Re: Re(2): Different motives

From: Bill Barowy (wbarowy@mail.lesley.edu)
Date: Thu Feb 01 2001 - 08:25:57 PST


Hi Diane,

Your points are well taken. One of the things to discuss is the tension
between developing a framework that accounts both for the common patterns
across human interaction and the differences. IMHO I see Yrjo's learning
by expanding work as having made a lot of progress on the former. I also
read Yrjo as maintaining that work needs to be done to better explain the
latter, i.e. the development of third generation activity theory. I see
neither the theory, nor the theoreticians as resisting, but rather, this
development takes time, takes consideration, takes a lot of effort. It is
not easily done, reconciling the diversity of human interaction with its
similarities.

The approach I wish to take, is to make creative and productive
transformations to the existing framework to account for those interactions
and processes that are presently under my study, and that build upon the
successes of the past activity systems theory, in particular Yrjo's and
Alfred's contributions. That just doesn't happen in a few xmca postings.
My use of "We" in the previous posting indexed those individuals who share
to a greater or lesser degree in this common goal.

bb

At 08:12 AM 2/1/01 -0700, Diane Hodges wrote:
>bill sez
>>There are important issues to be resolved and I'll risk attempting some
>>headway in this public space. First we should work to express our ideas
>>as precisely as possible, and I'll attempt some of that this morning.
>>With the pace of conversation on xmca, we often write in shorthand
>>notation, and most of the time I have found that we do not really mean
>>what we write so literally. Rather we express our ideas metaphorically,
>>i.e. as 'bumping'.
>
>- do "we?" my experience is that the language of activity-theorists and
>researchers is itself
>a particular activity that is 'bumped' more with languages that are _not_
>reiterative of the dominant discourse. so long as the assumptions and
>presumptions that pre-serve
>activity-theory-discourse are maintained, there is a a momentum of 'unity'
>motives: the appeal to 'unity' is sustained by the language, not the
>theory.
>the precision you refer to is one of the limitations that makes this
>'unity' possible in the first place.
>
>>We are often making an offer in the search for the patterns of words that
>>will provide a better description than our extant language.
>
>are we?
>is this what "we" do Ideally, or is this the actual practice of
>articulating the discourse - ?
>if i pretend to have no opinions, for example, i am better 'heard' than if
>i
>admit to biases. so long as the dominant language of 'activity-theory' is
>designed to
>resist its own interrogation,
>the only bumping that takes place is in the renegade speech of its
>skeptics.
>precision, like 'clarity', forecloses interpretation and empties metaphors
>of their possibility.
>is this a question of how-to-write or how-to-read what's written? each
>activity-theorist is engaged in this activity of writing and reading the
>theory and the meanings of the research -
>each theorist/researcher is reproducing
>an analysis of 'activity' systems, - how is the activity system of the
>theorist
>implicated in the designation of activity-systems and unities ?
>how are the activity-theorist/researchers' motives implicated in the
>identification of
>others' "motives?"
>diane
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> :point where everything listens.
>and i slow down, learning how to
>enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.
>
>(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
>***********************************************************************
>
>diane celia hodges
>
> university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
>instruction
>==================== ==================== =======================
> university of colorado, denver, school of education
>
>Diane_Hodges@ceo.cudenver.edu
>
>
>
>
>
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor,
Lesley University, 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 01:01:01 PST