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

[Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder



Exactly, Huw. But I am interested in the change!
You expressed that change on the passive voice. But it was an active struggle to change that concept. It's object was a concept which was *contrary* to conventional wisdom. ANL's AT is ok before and after a revolution but fails to understand the overthrow of the former and its replacement by another.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Huw Lloyd wrote:
Hi Andy,

So it was the object until it was fully recognised that it shouldn't be. Why does this contradict Leontyev?

Best,
Huw

On 22 September 2014 14:32, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    It's an 12 minute talk, Huw, (8 mins for discussion) aimed at
    critiquing the foundations of AT, proposing a new foundation, and
    presenting an outline of how asbestos was first produced and then
    banned. :) The full story is in the book. But thanks for the
    pointer. I'll try to address it.

    I don't touch on AN Leontyev's dualism of need and object, but you
    have raised it. There is a need for insulation material for
    buildings. There is also a need for buildings that don't give you
    cancer. The need for insulation does not find an adequate object
    in asbestos because asbestos fails to meet the need for safety. A
    need can be met by different objects. I can resolve that
    contradiction by spelling out the need more precisely. But
    asbestos production *was* the object and yet it didn't meet the
    need - for safe insulation.

    But the real object of the talk is to critique the idea that if a
    social formation is producing something (either because the
    Central Ctee said so or because the market said so) then ipso
    facto there is an objective need for it. This is OK for dealing
    with the child who is not doing their homework and failing to
    learn to read. The teacher with some good reason thinks they have
    the final say, the Truth, about the objective need for literacy.
    But the fact is that the Central Committee and the Market both get
    it very wrong sometimes. And these are after all, for social
    theory, the interesting cases. In large measure that is the
    problem I am addressing myself to.

    Andy
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *Andy Blunden*
    http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
    <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>