Re: Different motives

From: Nate Schmolze (vygotsky@home.com)
Date: Sat Feb 03 2001 - 04:09:24 PST


I may be missing something - but is not "motive" in the context of AT
referring to the collective rather than the individual per se. If we got
the hunt or whatever it seems it is not this individual object or motive
but a collective one.

Would not the farmers activity system be more than just what he does? There
are consumers who want reasonable prices for milk, children who need to be
fed at school, laws passed at both the state and local level etc. I guess
what I'm wondering is this - if I as a farmer do it for the money or to
carry on tradition does that really get at the motive - is not motive
something collectives do.

Another thought that keeps coming up for me in regards to AT and its
history is how much the U.S. may differ in fundamental ways from the
societies it was most fruitfully (keep up with the farmers theme) developed.

In reading the discussion thus far, which I've enjoyed very much, I have
come to think of schools which are very much an historical type of activity
that is rather complex. The motive for me would speak of activity as in why
do they exist not personal goals. Schools or the 5th D exists for certain
reasons and not for others. Creating an activity system that could be
sustainable in which a dialectic of play/school activity could emerge (my
subjective interpretation). Now I very much doubt that the 5th D kids goals
are making it sustainable or furthering the dialectic of play/school
activity, but isn't that where goals come in - at the level of actions.

It seems to me if we begin confusing one AT category for another it loses
something, or maybe I'm missing something. With a division of labor -
especially the kind in liberal-capitalist societies it seems a certain
disconnectedness occurs which AT ethically challenges. If its the farmer or
this idea that the teacher is an isolated microcosm is schools - there is
this tendency to see them as separate disjointed systems, but it seems to
me some version of totality (maybe different from Paul's) is needed in
order to understand the connections.

Lastly, it seems analysis of AT that is the most useful are ones when
concrete human relations are central. So while I would agree with Davydov,
Elkonin, Vygotsky that schools are motivated by learning activity that does
not mean it is not an area of contestation. While schools as an
historical entity are motivated by a certain type of activity there is
movement on what form that takes. For example, <irony>there are those who
believe that awful progressive experiment - whole language, new math etc -
contradicted with schools being places that learning take
place</irony>. But on the other hand, in the current environment with
testing it seems to me schools are becoming places for testing activity
rather than learning activity. School boards and PTO's energy are being
devoted to upcoming tests rather than "learning". Every week my son brings
home a beta reading test for a test coming up in four months so he can be
prepared. When these are not returned the principal sends a note home
explaining our collective responsibility for this upcoming test. And as we
are becoming more and more aware these events are high stakes and could
determine through very undemocratic means if the school gets funding or
remains open in the future.

Now, it seems to me the totality of this is incomprehensible - as teachers,
researchers etc we would be bringing in perspective that relates to both
our relationship (division of labor) in this activity system and out
interests (goals) of what we want to understand and change. But these are
not separate activity systems are they? I like cascading - going back to
Eva's paper - in which one view testing/accountability in learning/teaching
"feedback" (mediate) other parts of that activity system.

But, ? says, " that's nice, but isn't the point the change it". If I
understand Paul D. correctly this is related to his continual emphasis on
production/reproduction. So if we take eating dinner, but instead focus on
the more business type that women have pointed out is one important way
cultural capital is transferred it seems to matter which reflection of
activity one would study. One's goals of satisfying hunger is not really
important to satisfying the totality one wants to change. It was the
understanding of the motive of the dinner get togethers that facilitated
collective activities such as mentorship for women professionals. I doubt
an individual participating in this dinner thing consciously thought I
am here transferring cultural capital, but it seems nevertheless that was
the effect of that activity.

Nate

At 06:45 PM 2/2/01 -0500, you wrote:

>I am also curious, Helena and others, how you map out these activity
>systems -- GIVEN: the laborer is working for wages; the farmer is farming.
>Does the activity system of the laborer treat "working for wages" as an
>instrument for, perhaps, "taking care of family" or "purchasing a newer
>car" -? OR do you define the laborer's motive as "working for wages" --
>but you can't, if the subject doesn't view it as such.... Once you take
>account of the subject's "horizon of possibility" you put at risk your
>(i.e., the analyst's) object, of folding AT back onto the description that
>would be the intervention. Sorry, I haven't done the analysis myself, so
>if anyone else can take this to the concrete, I'd appreciate it.
>
>Judy
>
>
>>A lobbyist is hired by a corporation to influence legislation. The
>>lobbyist and a legislator talk and come to an agreement. When they speak
>>to the public, they say the same words, stand side by side. But they are
>>engaged in different activity systems: the lobbyist is working to get
>>paid by the corporation, the legislator is getting paid to represent the
>>best interests of the people who voted for him or her.
>>
>>So in one single enterprise -- be it a family farm, a private business,
>>government -- we can see how activity systems can look congruent but be
>>in fact different because they are driven by different motives.
>>
>>Helena
>>
>>Ricardo Ottoni Vaz Japiassu wrote:
>><
>>>?smaller>Since I read your questions I've been looking for answers to
>>>them, thinking - when there's time to do it - erraticaly... (I'm not
>>>sure if there is such a word in english. If not, please, understand it
>>>as a neologism trying to figure out a non-formal or rigorous way of
>>>thinking) I try, below, answer to them - but, please, have in mind I do
>>>not have any pretention of being the owner of "the truth"... Just
>>>convert in words some embrionical ideas affected by the current
>>>discussion you fired in XMCA.
>>>>-----Mensagem original-----
>>>>De: Charles Nelson
>>>><<<mailto:c.nelson@mail.utexas.edu>mailto:c.nelson@mail.utexas.edu>c.nelson@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>>
>>>>Para:
>>>><<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>xmca@weber.ucsd.
>>>>edu
>>>><<<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>Data: Terça-feira, 30 de Janeiro de 2001 17:55
>>>>Assunto: Different motives
>>>>Questions:
>>>>Does motive always determine the activity?
>>>>I do not think it can, always, determine an activity. Maybe, in turn,
>>>>engaging in any activity could be possible only through some motive...
>>>>Or, does different people having different motives change the activity
>>>>system for each individual even if they physically are doing the same thing?
>>>>Yes, I think the personal meaning of a specific activity can be
>>>>different to those people engaged in it.
>>>>Because people can have more than one motive while engaging in work
>>>>(e.g., survival, pleasure, social influence, etc.), can one person with
>>>>multiple motives doing the same thing be engaged in more than one activity?
>>>>Maybe these multiple motives you refer to, could be summarized or
>>>>reduced to one: the main one. Despite people engaged in an activity
>>>>could, personaly, have different motives to be doing it, they would be
>>>>involved in a very specific socio-cultural object-oriented one. But
>>>>their actions within it, in turn, yes, could have very different goals.
>>>>Given the difficulty of determining motive(s), how do we identify the
>>>>"real" activity?
>>>>If the "real" activity of a couple is, for example, "to have a dinner"
>>>>in a very "in" restaurant, the motive of each partner to be engaged in
>>>>it could be very different one another: Maybe for one of them the
>>>>motive could be "eat and bannish hungry", to the other, "watch" and "be
>>>>watched" in company. Even so, the "real" activity still be "having
>>>>dinner". Don't you think so?
>>>>Charles Nelson<?/smaller>
><<<<
>
>
></blockquote></x-html>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 01:01:05 PST