I'm really confused by dianne's complaints concerning the overconcentration on activity theoretic issues ) since xmca is known to the world as a listserv that fits the following descriptions:
From the Vygotsky Centennial Web Page:
"There is a Cultural-Historical Activity Theory discussion group called XMCA. This discussion list is managed by Mike Cole at the Laboratory for Comparative Human Cognition at the University of California at San Diego."
From the LCHC Home Page:
"Theorists who influence our work include: L. S. Vygotsky, John Dewey, A. R. Luria, A. N. Leontiev, and Cultural-Historical psychologists from other national traditions. "
the description of mike's own work in the LCHC is as follows: "Michael Cole's <mcole@ucsd.edu> research is concentrated in two different areas. One project focuses on the creation of specially designed activity systems for children implanted in community institutions where children spend time after school. The other involves the introduction of Russian social scientists into international discourse using modern means to telecommunication and the study of cultural and institutional barriers to their full participation" (hyperlink emphasis in original)
The prime international partner listed on the MCA website is the "Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research "
On the old LCHC website the following statement is found: "This approach is also closely linked to social science movements referred to as ecological psychology and activity theory which ground their analyses in the everyday culturally organized activities of people as well as a variety of social science enterprises which fall within the general rubric of socio-cultural studies. " And the link given on the LCHC home page -- http://www.helsinki.fi/~jengestr/activity/6a.htm -- very clearly defines the parameters and ends of activity theory with its strong and deep linkage to the dialectical materialist tradition. Even more to the point, that outline ends with an indication of the "third generation" of activity theory -- a direction I have been pursuing for several years in theoretical/practical research on community colleges -- work that I discussed recently in response to Geoff Hayward's questions about activity theoretic analyses of education -- all this just before dianne made her complaint about the lack of space where any and all things could be discussed except, perhaps, activity theory itself..
When dianne so bares her soul (teeth?) to the world I wonder: what does this have to do with the above mentioned fields of inquiry, the discussion of which xmca publicly presents itself as promoting? How do these various interests in transgression, irrationalism, queer theory, etc. relate to the publicly stated purposes of xmca? But I've already seen the kinds of overtly vicious (not funny at all except in a Beavis and Butthead sort of way) posts she is capable of in PUBLIC forum; posts so egregious as to provoke rebuke from the very people whose absence she herself laments. And I've learned to keep my mouth shut -- beyond the old "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all", it seems one must think about whether what one says will even be understood and if the possible misunderstanding of what one says will be found offensive by the person who didn't understand it. . So I've just posted my own queries and comments related to the purported purposes of xmca as outlined above and their relationship to my practical/theoretical work, knowing that there are still some out there with an interest in these topics and from whose contributions I benefit greatly.
But this latest salvo -- with its echoes here and there -- has made me reconsider -- is it really the case that xmca isn't supposed to be what it is announced to be in the places I mentioned above. Perhaps all of the references to xmca out there on the internet should be rewritten so that those who really have an interest in activity theory in its various forms and social science methodologies that emphasize "the relationship between human agent and objects of environment . . . mediated by cultural means, tools and signs" will understand that they are liable to be attacked here for discussing these very topics. Not that their specific position on these topics will be substantively critiqued (shouldn't that be welcome?) but that merely raising them (e.g. Alfred Lang's contributions) will be subjected to dianne's "nahhh, i don t'ink so".
Ooops time to go watch Daria.
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:41 PDT