[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Leontyev's activities
I dont know how literally you're using the term, but the notion of "operational definition" is very much part of theory of science of logical positivism. I don't think you're going to find much of that in Leontyev.
On Aug 8, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Huw Lloyd <email@example.com> wrote:
> Thanks for these. They're interesting but I don't think they quite answer
> the question about operational definitions -- i.e. the experimental
> paradigms used to establish and measure the unit.
> On p. 364 Leontiev elaborates on an example with a student, in which he
> states that psychological testing needs to be done in order to find out
> what the current activity is for the subject.
> But this does not really bring any bearing onto "the very complex
> cross-links" (1977) between the individual and society.
> I am guessing that he uses leading activity as the means for setting the
> scope of societal practices for revealing the formation of new motives etc.
> I am partially interested in this for observing how the object is
> demonstrated objectively, and the relation of complex motives (e.g. doing
> work in an ethical way) to notions of a "single basis of development".
> On 7 August 2013 22:14, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Leontyev says that an activity is defined by its motive.
>> See "The Development of Mind," Leontyev 2009, p. 28-29
>> But Leontyev, in my opinion, does not adequately distinguish between "an
>> activity" and "a type of activity," leading to confusion on this point.
>> Plus the fact that the object or motive is given externally to the
>> activity, underming his claim to have created an activity theory, rather
>> than a theory of human needs.
>> The specific processes that realise some vital, i.e. active, relation of
>> the subject to reality we shall term processes of /activity/, in
>> distinction to other processes.