Leontiev does not use the phrase individual activity per se, but I think
that it represents an important aspect of his theory, and recognition of
it adds something to what he is trying to say. All activity, up to
the beginning of social historical activity, is individual organismic
activity. There is a direct line between need and product, the
entire activity is defined by the relationship between the organism
and the conditions of the environment. Social historical development,
which from my reading stems from the coming together of advanced
communication systems and division of labor, changes the equation
slightly. There is still individual activity, involving motive for
the activity, goal for actions, conditions for operations. But there
is also social, cooperative activity. That is individuals work together
in their activities in order to develop the most efficient form of
labor. This cooperative activity does not circumvent, or replace in
any way, individual activity. But it seems to me it have a tremendous
affect on it. That is the combined social activity (the activity based
on agreement of motives) can, through the division of labor, affect
the way the individual conceptualizes the tie between his or her own
motive (in individual activity) in terms of product oriented action.
I probably did not do a good job explaining this, and for that I
apologize. I would worry most that people see this as some sort
of linear, or heiarchical relationship. It's not, it's dialectical,
with both types of activity being a constant in the individual's life.
Michael Glassman
University of Houston