This bounced so am resending
From: Sophie Alcock
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 9:46 AM
Subject: RE: michal roth's intro?
Well I found the intro useful and reassuring because Michael does refer to Engestrom's triangle model of AT and defends it's potentially static, structuralist interpretation by simply pointing out that criticisms of the model, "fail to recognize that the the model is inherently dynamic". I find fluid diagrammes of ideas useful for breaking down categorical assumptions, and variations on this triangle can therefore be more helpful than too many words.
I also appreciated the clear linking to Marxist theory.
I'm not sure how useful it is to try to categorise the internal tensions and contradictions in activity systems as four types, yet the categorisation is logical. This is a tension I grapple with. Tension is central to young children's playfulness and humour (my study focus). Contradictions are inherent and basic to humour. It helps to use practical examples. So, the contradictions around children's word play and rules (and roles) are obvious. And the contradictions do motivate and propel the activity. In the play process childrn have fun both re-creating sounds, rhythms, meanings, of words and also connecting with each other. At the same time children may feel some sense of control as together they improvise and synchronise words, making and remaking rules too.
I'm still puzzling over tensions and contradictions and look forward to reading the article when it's posted.
From: Mike Cole [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 5:04 AM
Subject: michal roth's intro?
Have folks had a chance to Micael Roth's intro to the xmca issue we will
be discussing? I have seen no comments. Is anyone having trouble accessing
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:43:03 PST