[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Project
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] Project
- From: Andy Blunden <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:37:11 +1100
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <8217281D-07A4-4895-A151-5081B3183961@duq.edu>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <54248F6464A3874BB28FFF75F616AED6562AE5B2@CIO-KRC-D1MBX02.osuad.osu.edu> <214B2939-9BA5-443D-8E28-B564DCD67F68@duq.edu> <515B75A9.email@example.com> <B127BD48-998B-46D3-9928-59CB325D8801@duq.edu> <515B7AB1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <19ED3498-6D0F-4D81-B83D-A6F2FAAD040E@duq.edu> <515B8E2A.email@example.com> <8217281D-07A4-4895-A151-5081B3183961@duq.edu>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-agent: Thunderbird 184.108.40.206 (Windows/20090812)
I was really hoping that someone else would take this up, but ...
Go to http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm -
Engestrom's famous 1987 book in which he derives the famous "expanding
triangle" (See chapter ch2.htm in particular). He does exactly what you
suggest. He talks a lot about the "unit of analysis" and then goes on to
derive the "expanding triangle" as a *root model* of activity. He does
not claim that it is a "unit of analysis," just a "model." Referring to
that triangle a "unit of analysis" is something which has just developed
over the years, which is very confusing, because it is not a "unit of
Like you suggest, Martin, Engestrom thinks of some attributes which he
thinks are important to the complex to be modelled and then sticks them
together in a model. If the result is successful then the theory will
give you back just what you put in. If you pick on wage labor,
exploitation, conflict and reproduction, then your "model" will display
wage labor, exploitation, conflict and reproduction.
But this is not what Goethe did, but he does at times describe his
Urphaenomen as a model. See
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/urphaenomen.htm. It is certainly
not what Hegel did, nor did Marx "model capitalism." Modelling is a
perfectly respectable activity. Billions are spent every year modelling
different industries, the world economy and even the climate. But is not
what Vygotsky was doing. I suggest you read "Thinking and Speech":
talks a lot about "model" when he is described how an infant forms the
pseudoconcept of a "model" but he does not see the "unit of analysis" as
a model. (He does talk about "artificial concepts" though in Chapter 5.)
Modelling is part of what Goethe, in his day, called
"hypothetico-deductive" science. In the words of Goethe scholar
"As the /Urphänomen/ is not an abstract /terminus/ (in either sense
of the word) but a pure activity, it can be accessed and realized
only through practice. Thus Goethe conceives of the scientific
experiment as the systematic exploration, practice, and elaboration
of a mode of representation. In the hypothetico-deductive method,
one begins by projecting a structure upon one’s observations, then
isolates what is held to be the crucial factor, thereby cutting
oneself off entirely from the phenomenal context. As we have seen,
what takes the place of an abstract hypothesis in Goethe’s method is
an intuition that arises within the graded series. It is the pattern
of the phenomena as a whole. The source and guide of one’s thinking
is the /energeia/ of the phenomena. ..."
Martin Packer wrote:
It probably seems as though I am simply trying to rain on Andy's parade, or on his project. And I'm really not. There are important issues here.
Remember LSV's advice that the unit of analysis should still have the key characteristics of the phenomenon we're trying to understand. So to study water you don't study its elements, hydrogen and oxygen, you study the molecule, H2O, in its various qualitative forms.
That begs the question, then, what are the characteristics of the phenomenon we're trying to understand? Recall that we were discussing occasions of emotion - my example of a 'Gott!' when trying to open the window; Manfred's example of the bank worker getting angry at her boss.
Brecht gave us a wonderful detailed portrait of what's happened in Egypt - in which exploitation and conflict seemed to me to be write large. So let's select those two as key characteristics. Surely there are others; I've suggested reproduction (we don't want to be asking, does the chicken produce the egg or does the egg produce the chicken).
We need, then, a unit for the analysis of human activity that includes at least exploitation and conflict and reproduction. Activity (as per activity theory) doesn't seem to have these. Neither, in my view, does "project" - at least I don't yet see how it does.
Don't ask me to define it (!), but I've been having my students go out to conduct field work in a 'form of life' that they select. One group has been visiting a panaderia (a bakery, basically) - and they've done a great job describing the production (of breads) and exchange (to customers), the way the business is being reproduced on a daily basis, the degree of exploitation of workers, tempered somewhat because it is a "family business," in detail.
So what is all that? A project? An activity? An assemblage? That's what we need to figure out.
xmca mailing list