This post focuses on ways the word "object" is used and meant in Kirsten A.
Foot's paper "Pursuing An Evolving Object: A Case Study in Object Formation
and Identification." Upon first studying this paper a few weeks ago I
captured many of the passages and quotes and declarative statements Kirsten
offered about the concept of object in activity theory and experimented
with ways to affinitize (associate) them using a word processor and
spreadsheet. The effort was a little tedious but it did help me get a much
better handle on the numerous ways Kirsten and the CHAT community uses the
complex and multifaceted term "object".
What follows are many of these passages organized under what I see as
central themes and questions suggested by the paper, accompanied by some
questions and comments.
In scrutinizing Kirsten's paper, I do not at all want to create an
impression that I think it was a bad paper needing severe criticism - I
think it was a terrific paper that accomplished what it set out to. Her
theoretical inquiry into the objects of activity systems in general - and
her inquiry into the EAWARN group in the former Soviet Union (FSU) in the
1990's as a concrete example of how to investigate the object of an
activity system - are genuine and important contributions to the scientific
development of CHAT and cultural-historical psychology. If I take a
critical approach to her words and ideas - all representative of ideas
within the CHAT community - it is to learn from and build on her excellent
work.
*****
*****1. The paper explains Kirsten's essential goals in writing this paper
and describes some of its accomplishments:
"... a rearticulation of object in CHAT perspective ..." (p 133)
"... synthesizing extant literature on object and object formation ... " (p
133)
"... demonstrates how an activity system's object can be identified through
the varying perspective of multiple participants in an activity system."
(p 132)
... "To illustrate this process [identification of an object (sg)], I
present and analyze data in the following section pertaining to the object
concepts perceived by participants in the EAWARN." p 139.
... "In conclusion, I have presented an analysis of how the EAWARN
participants perceived their complex object ..." p 148.
" ... a case study of how multi-faceted, evolving objects can be identified
and examined ..." p 148
" ... a case study of object formation ..." p 132
"... how an activity system's object can be identified ..." p 133
*****Comment: In my opinion, an essential idea that Kirsten is offering in
her paper is that an activity system's object can be identified by
analyzing the perceptions of the participants. I have questions about
this. Do the perceptions of the participants in an activity system
necessarily contain sufficient information for a researcher to identify the
object of that activity system?
*****
*****2. The paper articulates a) constraints on studying activity
theory's view on objects and b) constraints on CHAT researchers attempting
to study the object of an activity system.
" ... the activity theory concept of objects can be difficult to grasp ..."
p 134
... "The notion of object is a central, but frequently misunderstood,
element of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT)." (p 132)
... "How does an activity theorist identify an activity's multifaceted,
evolving object?" (p 132)
"... understanding of an activity system hinges on understanding its
object ..." p 132
... "The identification of an activity's object requires careful
observation from multiple viewpoints within the activity system, ideally
over time." p 139
... (from Engestrom and Escalante 1996): "It is much more difficult to
envision and define the objects of such activities as trade,
administration, play, recreation, or scientific research. A closer look at
any such activity reveals the slippery and multi-faceted character of its
objects. Yet it is clear those activities are oriented toward something
and driven by something. The something - the object - is constantly in
transition and under construction, and it manifests itself in different
forms for different participants of the activity". p 137.
... (from Engestrom and Escalante 1996) "The objects of some kinds of
activities, such as manual labor, are relatively easy to discern and
articulate because of their observable materiality." Kirsten adds: "In
contrast, the objects of intellectual labor, such as that of the EAWARN,
are harder to identify." p 137
... (from Engestrom and Escalante, 1996) "The object should not be confused
with a conscious goal or aim. In activity theory, conscious goals are
related to discrete, finite, and individual actions; objects are related to
continuous, collective activity systems and their motives ... The slippery
and transitional nature of objects sometimes evokes a denial of their very
existence." p 138.
*****Comment: Great insights here, one of the many valuable features of
Kirsten's paper.
*****
*****3. The paper identifies a number of key influences on the evolving
activity system object.
*****
*****a. the influence of mediating artifacts
..."In the objects cognized, man singles out those properties that prove to
be essential for developing social practice ... [which] becomes possible
precisely with the aid of mediating objects carrying in themselves reified
sociohistorical experiences of practical and cognitive activity ... In
other words, the instrumental man-made objects function as objective forms
of expression of cognitive norms, standards, and object-hypothesis existing
outside the given individual. " (Letkorsky 1984)... p 135
"... two ... artifacts ... mediated object-formation [among the
participants of EAWARN] ... [one was] the concept of ethnicity as
primordial ... [and the other was the concept that] ethnic conflict
consists of three concentric rings - power, interests, and, the core,
identity ... " p 136
*****
*****b. the influence of need state and motive
... "Many other members of the EAWARN project also communicated that
ethnological monitoring was both the Network's organizing principle or
object and the motive underlying their personal participation in the
Network as individual participants. Activity theory illuminates this
phenomena through its premise that motive always entails an individual
participant's personal relationship with the object of a collective
activity, whereby meaning is derived from the encounter between motive and
object." p 144
"... the relationship between object and motive is dialectical in that
motive energizes object-oriented activity and the conjoining of object and
need state evokes motive." p 133
"... the process of object formation arises from a state of need on the
part of one or more actors." p 134
*****
*****c. the influence of collective, individual and historical perceptions
- and dialogues - on the evolution of activity system objects
..."An object may have, at any time, multiple manifestations for the
various participants of its activity, both individually and collectively."
p 137
..."An object is conceptualized, engaged, and enacted by participants in
the activity in diverse ways, resulting in differing object concepts within
the same activity system." p139
... (from Engestrom 1990) "[objects] are constructed with the help and
under the influence of historically accumulated collective experience,
fixated and embodied in mediating artifacts ... " p 135
..."The construction of any object thus entails a dialogical interaction
between aspects of the participant's personal experience and his or her
relationship to the community of significant others with whom the object is
pursued, and cultural-historical properties of the object. In other words,
an individual's construction of an object is both facilitated and
constrained by historically accumulated constructions of the object." p 135
"... a key consideration for activity theory analysts - that
actors'/participants' perceptions of the object need to be viewed as
dialogical, both with one another and with the historically accumulated
meanings of the activity. p 137
*****Comment: More useful insights and quotes. The use of the term
"construction" etc. is discussed a little below.
*****
*****4. The paper provides interesting insights into the CHAT concept of
the activity system object when compared with the CHAT concept of mediating
artifacts and tools.
... (from Engestom and Escalante, 1996) "... objects appear in two
fundamentally different roles: as objects (Gegenstand) and as mediating
artifacts or tools ..." p 134
..."In English, the term object has the dual meaning of entity and aim -
sense is determined by context." p 139
"... the German term Objekt refers to a conceptual or material entity,
while Gegenstand adds the meaning of embedded in activity to Objekt." p 139
*****Comment: The discussion these passages provoked on xmca was very
interesting, including Bruce's translation from a German philosophy
dictionary describing the philosophical origins of Gegenstand stemming from
Kant. The main idea I got from Kirsten's paper and this discussion is that
unlike English, German has two different words CHAT writers can use to
distinguish common objects from activity system objects, Objekt and
Gegenstand. For me, this observation reinforces the importance of making
this distinction when using CHAT theory in the English language by
deliberately avoiding the use of the generic term "object" and using
clearly distinctive terms such as "common object" and "activity system
object" instead. As for the confusion between the two common English
meanings of objects - entity and aim - this is still another good reason to
avoid the generic term "object" in CHAT writing, since it has the potential
to confuse the reader in not just two, but three possible directions. Does
the writer mean by the term "object" entity, aim, or the formal CHAT
concept activity system object? Modifiers (such as "activity system
object") and unambiguous phrases (such as "the object of the game") should
be used in such a way as to remove all doubt in the reader of which meaning
is intended. Personally, I would discourage the use of the term object as
a kind of double or triple entendre - using it to mean simultaneously an
entity, and an aim, and perhaps even an activity system object.
*****
*****5. The paper provides a number of explanations of what an activity
system object is and what such an object does.
... "From what, where, and when does the object of an activity system
come?" p 132
... (from Engestom and Escalante, 1996) "... we relate to objects by means
of other objects ..." p 134
... (from Engestom and Escalante, 1996) "... objects do not exist for us
in themselves, directly and without mediation ..." p 134
... (from Engestom and Escalante, 1996) "... there is nothing in the
material makeup of an object as such that would determine which one it is:
object or tool." p 134
... (from Engestom and Escalante, 1996) "The constellation of the activity
determines the place and meaning of the object." p 134
... (from Engestrom 1999) "the object - as it grows in motivating force -
shapes and directs the activity and "determines the horizon of possible
actions"" p 132
..."Any object that is embedded in activity can be understood as a complex,
multifaceted, organizing principle of an activity that evolves over time."
p 139
*****Comment: More very useful points and quotes. A comment on one of the
terms. The term "an object that is embedded in activity" works for me as a
placeholder for "activity system object" but does not sufficiently describe
such an object's difference from the concrete and abstract tools and
artifacts used in activities. Our concepts and our hands are often
embedded in actions, and our collective thoughts and bodies can be
considered to be embedded in activities, but these are not the goals or
objects of these actions and activities. "Embedded" seems to me to fall
short as a descriptor of the activity system object.
*****6. The following issues raised in the paper are posed here in terms of
questions.
*****
*****a. Are objects singular or multiple?
"... a single but complex and multifaceted object ..." p 139
..."In the second manifestation, ethnological monitoring and early warning
appeared to be two equally significant and contingent facets of the same
object." p 142
..."The identification of an activity system's object is further
complicated by the possible presence of multiple objects. However, the
presence of multiple objects indicates either that (a) an activity is just
beginning to coalesce; (b) that one activity is about to decompose into
multiple activities; or (c) two or more objects are "temporarily merged"
according to Kaptelinin (1996)." p138
*****Comment: I have questions about the notion that an activity system
object is by nature singular, which Kirsten does not argue, but leaves
somewhat open. Kevin brought this up in one of his posts. The language
about multiple facets helps point to the many features of a particular
activity system object at a given time but the last quote above is
especially suggestive that activity system objects, in the course of their
evolution, decompose into other objects - not just into more facets - as
well as merge with other objects - not just develop new facets. This
suggests a full range of evolutionary - and revolutionary - possibilities
in the course of an activity system object's development and its
interactive relations with other activity system objects. The concept of
singularity being a normal feature of an activity system object could get
in the way of noticing and comprehending such evolutionary developments.
*****
*****b. Are cultural artifacts (common objects) and/or activity system
objects both material and ideal - or are they sometimes just one or the other?
"... analytical pursuit of an ever-evolving object that is simultaneously
material and ideal..." p 132
"... dual nature of object as both material and socially constructed" p 132
"... the dual risk of either reifying the object through emphasis on its
materiality to the neglect of its socially mediated nature, or, conversely,
turning it into just a social construction by neglecting its materiality
..." p 132
"... an object (Gegenstand) may be understood in the framework of activity
theory as a collectively constructed entity, in material and/or ideal form
through which the meeting of a particular human need is pursued" p 134
"... the need state, which is usually unconscious and thus not clearly
definable, precipitates a set of "search actions" (Engestrom 1999) during
which any number of potential objects (Objekts) may be encountered ...
these may be in ideal or material form, or simultaneously both" p 134
*****Comment: As one can see, Kirsten speaks in the last two passages
above of activity system objects (Gegenstand) as being "in material and/or
ideal form" as well as being "simultaneously material and ideal." And she
speaks (along with Engestrom) of common objects (Objekts) as being "in
ideal or material form, or simultaneously both." Saying they are one, the
other, or both is unsatisfying to me - I agree with Bakhurst and Ilyenkov
that objects of activity systems, and common objects in general, are very
definitely both material and ideal. There is also the question, asked by
Mike, about whether "socially constructed" is just another term for
"ideal." For me, the paper does not offer clarity in the area of how the
concepts of materiality, ideality and social construction relate to one
another or to activity system objects and cultural artifacts. There is of
course a certain amount of historic confusion and controversy over these
concepts in the social sciences in general. This paper is not alone in
treating these issues somewhat ambiguously.
*****
*****c. What is the relationship between a collectively construed activity
system object and individuals' goals?
..."What is the relationship between a collectively construed object and
individuals' goals? (p 132)
"... individual career goals ... cannot be taken as nullifying the
existence of a larger, collective activity." p 148
*****Comment: This question pursues a specific issue - collective
perception of an activity system object - which is different from pursuing
the activity system object itself. More on this distinction below.
*****
*****d. Are objects "uncatchable"?
"... a "motive" arises out of the encounter of the need state and the
object ... this motive engenders tool-mediated actions through which the
embedded-in-activity object, the Gegenstand, is "enacted and reconstructed
in specific forms and contents - but being a horizon, the object is never
fully reached or conquered" (Engestrom, 1999) p 135.
"... the object ... is in its essence "uncatchable."" p 148
"... an object in principle is uncatchable ... " p 132
... "Leont'ev (1978) argued that every activity is motivated by its object.
By this, he meant that human activity is prompted by and oriented toward a
particular object. According to Engestrom (1999), the object - as it grows
in motivating force - shapes and directs the activity and "determines the
horizon of possible actions" (p. 381). These theorists point to the
crucial role of objects in organizing and even defining activities. Their
arguments imply that understanding an activity system hinges on
understanding its object. However, just as a horizon is forever
unreachable, an object is in principle uncatchable." (p 132)
*****Comment: The concept of an activity system object being in principle
"uncatchable" is for me one of the most thought-provoking and challenging
concepts in Kirsten's paper. I find the idea tempting but I am not really
grasping it. First, what does "catchable" mean - does it mean (as I
presume) tangible, concrete, material? Second, if no activity system
object is in principle catchable, then what does this say about activity
systems themselves? One thread of the answer may be the important
distinction between an action and an activity. But if action goals and
practices have boundaries in space and time, and are consequently
catchable, but activity system objects do not have such boundaries, and are
therefore not catchable, then how can activity systems and their objects be
distinguished from one another if they have no boundaries in space and
time? It is not hard to see how any activity system you wish to point to
is in one way or another connected to all other activity systems, since all
human activity is ultimately interconnected. So: if activity system
objects are uncatchable, then how are activity systems identifiable? And
if this is the case, then how are specific activity systems different from
general social systems?
I am not doing a good job of catching on to the idea here!
*****
*****e. Is the perception or conception of an activity system object the
same as the object itself?
*****Comment: I asked this in a previous post, and I liked Dale's
response, which took the position that the answer is no, they are not the
same, and that this is an important distinction to make in CHAT analysis.
However, the paper seems to put most of its attention into analyzing the
developments of the participants' conceptions, but seems to offer little
attention toward analyzing the activity system object(s) in their own right.
"... they articulated surprisingly consistent conceptions of what that
aim/object was ..." p 148
"... ethnological monitoring was the Network's organizing principle or
object and the motive underlying their personal participation ...p 144
"... a range of EAWARN participants perceived the object of the Network's
activity as the development of a community of expertise ..." p 144
... "The discourse of EAWARN participants revealed two primary conceptions
of its object ... " p 139
"... In the third manifestation of the ethnological monitoring/early
warning object conception, emphasis was placed on the academic or
informational aspect of monitoring and early warning was relegated to a
distinctly lower level of priority." p 143
"... understanding the intertwined object conceptions that were discernable
within the EAWARN." p 140
..."The participants' conceptions of the Network's object varied ... " p 140
..."In the first manifestations of the ethnological monitoring/early
warning object conception, the interventionist aspects of early warning,
conflict prevention, and conflict management were accorded greater
significance." p 141
..."The member represented the Network's object concept as the monitoring
of ethnic relations in regions where conflict was brewing." p 144
..."The second of two object conceptions around which the Network's
activities were oriented was that of epistemic community building." p 144
"... others articulated the object conception of the EAWARN as epistemic
community building in a way that included both academic analysts and
activist analysts." p 145
*****
*****f. What are the pros and cons of using the term "construction"
("construct", etc.) in CHAT analysis?
*****Comment: I am having a problem with the term "construction" being used
in CHAT analysis the way this paper uses it, meaning, I am only at this
point seeing the "cons" and not the "pros" in its use. It seems to me this
terminology magnifies the problem of over-focusing on participants'
perceptions and conceptions at the expense of actually analyzing the
activity system object itself. "Construction" is not just a synonym for
"conception" - this term is used to describe the development of
conceptions. At the same time, the paper does not use this term to
describe actual actions or operations directed toward creating and
developing an activity system object - the usual way this word is used -
the construction of a material object. It seems to me that what appears to
be of central concern in the way the paper uses the term is the analysis of
the development (construction) of *mental conceptions*, not comprehending
the evolution of the *activity system object* itself (a process which of
course is highly mediated by the perceptions of the participants). There
may be something important I am missing here in understanding this use of
the term.
"... constructions of the epistemic-community object varied ..." p 145
... "This participant did not include any interventionist element in his
construction of the epistemic community as the object of the Network." p146
"... they began to participate in the construction of the
embedded-in-activity object (Gegenstand) of the Network ..." p 135
... "These differing cultural-historical approaches to ethnicity and ethnic
conflict were both present as mediating artifacts in the Network
participant's constructions of the Network's object." p 136
"... both Tishkov's and Allyn's perspectives on the epistemic community
conception of the Network's object corresponded to their respective
constructions of the ethnological monitoring/early warning object." p 145
..."Two participants went one step further in their construction of the
epistemic community object concept." p 146
..."Just as Tishkov came to emphasize the academic and informational
aspects of monitoring, he also constructed the epistemic community object
in strongly academic terms." p 145
"... an individual participant (or even a collective participant) does not
arbitrarily construct the object of an activity." p 135
*****
*****g. In pursuing an evolving object, what is the essential focus of the
researcher?
... This is Kirsten's concluding remark: "Perhaps the most illuminating
questions a researcher in pursuit of object understanding can ask are
toward what is the collective activity oriented, and what is energizing it?
The "catches" in the form of manifested object-concepts, though partial
and transitory, are worth the pursuit." ... p 148.
*****Comment: Two excellent questions: What is the collective activity
oriented toward? (What is the activity system object?). What is
energizing the collective activity? (What is the motive?) But then in the
next sentence the focus shifts from trying to understand activity system
*objects* and *motives* to trying to understand *"manifested
object-concepts"*. This points once again to the central issue this paper
raises for me.
*****
*****h. Was (and is) EAWARN really an activity system from a CHAT point of
view?
... "To summarize the findings I have presented, I argue that EAWARN's
activity is oriented around the construction, engagement and enactment of a
complex multifaceted object ..." p 147
... "I identified two primary object conceptions around which the Network's
activity was oriented - the monitoring of ethnic relations for providing
early warning of conflict, and the building of an epistemic community - and
analyzed the various manifestations of these object-concepts in the
discourse of the Network." p 148
... "Some might also argue that career development was itself an object of
the Network, alongside the object conceptualized as ethnological
monitoring/early warning and epistemic community building." p 148
*****Comment: The paper never really attempts to argue that EAWARN was an
activity system, nor does it try to explain what an activity system is. It
appears to assume the reader knows what an activity system is, and assumes
that the reader will accept that EAWARN was and is an activity system, and
what it was doing was an activity from a CHAT point of view. But consider
this: in CHAT analysis, could EAWARN have been, not an activity system in
its own right, but rather an ongoing action with multifaceted goals and
with numerous operations taking place in specific conditions - as described
in the paper - that are all part of an activity system that was much larger
and broader than EAWARN?
****************************************************
As a final comment, let me please emphasize that I offer these questions
and remarks not in spite of Kirsten's worthy research efforts both into
EAWARN and the CHAT theory of the activity system object, but because she
did so much useful and valuable work as reflected in her paper. I have
learned much from pursuing the objects and object-concepts of Kirsten's
paper, and have genuinely evolved doing it.
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PDT