I was looking at Michael's other paper, so just looked at the diagrams. I
actually found it useful and somewhat gets at my earlier comments. If we
take co-generative dialogue it seems the object / outcome is rather
specific and if for example the teachers were not motivated by the object
it would be difficult for the activity to continue. Since of course its
voluntary one would not participate in that activity if one was not
motivated by the object.
When discussing co-teaching they see the outcome of learning activity as
"increased potential for acting in the world". It seems here things would
get a little complex and a subjects actions may or may not be directed
toward the object, but nevertheless the activity they are in is directed
toward that purpose.
Here I think Michael's paper could serve as an interesting artifact in the
sense how various mediations may in fact sever that relationship. Many
stakeholders may in fact argue their actions are directed toward fulfilling
that object - testing for example - but as Michael hints at the beginning
of one of his papers a certain resistance occurs that is most likely not
consistent (at least from certain perspectives) with the object of schooling.
So we have these particulars who all may believe the rules, division of
labor, curriculum, etc they wish to impose is directed toward "increased
(student/s) potential for acting in the world" some actions better
facilitate that than others. It seems to me one important emphasis Michael
points to is that if the students actions are alienated from the object -
treated as things to be acted upon rather than subjects - it is very
difficult for that object to be met.
We of course may have other "motives/goals" such as it offers parents an
opportunity to work / do other things besides child rearing or that doings
this or that activity if fun. It seems to me that there is still this
(M)otive there that we need to be (become) aware of so schools become
places for learning activity.
It also seems to me we currently have - at least in the states - this
testing thing going on that is called the new "civil rights" that is
motivated by students having increased potential to act on the world. The
effect is that students "motivation" is directed towards resisting,
teachers are more stressed than ever, and there are increasing tensions
between parents and schools. Really the teachers are to blame from the
students perspective, and students are to blame from the teachers perspective.
I guess I would see motive (in historical activity) as something we may or
may not be aware of (although we should be on some level) and while actions
may be directed toward that motive, some are more likely to meet that
outcome than others.
Lastly, it seems the co-generative activity is one in which we can see the
cultural formation of the motive - a need for a greater link between
theory/practice. It seems to me that with historical activity (school) the
movement in not so much one motive over the other, but movement within the
motive itself. I don't think many would disagree with "increased potential
for acting in the world" but various particulars involved may have very
different ideas about what this means.
Nate
At 01:04 PM 2/4/01 +1100, you wrote:
>Nate, I don't know of a specific CHAT meaning for the word "motive", but it
>seems to me that in the wider context "motive" does refer to the subjective
>content of the meaning of a person's activity. This is of course quite
>distinct from the cultural or societal meaning of an activity and says
>nothing about the cultural process of formation of motive. I guess the
>word "motive" is etymologically connected to "motor" - what 'moves' someone?
>
>Andy
>
>
>At 06:09 AM 3/02/2001 -0600, you wrote:
> >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.ne
>lson@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Para:
> >>>>><<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>xmca@weber.uc
> sd.
> >>>>>edu
> >>>>><<<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>xmca@weber.ucs
>d.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>
> >
> >
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| - Andy Blunden - Home Page - http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm - |
>| "Spirit, so far as it is the immediate truth, is the ethical life of |
>| a people: - the individual, which is a world. Phenomenology, Hegel |
> Spirit, Money & Modernity, Melbourne Uni Summer School 23/24 Feb '01
> Reading material at http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/23feb00.htm
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 01:01:09 PST