[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Activity theory
Thanks mike...in the paper I refer to you as an activity/praxis theorists, which represents a neo-Marxist interpretation of vygotskyian psychology...i hope that is an adequate representation of your work...
Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: mike cole <email@example.com> </div><div>Date:02/08/2015 9:08 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Activity theory </div><div>
</div>Paul. I am an autodidact in Activity Theory, Cultural-historical, theory,
etc. I greatly admire the work of Sahlins and the others you mention as
well. There are clear connections to ideas of Habermas as well as Foucault.
I employ that at various places in my work, but mostly in the domain of
instruction in the Communication Department, and rarely in writing.
The thing about autodidacts is that they tend to appear outrageously
eclectic to the cognisenti. Which provides many occasions for
At a another level of analysis, the work of Kenneth Burke seems important
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <email@example.com
> Mike cole,
> Mike I am reading some of your work for a paper I am working on. It
> appears to be a parallel between your activity theory and the
> structurationist works of giddens, bourdieu, and Marshall sahlins.
> Although habermas's work is included in structuration theory I do not see
> so much of his work in yours. Do you a paper where you compare your
> activity theory with structurationists sociology?
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch.