In my chapter in 'Understanding Practice' (edited by Chaiklin and Lave,
CUP, 1993), I have a footnote (p. 99, foortnote 3) criticizing Lave:
"For Lave, a setting is generated out of the person's activity and at the
same time generates that activity. But this dialectical and constructive
relation seems to stop short as we enter the arena. 'There is a distinction
to be made between the constraints imposed by the supermarket as arena and
the constructable, malleable nature of the setting' (Lave, 1988, p. 151).
Symptomatically, in her detailed analysis of the practice of grocery
shopping, Lave concentrates on the individual actions of problem setting
and problem solving. The formation of the arena (the supermarket) is left
practically unanalyzed, as something given from above."
So, when Lave writes (as Kathy quoted) that "The supermarket for example as
arena is the product of patterns of capital formation and political
economy", she mystifies the fact that capital formation and political
economy exist and function in human activities which have flesh-and-blood
subjects, such as owners, managers, designers, store managers, etc. And
their activities are not at all independent of or untouchable by the
consumers' actions. And sometimes consumers' actions become collective
activity systems, such as organized consumer activism, which can have
tremendous influence on the formation of arenas.
All this is obscured when history is excluded from the analysis.
Yrjo Engestrom