[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic motivation?

OK! I admit that is a solution that I didn't see coming. :)

I gather from your formulation that an objective motive is not the motive of a person (otherwise, how could you contrast it with 'personal motive'). So that is my first question: who/what's motive is it, if not that of person(s)?

Secondly, I agree that *every* motive is objective; but equally every motive is subjective. But the point is that Leontyev contrasts "objective" with "subjective" motives. I have no problem with the statement that every motive is objective in that (1) the aim is that a desired state of affairs exists in the material world, not as a state of mind, and (2) the desire is in the mind, but arises from the life-situation of the person in the material world, their material needs and so on; motives begin and end in the material world, but pass through consciousness. But the whole idea of "motive" is that it is active in consciousness. So it seems the idea of multiple objective motives can only be a truism. It cannot help Leontyev, because for Leontyev there is only one objective motive. I think you and I would be together in disagreeing with ANL here. But we would all agree that all "personal motives" are also objective in the sense (1).

Thirdly, let me take a guess that you mean that an "objective motive" is the motive of the activity. It is only a guess, but you say: "multiple objective motives, none of them simply the sum of personal motives." Could you explain what exactly you would mean by the "motive" of an activity, if this is the case, and in what sense the "motive of an activity" can have multiple instantiations. Do you mean "kill two birds with one stone" so to speak? If that is what you mean, I agree, but that is only a trivial distinction. Do you mean that diverse social interests (not individual interests) are at play in an activity, and potentially all may be realised simultaneously? If so, I agree, but ANL would not.

*Andy Blunden*

Martin John Packer wrote:
But that would be a problem, Andy, only if there could be only one objective motive. No, multiple objective motives, none of them simply the sum of personal motives.

On Aug 7, 2014, at 8:29 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

How is it then, Martin, that there is a women's movement? which even includes working class women?
And how is it that there are dozens of different political currents in the workers' movement, even rival trade union federations?