I agree with you. Certainly Yrjo does not see himself working outside
of the Vygotskian tradition, but rather as someone who is working
in the context of several generations of development of the ideas.
I am pretty sure, however, that many would disagree with me. The reasons
for disagreement could be varied, but they would include conflicts between
key players in the 1930's and changes (sometimes considered distortions)
introduced into LSV's ideas when they became popular outside of the USSR/
However, I am still struggling along trying to understand the meaning
of "object" in AT/German/English/etc, so perhaps someone with more certain
knowledge could help out here.
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Ricardo Japiassu wrote:
> I have not being dedicated to the systematic study of Engeström's approach
> to activity (activity theory as work-ATW?).
> I do not see Leontiev's AT or Engeström's ATW as things that should be
> separated from or put out of Vygotsky's original theoretical-methodologic
> My current understanding is that CHAT would be considered as a broader field
> in which Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory of human development,
> Leontiev's AT, Engeströms' ATW live side by side in a confortable way.
> Am I wrong?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 01 2004 - 01:00:07 PST