My understanding is that we do not fragment the elements of an AS. The
system as a whole is historically condiditioned, but the historical
conditions that are brought to bear on the system that we observe in the
present have come together down multiple historical tracks. Much of what
occurs within the system is a product of the tensions and contradictions
that might exist between those tracks and how they impact on the
ethnographically observable actions that take place within the system. The
history of the system and its various components is therefore not only a
desirable, but an essential, subject of analysis when working with the
system.
Words, guns, mountains, kidneys, individuals events and actions are not
historical only if they have significance, but whether or not they have
significance is historical. If I visit the New Zealand province of Taranaki
to work with a school entirely populated by teachers and students of
European descent, then the looming presence of the 8200 foot conical
volcano, Mount Taranaki, outside the window is of little direct relevance to
the AS I am working with. But if that school has in it people of Maori
descent, then that mountain; its mythic history; its symbolic historical
function in determining tribal identity; and its history of disputed
ownership between tribe, European farmer and the state, are all absolutely
fundamental to everything that happens, the relationships that exist, the
sense of personal identity, and the ways in which the social world is
understood within the school.
As for words - yes, indeed. I use the word 'tribe' in the example above so
that you know to what I refer. It actually takes an effort of conscious will
for me to write it. If I were to use the word 'tribe' in using that example
with a New Zealand audience, then I would immediately identify myself with a
totally unacceptable colonial political tradition, and I would find myself
marginalised and excluded from any AS that needed to function within a
bi-cultural New Zealand context.
If I were indeed talking to an NZ audience, I would need to use the word
iwi. This is a Maori word, which essentially means 'tribe', but which has
now been appropriated by New Zealand English to be indicative of the
partnership of equals that the New Zealand state and iwi now aspire to.
The history of these words have no significance for you, but they do for us.
If you come with me to a New Zealand school or political event, and you do
not understand the historical significance of those words, then you have
missed a fundamental component of the AS that you are observing.
Phillip Capper,
Centre for Research on Work, Education and Business Ltd. (WEB Research),
Level 9
142 Featherston Street
(PO Box 2855)
WELLINGTON
New Zealand
Ph: +64 4 499 8140
Fx: +64 4 499 8395
Mb: +64 021 519 741
-----Original Message-----
From: Cunningham, Donald [mailto:cunningh@indiana.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2002 9:36 a.m.
To: 'xmca@weber.ucsd.edu'
Subject: RE: History
As Geoff gropes towards understanding I slouch toward confusion (on the way
to Gomorrah, I guess). How does adding "socio-historical source" to
community clarify it? Why is subject/artifact/object analytical and not
community/rules/division of labor? Why are only subjects (individuals or
collectives) historical? Does a word have a history? A gun? A mountain? A
kidney? Is someone(thing) historical only because it has significance (e.g.,
Rosa Parks vs. walking a dog). Significant for whom? Historians?
I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, I truly don't understand.
This strand started with Mike posting some data. Perhaps if we all
referenced back to that and concretized some of the words and terms we are
using, we could make some progress.
djc
-----Original Message-----
From: blantonw@miami.edu [mailto:blantonw@miami.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 1:58 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: History
Geoff,
My understanding of community in Yrjo's model is that it is the source from
which a subject is drawn for point of view for anaylysis. It is also the
socio-historical source of the elements of the triangle. I am groping for
words, too.
My question is: Can the subject be the collective community and also
various combinations of participants in the community?
Bill Blanton
At 04:55 PM 2/12/02 +0000, you wrote:
>I am not sure Don that everything in the Activity system is community -
>would that not reduce the analytical purchase of community. My
understanding
>is that it is the bottom part of the triangle 'model' (which I take to be a
>heuristic device rather than a model per se, and I see it as having a
>heuristic function, hence my question to Helena about its analytic
function)
>which should be taking as representing community with its rules and
division
>of labour. But I am groping towards an understanding here so what do others
>think?
William E. Blanton
Department of Teaching and Learning
325 A Merrick
School of Education
P. O. Box 248065
University of Miami
Coral Gables, FL 33124-2040
Blantonw@miami.edu
T el 305.284.5053
Fax 305.284.6998 or 305.284.3003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:20 PST