Thanks for the clear summary Steve. I'd like to respond briefly to this and
to the header of Bill's post of a few days ago, Why does Smagorinsk[y] not
use Object.
I actually haven't read Foot's paper yet--am catching up on writing during
this precious time during the summer. Steve's summary includes attention to
the term "object" in activity theory analyses. I tend not to use that term
in my own work; perhaps the ambiguity over the term as Steve describes is
part of the reason. I do use the term "motive" which I take from Leont'ev
largely by way of Wertsch, which I think corresponds to object as defined
in this discussion. A brief quote from Wertsch on the construct of motive:
Wertsch (1985) maintains that "the motive that is involved in a particular
activity setting specifies what is to be maximized in that setting. By
maximizing one goal, one set of behaviors, and the like over others, the
motive also determines what will be given up if need be in order to
accomplish something else" (p. 212).
I've described this further as follows:
Every setting is likely to include subsettings or idiocultures in which
local practices are developed that may depart from the practices of the
larger culture. Thus, within an overall school setting there is likely to
be an overriding motive developed that embodies the community's values and
social practices; and within this whole culture there might develop
idiocultures where this motive can be renegotiated or resisted by subgroups
including peer groups, particular classrooms, small groups within
classrooms, or other configurations of people. The motive of any setting
or subsetting is always provisional, providing space for resistance and
alternative, competing motives. While settings provide overriding motives
and channel human action, they do not determine the ways in which people
act. Individuals have heterogeneous ways of thinking (Tulviste, 1991) and
thus may construct meanings for the setting that suggest other
motives. Settings therefore have predominant motives that may be altered
or subverted by the goals of individuals who act within them.
Is this the same as what people refer to as object? Peter
At 06:54 PM 6/15/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello All,
>
>I have been studying the Kirsten Foot article "Pursuing and Evolving
>Object" and have been following the posts closely. There are many
>fundamental questions facing CHAT in this theoretical discussion about the
>activity system object. I thought I would try to summarize some of the
>discussion so far. Many important points have been raised in the past few
>days. Several threads are opening up that I think are worth summarizing in
>the hopes of continuing to draw people into the discussion.
>
>Harry (Jun 12) opened with three central points and a question. First, he
>points out that Kirsten's paper offers a clarification of the CHAT meaning
>of the term object that is thought-provoking and useful. Second, Harry
>speculates on a way to extend the CHAT discussion of the production of the
>object, where he suggests applying an analysis of the division of labor,
>social rules and discursive practices to an activity system. Third, he
>explains that Kirsten offers a good starting point in her data - for
>extending the CHAT discussion of the concept of object - by revealing two
>object conceptions within the Network, monitoring ethnic relations and
>epistemic community building. Harry generalizes, and suggests that the
>former could be considered a task related object, and the latter a social
>relations object. Finally, he asks whether these two are object
>conceptions, or are they elements of a discourse on the object?
>
>Mike (Jun 12) also presented a discussion-opening post. He brought up
>three points. First, he feels that the concept of "object" in CHAT has
>problems, at least for him, and welcomed the opportunity to read about this
>complex topic in Kirsten's paper. Second, one of Mike's problems is the
>double-sided definition English provides for the word "object": (1) a
>material thing and (2) something aimed at, purpose, end. How can we
>reconcile the CHAT concept of activity system object with these common
>meanings in English? Third, Mike asks how to interpret the phrase "Given
>the dual nature of object as both material and socially constructed ..."
>(pg 132). He asks several more questions. Does "socially constructed"
>mean "ideal"? Isn't social construction both ideal and material? Is there
>such a thing as social interaction without materiality?
>
>Dale (Jun 14) responded to Mike with a post that picked up on a definition
>of the object offered by Kirsten: "An object that is embedded in activity
>can be understood as a complex, multifaceted, organizing principle of an
>activity that evolves over time ..." (page 139). Dale makes two important
>points from this. First, Dale explained that yes, individual members of an
>organization do operationalize the organizing principle as an "objective",
>aim or goal, and yes, the outcomes of an activity do have material aspects,
>but neither of these is really the object in a CHAT sense. Dale promotes
>instead Kirsten's term "organizing principle" because it captures the
>larger organizational sense of creating the CHAT activity system object.
>Second, Dale pointed out that he would go on add a third component to
>Harry's generalizations from Kirsten's paper that an activity system object
>contains two elements - "task related" and "social relationship". Dale
>added "individual aims". Dale explained that conflicts between "task"
>object and "social" object and "individual" object are often major issues
>in the effectiveness of an activity system.
>
>Kevin (Jun 14) opened his post with some thoughts on the relationships
>between the way object-oriented programming and CHAT use the concept
>"object". He then asks two challenging questions. First, is an activity
>system object really an organizing principle? And second, is an activity
>system object really unitary - aren't there multiple objects? Kevin also
>asks Dale for a clarification of what he means by the term.
>
>Dale (Jun14) responded that instead of the two choices for definitions
>Kevin provided for principle - did Dale mean ethical or rule-based
>principles - Dale had a third in mind - principles as a guiding set of
>values, such as a "vision" in business jargon. Dale went on to explain
>that this concept of principle reminded him of the concept of
>self-organizing systems and some posts from Jay Lemke in the past. He
>suggests these ideas could be applied to an activity system object, such
>as, quoting Dale, "that sort of emergent "sense" of being that both arises
>when activities move toward ... shall we say an object?...and (re)creates
>its own sense of self as a result of that process." Dale also emphasizes
>the importance of the developmental and constructive nature of the object,
>along with the multi-faceted, even contradictory range of perspectives held
>by the participants.
>
>Mike (Jun 14) posted that he agreed that the activity system object has
>both the task and social relationship aspects, just as we can speak of
>labor activity in general as creating both means and relations of
>production. He suggests this may be axiomatic to CHAT theory. He
>wondered, however, whether adding the third aspect, the individual, isn't
>adding a different analytical perspective.
>
>Mike (same post) then brings up some questions along a new line of inquiry.
> He asks how clearly the international and inter-ethnic aspects of the
>EAWARN project came through to the reader. The LCHC was involved with this
>project in the 1990's. In particular, Mike asks how clear to the readers
>of Kirsten's paper the dynamics of the provision of Internet access and
>resources to the FSU participants was - both from the point of view of the
>impact of the internet on the participants and from the point of view of
>the impact this project had on the internet and on Rossian computer
>resources. Mike points out that this provision was one of the Carnegie
>Corporation's central goals, and was inviting commentary on the
>cross-mediation this likely created.
>
>Kevin, Ricardo and Bruce (Jun 15) then posted useful questions and answers
>about the German words for object, Objekt and Gegenstand. But this summary
>is quite long enough and I will end it here!
>
>- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:29:44 PDT