I am one of those for whom the concept of "object" in activity theory keeps
tripping over itself in confusion, so I greatly appreciated the opportunity
to read about the very complicated process of "pursuing an evolving object"
in Kirsten Foot's paper.
But, in my confusion, I am left with questions. Perhaps others have reached
some answers and can help me out.
In American dictionaries, the (at least!) double sided nature of the concept
of object is obvious. My "Websters" offers
a) A thing that can be seen or touched; material thing that occupies space
b) what is aimed at; purpose, end.
As I (queasily!) understand Foot and Engestrom's ideas about object (mediated
by periodic discussions on xmca/lchc where Arne Raeithal played a crucial
role), it is the gap between these two defintions (would contradiction be
a better word?) that is an important contributor to the development of action/
activity.
I get confused all over again on p. 1 of the article.
How should I interpret this phrase: " Given the dual nature of object as
both material and social constructed, ......"
Am I incorrect in understing that socially constructed= ideal
is being proposed here? I have this bias toward thinking of social
construction as BOTH ideal and material. What would social interaction
with not materiality mean?
There is a ton more to be discussed in the paper, but if someone could
help me with this problem, I would be most grateful.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:29:44 PDT