[...and they wrinkle their noses, thinking, oh no here's come the
usual schizoid backpeddle in an
unsolicited asskiss addendum...]
but when i say i see Activity Theory as benign and naive, i
mean it is incomplete - insufficient by itself. but of course all theories
are incomplete, and for different reasons. inter-exchanges of theory
language is a good thing (*kiss*) but it fails if it is little more than
the appropriation on one term or concept. mixing it up,
taking a little from some and another is a way to push the conceptual limits
into elsewhere; but the history has to be accounted for - and that is
where the responsibiity is,
(krist i feel like an elder crabby aunt who visits just to bitch about how
much she hates to make visits...pounding my cane on the floor for emphasis)
anyhow, i _was_ singling Activity Theory as benign/naive,
but of course a lot of social theory is benign (benevolent) and
naive (depends upon a 'natural' or 'uneffected' version of social
interaction/ etc) -
other social theory is more aggressive and critical;
and one or the other is not better or worse or more right: well no, i would
say that there are a few theories that are just plain wrong:
information-processing theories of mind are wrong.
theories are just like that.
cheers,
diane
""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""
When she walks,
the revolution's coming.
In her hips, there's revolution.
When she talks, I hear revolution.
In her kiss, I taste the revolution.
(poem by Kathleen Hanna: Riot Grrl)
******************************************
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia
centre for the study of curriculum and knowledge
vancouver, british columbia, canada