a social institutionally defined setting [in which] the implicit
assumptions . . . determine the selection of actions and their operationa=
l
composition. The guiding and integrating force of these assumptions is
what Leont=92ev called the motive of an activity. For Leont=92ev a motiv=
e is
not a construct that can be understood in biological or even psychologica=
l
terms. Rather, it is an aspect of a sociohistorically specific,
institutionally defined setting. Among other things, the motive that is
involved in a particular activity setting specifies what is to be maximiz=
ed
in that setting. By maximizing one goal, one set of behaviors, and the
like over others, the motive also determines what will be given up if nee=
d
be in order to accomplish something else. (p. 212)
A motive, then refers to the general aims that are shared within a
setting--they are cultural goals. Within a social setting this motive may
be subverted by people whose goals are not congruent with the goals of th=
e
majority.
I'm not an expert on motivation. My reading of ed psych studies on the
topic would lead me to believe that it's an entirely personal trait--this
says more to me about ed psych premises than about motivation. I think th=
at
many goals and means of achieving them are internalized from what Leont'e=
v
called the motive of the setting, or from a need to subvert that motive.
But I'm not very far in my thinking on this question.
At 11:37 PM 5/20/98 -0000, you wrote:
>Naoki ; Eva -- can you say more about how motive in AT
>is different from motivation?
>>From an individual subject's perspective (and I'd argue that
>we have to slot individuals/individual alliances into subject=20
>position, if we want to understand anything at all about=20
>a collective, institutional subject) - the object is what
>motivates. The object confers identity in some respect....
>
>What do you think?
>
>
>
>At 10:15 PM 5/20/98 +0200, you wrote:
>>At 01.15 +0900 98-05-21, Naoki Ueno wrote:
>>>According to my understanding, in activity theory,
>>>subject, object, and tool are not the fixted lavels or categories for
>>>something that has some specific attributes.
>>>Depending on situation, depending on perspective or a way of
>>>participation, what is subject, object, or tool is different and
>>>changing, and reorganizing.
>>>
>>>Further, the meaning of motive in AT is quite different from motivatio=
n,
>>>intention and something like in traditional psychology.
>>
>>These are my understandings, too -- although as understandings they are=
in
>>all likelihood of a much more recent date than Naoki Ueno's.
>>
>>Eva
>>eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352=09
>Graduate School of Education
>Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
>10 Seminary Place =09
>New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
>
>