Many thanks for the clarifications. Please don't
mistake my attempts to read Engestrom as Engestrom.
Here's the passage from _Learning by Expanding_ that my
previous message alluded to:
>The basic internal contradiction of human activity is its
>dual existence as the total societal production AND as one specific
>production among many.... Within the structure of any specific
>productive activity, the contradiction is renewed as the clash
>between INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS AND THE TOTAL ACTIVITY SYSTEM....
>
>The fundamental contradiction arises out of th division of labor.
>
>"Division of labour in a society, and the corresponding tying
>down of individual to a particular calling, develops itself (...)
>from opposite starting points. Within a family, and (...) within
>a tribe, there springs us a naturally a division of labour, caused
>by the difference of sex and age...... On the other hand, (...)
>the exchange of products springs up at the points where different
>families, tribes, communities, come in contact..... Exchange does
>not create the differences between the spheres of production, but
>brings what are already idfferent into relation....." (Marx 1909, 344-345)
>
>The two directions or 'opposite starting points' from WITHIN an
>activity and FROM BETWEEN two activities are essential for the
>emerging concept of expansion, as will become clear..... Here,
>I shall focus on the dialectic between independency and subordination.
>
>In pre-capitalist socio-economic formations, the basic
>contradiction, the subordination of individual producers
>tot he total system of production, took the form of immediately
>visible PERSONAL SUPPRESSION BY FORCE, be it exercised by
>slave-owners or feudal lords.
>
>[another quote from Marx here]
>
>In capitalism, the contradiction acquires the general form of
>COMMODITY. Commodity is an object that possesses value (i.e.,
>EXCHANGE VALUE}, not only and not primarily USE VALUE. The value
>of the commodity is basically determined by the average necessary
>amount of social labour needed for its production. This entails
>"the reduction of all phenomena to 'labour in general', to
>labour devoid of all qualitative differences" (Ilyenkov, 1982, 97)
>
>[quote from Marx here]
>
>In capitalism, all things, activities and relations become
>saturated by the dual nature of commodity - they become
>commodified. The relation between individual actions and
>collective activity, between specfici productions and the
>total production, is transformed accordingly.....
>
>[quotes from Marx here]
>
>The essential contradiction is the mutual exclusion and
>simultaneous mutual dependency of use value and exchange
>value in each commodity. The DOUBLE NATURE and inner unrest
>is characteristic to all the corners of the triangular
>structure of activity
[I can't duplicate Engestrom's model of activity here, which
follows from the (triangular) structure of the mediated act,
& represents the emergence of tool-making, rites & traditions,
and the division of labor, with subject, object, and community
constructed by/embedded within that structure]
Thus, my muddling assertion:
> the Marxist definition of commodification - i.e., the form that the
>>"fundamental contradiction aris(ing) out of the division of
>>labor" (which is operative in all societies) takes in capitalist
>>societies.
that commodity relations express a "fundamental contradiction" that
arises out of the division of labour. Engestrom certainly recognizes
dialectical relations in all aspects of his model, so it was my
text that apparently invoked Durkheim. Perhaps I was making
"reification" walk on its head. However, I didn't mean to
imply that consciousness is a private, subjective phenomenon.
I assume consciousness to be a sociohistorical phenomenon.
But I can see how my claim that "reification is a general function of
>>consciousness" and is presupposed by the commodity relations of
capitalism sounds like I'm dissociating consciousness/reification from
sociohistorical practices.
Again, I really appreciate your definition of terms, which
situates them in the theories from which they came. Thanks.
Judy
Judy Diamondstone
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
Graduate School of Education
]10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08903