Wenger replies...

Linda Polin (lpolin who-is-at pepperdine.edu)
Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:35:32 -0800

Since I'm posting this to this list without his knowledge, I'm removing
his email address.

To: "Linda Polin" <<lpolin who-is-at pepperdine.edu>

>Subject: RE: invitation

>Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:52:42 -0700

<paraindent><param>left</param>> Hello Linda, Sorry for being
so late in responding to your invitation. I think the truth is that I
would be hard-pressed to find time to participate meaningfully in your
listserv right now. I guess I would agree with you that there are
deep compatibilities between the two approaches, especially if, as
Mike seems to suggest, the notion of activity as a historically
constituted "container" for human engagement (i.e.,
goals-actions-operations) is outmoded in more recent versions of
activity theory. What I wsa trying to say is that by placing the
emphasis on human communities, I tend to put activities "under
interpretations" in the context of social participation, which is then
the primary context for meaning making. Well, I hope this helps.
Etienne

>

>

</paraindent>> -----Original Message-----

>I WROTE TO THE LIST:

>I'd love some help hashing out the differences between activity theory
and the Lave & Wenger, 1991 and Wenger, 1998 concept of situated
learning. The following note from Wenger's new tome gives us his
perspective on the differences. I'm wondering about the view from the
other side.

>

<italic>>"I would argue that our actions do not achieve their
meanings in and of themselves, but rather in the context of a
broader process of neogtiation. By starting with practice as a
context for the negotiation of meaning, I do not assume that activities
carry their own meanings. Thi si sone reason that I will not take
discrete activities, or even systems of activities, as a
fundamental unit of analysis. In this regard, theories based on
practice have a different ontological foundation than activity
theory (Leont'ev, '81; Wertsch, '85)."

>

>

</italic>>MIKE REPLIED:

>To start with, it would be helpful if we had some statements where
Leontiev,

>Wertsch, and others who speak of activity as a unit of analysis talk
about

>what it means to "carry its own meaning." Seems like Wenger is
harking back

>to a version of context/activity as container. Perhaps someone knows
Ettiene's

>email address and can ask him directly?

>

>