[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Leontyev's activities
Activity is defined by its object. See p. 363 in The Development of Mind
(Problems of Dev.)
On 9 August 2013 04:24, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Greg Thompson wrote:
>> Andy, I think I need still more help.
>> I got lost at, well, "an activity (generally) exists". Wondering what
>> this could mean.
> xmca didn't exist when Mike Cole launched it. But for the many
> thousands who have joined it since, it *existed*. Thus is
> "generally" exists. On the whole, we *join* rather than create
> activities (projects).
> Then the middle part seems to make some sense for me: activities don't
>> simply and reasonably follow the intentions of their participants, but then
>> lost you again at the end, with "the outcome in '*immanent* in the project
>> itself". Not sure what exactly that means either.
> As Vygotsky says somewhere, the problem which stimulates the
> activity (the development of the concept) cannot in itself account
> for the project (or concept). The *means* utilised, which
> corresponds to how the problem or task is conceived by the agents,
> is what is crucial. I.e., not the problem or task as such, but the
> conception of the task, constitutes the ideal. But what this ideal
> is, is *only realised by the work of the project itself*.
>> And as a bigger question, I am trying to figure out "where" the activity
>> exists? And "who" is a part of it?
> OK, but just don't expect to find an abstract empirical (logical
> positivist) answer to that. An activity (or project) is an aggregate
> of *actions* not *people*. These actions are the fundamental (micro)
> unit of an activity, which is a molar unit of human life as a whole.
> So an activity exists in its artefact-mediated actions, not a group
> of people.
> For example, with XMCA, is each thread or discussion an activity? What
>> about all the intersections and overlaps with previous and soon-to-be
>> discussions? Or is the whole history of XMCA an activity?
>> And as to "who", is it just the people talking (i.e. writing!), or are
>> the "lurkers" part of the activity? And are non-XMCA folks with whom the
>> writers and lurkers speak, and who have significantly influenced the
>> writers' ideas - are they a part of the activity?
> (1) Like all the concepts which are part of a science, projects are
> *nested*. An aggregate of actions may have ideal or object which
> makes sense only as part of one or more larger projects. All the
> concepts of a science obviously have complex interactions and
> interdependncies. No clear boundaries or lines of demarcation. Their
> truth is part of the *whole*. (2) The question of "who" is part of
> it is the wrong question. An activity is an aggregate of actions,
> not individual persons. Also, a project is the particular of a
> concept. As a particular, the project has a relatively definite
> location in time and space. But it is an instance realising a
> concept which is a unit of an entire social formation. So the scope
> of a project, being part of a family of such projects, may be larger
> than the immediate participating actions.
>> In short, what are the bounds of an activity?
>> (oh, and where does a "project" fit into all of this?)
> Boundary questions are the royal road to confusion. The question is
> what is the concept (or in common parlance the "essence") of a project.
> "A project" is just another word for "an activity." But it has its
> own history and connotations in our culture. (BTW "project" and
> "design" are the same word in Russian: "proyekt" and the etymology
> of "de-sign" is interesting too) and also, by using a different word
> I can get away from the orthodoxy of what ANL or someone else says
> is the case for "an activity." So if I say that the object of a
> project is immanent within the project, I am not directly
> contradicting an Activity Theorist for whom the Object or motive is
> given for the Activity. I want to re-discuss all the concepts of
> Activity Theory without being stumped by orthodoxy, so a new word helps.