members of the organization do operationalize that
principle as an "objective" or aim or goal. And yes, the outcomes of
the activity do have material aspects. But, neither is really the
object, in this CHAT sense, which tries to capture the larger
organizational sense of what is going on.

Harry's comment added an interesting thought, which I think helps to
clarify the way in which these "two" senses of objected are related,
and perhaps necessarily related. Kirsten identified two components of
the object, which Harry generalized as the "task related" and "social
relationship" elements of an object. Could we say that ANY activity
system will always develop an object with both aspects? Or must be
able to articulate both? in order to be/remain/become viable?
Actually, I would add the third component that Kirsten hinted
at: "individual aims", in the sense that each of the EAWARN
participants conceptualized the network as a means of meeting
personal/career goals. While these might have all been quite
different in both the "goal" and "material" senses, a viable activity
system must allow each individual member to construct (at least)
compatible "individual" objects that are very much "part" of the
ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE OF THE ACTIVITY SYSTEM as a whole.

My own area of application involves business organizations, where the
conflicts between "task" object and "social" object and "individual"
object are often major issues in the overall health and effectiveness
of the activity system; this way of talking about the dynamics of the
organization could prove extremely useful.

dale



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:29:44 PDT