Well, with the qualification that in particular fields of application, a
word like "tool" may take on a special significance or tools or some type
of tool may be of special significance ni a particular context, and all
these words are subject to different usages in other branches of theory,
but in general, at the level of the fundamentals of CHAT ...
"Artefact", literally a "product of skill," is as I see it, as Mike said,
the broad class of all those things which are products of human labour.
They are *all* material things - what else? "spiritual things"? And
"artefact" includes "tools", passwords, technology, languages, bodily hexis
- all types of things, tokens (to use the technical term) of which are
produced by human labour.
"Culture", literally "what is grown, or cultivated", means all our
artefacts. This usage is eccentric, but as I understand it, it is the
conventional usage in CHAT which has a special place in theory of
artefacts. Outside of CHAT culture may mean the high arts, like Opera and
painting, or it may mean a group of communities which share numerous
cultural forms and social practices. Really, in both these senses the
meaning is so vague, "culture" cannot be counted as a scientific concept.
For example, what could "cultural production" mean? I really don't know. Is
La Boheme a "cultural production"?
Artefacts are what they are only in and through their usage in some system
of activity. For example, a password cannot be a password in an
organisation that uses brass keys instead of passwords, and vice versa. But
a brass key and a password remain material objects and one cannot be
magically turned into the other, while both a subject to being copied. So a
society with lots of brass keys is different from a society with lots of
passwords or a society where admission is governed by body-shape. Different
forms of activity correspond to using passwords, keys or body-shapes; but
that does not prevent us from perceiving the material objects distinct from
the form of activity in which they are used.
"Material objects" - a word is a material object just as much as is a pen.
How can you tell me differently? If I happen to be interested in
penmanship, I could sit here and churn out dozens of instances of pen
(tokens of the type, to use the technical terms), and right now I am
churning out dozens of tokens of my chosen words using my keyboard. What's
the difference (fundamentally)? Do we not use material objects to mediate
our thinking (and our communication)? Do we not use other kinds of things,
not tools, to mediate our behaviour, like a list of reminders for example?
I think it is important in understanding CHAT how all these artefacts are
"the same."
Andy
At 03:15 PM 9/01/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>Let me dare to continue. I entertain an idea that when we say
>artifacts, we mean cultural productions, and tools, to mean material
>objects. While cultural productions --language, technology, etc. in
>the name of artifacts mediate our thinking, material objects--pens,
>computers, etc. in the name of tools mediate our behavior. These are
>my thoughts, but I'm still trying to make sense of all these.
>
>Elinami.
>
>On 1/9/08, Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Believing as I do that the terms tool and sign are subordinate to the more
> > general category
> > of artifact I am having a little difficulty understanding what is at issue
> > here. In what follows
> > distinctions appear or disappear that I personally find useful. So, for
> > example, I am really
> > unclear about the difference between a social and a cultural artifact. Is
> > language, to take
> > an example from below, a material artifact? An ideal artifact? Doesn't
> > qualification of a
> > toothbrush rather than an artifact qualify its function in the activity of
> > which is a part?
> >
> > Is there a message in this stream I am missing that blinds me to the
> purport
> > of these
> > recent messages? Could you point me to it if so?
> > mike
> >
> > On Jan 9, 2008 7:45 AM, Elinami Swai <swaiev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I completely agree with this observation Andy, for when we think of
> > > learning as a social activity, or the formation of one's identity as
> > > originating from society, we come to see that what one learns, how one
> > > learns, and why one learns something, is mediated by his/her social
> > > and cultural artifacts. These can be anything from individual's own
> > > disposition, the material culture in which he/she finds
> > > himself/herself in. In this sense, things like language, computer,
> > > one's interests, abilities, etc. are important mediators of that
> > > learning activity. Of course some are termed artifacts and others
> > > tools, but this separation is secondary, for it does not change
> > > (qualify/disqualify) their function towards the activity
> > > system--learning.
> > >
> > > Elinami.
> > >
> > > On 1/9/08, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> > > > One of the implications of my paper is that from the point of view of
> > > > psychology, it is a secondary question whether an artefact is
> > > categorised
> > > > by someone as tool, sign or part of the human body.
> > > >
> > > > I think of the example of a person logging into their computer by (a)
> > > > entering their password (b) swiping a card or (c) having their iris
> > > scanned
> > > > by the computer. You get access to the computer much the same any way.
> > > >
> > > > Does everyone agree with this? And is there any problem with
> calling the
> > > > mass of such artefacts used by a group of people to access their
> > > collective
> > > > activity, "culture"?
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > > At 06:35 AM 8/01/2008 -0600, you wrote:
> > > > >Hi -- So it actually looks as if we have an instance here where Andy's
> > > > >"subjectivity" fits a real case and illuminates it. Two cases,
> > > actually!
> > > > >
> > > > >Regarding nurses, we definitely "get into the logic of the court
> > > decision"
> > > > >and also we (they) addresses it through organization. (Not me
> > > personally
> > > > >-- a labor educator teaches HOW to do it but doesn't actually do
> it, at
> > > > >least not in the sense the union leadership would do it).
> > > > >
> > > > >Your advice to Brian in Arizona regarding "acting like a union" is
> > > exactly
> > > > >what seems to be working among day laborers in the US, various
> > > community
> > > > >groups/workers' centers, and among contingent faculty especially, many
> > > of
> > > > >whom are excluded from full-time/tenure/tenure track bargaining units.
> > > > >It's the consciousness first, the institution second -- but the
> > > > >institution is the tool.
> > > > >
> > > > >Helena
> > > > >
> > > > >________________________________________
> > > > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > > Behalf
> > > > >Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
> > > > >Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:20 AM
> > > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > >Subject: RE: [xmca] Helena's view of Andy's paper
> > > > >
> > > > >Of course my thinking is at a very basic level and we don't expect
> much
> > > in
> > > > >terms of practical cases.
> > > > >But a number of points strike me: the supervisor/nurses retain the
> > > > >consciousness of union-members/carers not employer-agents/managers,
> > > even
> > > > >though the legal decision tries to take this away from them. But the
> > > court
> > > > >decision has to be justified in some way. "All that is real is
> rational
> > > .."
> > > > >but also "deserves to perish" (according to Goethe). So you have
> to get
> > > > >into the logic of the court's decision, and not only defeat it by an
> > > > >immanent critique but also in practice though organisation. You
> > > rehearse
> > > > >the legal argument in the ranks, don't you?
> > > > >.
> > > > >
> > > > >You know, my friend Brian that I introduced you to, Helena, is facing
> > > the
> > > > >same problem in the college he works in in Arizona, where a group of
> > > staff
> > > > >have been "ruled out" of the union bargaining unit. My advice to him
> > > was
> > > > >that the group had to organise themselves as if they were a union
> > > branch,
> > > > >and the legitimate union local had to assist them. Because only the
> > > > >mobilised employees can ultimately prove the truth of their claim
> to be
> > > > >unionists not employer-agents, and prove it to the satisfaction of
> > > othes.
> > > > >So, as Steve Gabosch correctly pointed out, you have a multiplicity of
> > > > >"subjectivities" (including the contradiction that you have
> referred to
> > > > >Helena, about being both a carer and an employee, etc) and you have to
> > > run
> > > > >the argument in and through the human existence of the logic of each
> > > > >argument, the organised workers and the various state and employer
> > > > >organisations. The court agrees with the employer that a
> certain group
> > > of
> > > > >workers are its agents not its employees. (BTW, this crap is only now
> > > > >beginning to show itself in Australia, but only for those earning like
> > > more
> > > > >than $100,000 pa) So you have a number of subjects overlapping
> here and
> > > > >they hinge around self-concepts of whole extended groups of people who
> > > > >probably only partially identify with the concept, and also negatively
> > > by
> > > > >exclusion, of course.
> > > > >
> > > > >Andy
> > > > >At 05:56 AM 8/01/2008 -0600, you wrote:
> > > > > >But now that I think about it, isn't the example I give (of a nurse
> > > whose
> > > > > >relationship to her employer, her work and the way she earns a
> > > living) has
> > > > > >suddenly changed because of a decision that came out of a court
> case)
> > > the
> > > > > >very thing that Andy was talking about in his paper, the
> "subject" as
> > > the
> > > > > >unit of analysis?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Helena
> > > > > >________________________________________
> > > > > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > > Behalf
> > > > > >Of Worthen, Helena Harlow [hworthen@ad.uiuc.edu]
> > > > > >Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:31 PM
> > > > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > >Subject: RE: [xmca] Helena's view of Andy's paper
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Andy --
> > > > > >
> > > > > >You're probably right about Winnicott, and I was using the term with
> > > a bit
> > > > > >of tongue in cheek -- but I did mean that as far as my work
> goes, the
> > > > > >theory has to work as a tool for getting the job done. Even if it's
> > > not
> > > > > >the perfect tool, if it gets the job done, that's OK (and the tool
> > > will
> > > > > >get refined by doing the job, too).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >You wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"And in those terms your problem with the reclassified nurses is a
> > > classic
> > > > > >case of the contradiction between
> > > > > >concept (definition of a nurse) and intuition (the immediate
> > > > > >self-perception of a nurse). That is the terms in which I took
> it. Do
> > > the
> > > > > >nurses need to change the law or should they get used to it?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The plane on which that contradiction might get resolved would
> not be
> > > the
> > > > > >plane with the most material consequences. It would be a plane that
> > > > > >involves an individual adjusting to being defined as something other
> > > than
> > > > > >what he or she thought she was. But on a different plane, there
> > > > > >are tremendous material consequences. The contradiction that frames
> > > that
> > > > > >plane is the contradiction between healthcare as a profit-making
> > > private
> > > > > >business and healthcare as a public good. On that plane, the
> > > > > >reclassification of nurses as supervisors (if they do a certain
> > > number of
> > > > > >a certain kind of task) tries to resolve that contradiction by
> > > checkmating
> > > > > >the power of nurses to collectively resist the devolution of the
> > > > > >healthcare system into maximizing profit. By reclassifying them as
> > > > > >supervisors, they are stripped out of the bargaining unit and lose
> > > their
> > > > > >protections -- they can get fired at will, forced to work overtime,
> > > they
> > > > > >lose the advocacy of their union if they need to speak out, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >As you probably know, the healthcare system in the US is an
> > > incredible
> > > > > >mess. (After budget cuts this time last year, the waiting time for
> > > > > >patients in the Cook County Hospital emergency room was FOUR DAYS).
> > > Nurses
> > > > > >are organizing into unions in many places, and one of the issues
> they
> > > > > >organize around is patient-staff ratios, which has behind it a major
> > > > > >health and safety agenda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >First envisage the activity system of a hospital ward in which
> nurses
> > > have
> > > > > >union protections and can, for example, refuse an assignment to a
> > > ward
> > > > > >where they do not have the proper training (to take an example from
> > > the
> > > > > >experience of a nurse I've worked with -- an oncology nurse getting
> > > > > >assigned to a pre-natal ward). The tools which mediate the
> > > relationship
> > > > > >between the nurses and the hospital system include employment laws
> > > and the
> > > > > >contract, among other things. Then, flip the law -- whoops, some of
> > > the
> > > > > >nurses are no longer in the bargaining unit. For them, their whole
> > > > > >relationship to their work has changed. Should they get used to it?
> > > This
> > > > > >is not a trivial thing. Can they change the law? Not directly --
> it's
> > > a
> > > > > >court case. Actually, it's a Supreme Court decision called "Kentucky
> > > > > >River," after the nursing home the case came out of. Getting used to
> > > it
> > > > > >versus changing the law are not the relevant questions. The relevant
> > > > > >questions are more like, "What is the whole unit of analysis? What
> > > are the
> > > > > >tools? What are the rules? What is the motivation? What's going on
> > > here?"
> > > > > >This may seem like a pretty nuts-and-bolts use of the CHAT framework
> > > but I
> > > > > >haven't found anythign else that is as comprehensive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Helena
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >________________________________________
> > > > > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > > Behalf
> > > > > >Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
> > > > > >Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 8:29 PM
> > > > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > >Subject: RE: [xmca] Helena's view of Andy's paper
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Helena,
> > > > > >I just wanted to respond to your off-hand reference to the
> > > "good-enough
> > > > > >mother."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does this mean I'm sloppy and content with any
> > > "good
> > > > > enough"
> > > > > > theory that will fry eggs for me? You know, like
> > > the
> > > > > concept
> > > > > > of a "good enough" mother?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Now, as a non-professional I am quite unaware of debate there may
> > > have been
> > > > > >about this term over the past 30 or 40 years, I only know what I
> read
> > > in
> > > > > >Donald Winnicott's "Playing and Reality" which I thought was the
> > > origin of
> > > > > >this phrase. I took his meaning quite differently. I took it that he
> > > meant
> > > > > >that if the child is to be weaned and become a person in their own
> > > right,
> > > > > >then the requirement on the mother is *not* to perfectly meet the
> > > infant's
> > > > > >needs, but on the contrary to be just "good enough" so that the
> > > frustration
> > > > > >which arises from the non-perfect meeting of her needs is the
> > > beginning of
> > > > > >a process in which the infant begins to work out the nature of
> > > objective
> > > > > >reality for itself. I really liked the idea. And surely it is very
> > > very
> > > > > >relevant to your work as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Just a note on ideographic and nomographic. I responded to Mike on
> > > this in
> > > > > >terms of how Hegel responded to Kant. And in those terms your
> problem
> > > with
> > > > > >the reclassified nurses is a classic case of the contradiction
> > > between
> > > > > >concept (definition of a nurse) and intuition (the immediate
> > > > > >self-perception of a nurse). That is the terms in which I took
> it. Do
> > > the
> > > > > >nurses need to change the law or should they get used to it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Andy
> > > > > >At 09:54 AM 6/01/2008 -0600, you wrote:
> > > > > > >Eric:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I did not come out of a educational background that immersed me in
> > > the
> > > > > > >kind of theory. My work is very practical. However, I have to use
> > > theories
> > > > > > >in order to get anything done, and CHAT and Activity Theory
> and the
> > > > > > >sociocultural approach generally work for me in ways that other
> > > > > > >theoretical approaches simply do not. I look around in these
> > > theoretical
> > > > > > >discussions like someone who is cooking looks for utensils or
> > > someone who
> > > > > > >is preparing a legal brief looks for precedents and arguments. The
> > > > > > >question of what the unit of analysis is is very important to me,
> > > for
> > > > > > >example -- because when I encounter a complex situation, for
> > > example, a
> > > > > > >group of nurses who have, as a result of a bad decision by the
> > > National
> > > > > > >Labor Relations Board, have been re-classified as supervisors and
> > > lost
> > > > > > >their memberhsip in a bargaining unit with the union protections
> > > that go
> > > > > > >along with that, and therefore become "at will" employees -- I
> need
> > > to be
> > > > > > >able to discern what is going on. What is the unit of analysis
> > > there? What
> > > > > > >is the activity system?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Note that I said "group." The collective subject is important to
> > > me, too,
> > > > > > >since workers' rights are collective rights. This means I'm
> not so
> > > > > > >interested in figuring out a way to envision an individual as a
> > > unit of
> > > > > > >analysis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >There has to be something like a rubber band between the actions I
> > > take
> > > > > > >while doing labor education (whether it's teaching classes, doing
> > > research
> > > > > > >or helping someone one-on-one who is in a bad employment situation
> > > or in a
> > > > > > >bad union) and the theory that I go to to use for doing something.
> > > I go
> > > > > > >back and forth, back and forth,with the reality testing the theory
> > > and the
> > > > > > >theory testing the reality, all the time.If the theory doesn't
> > > help, I
> > > > > > >don't use it. If the theory doesn't help, (if the rubber band
> > > snaps) I
> > > > > > >don't use it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Given the extreme practicality of what I need theories for, there
> > > are some
> > > > > > >concepts that just don't help me much. Idiographic/nomothetic is
> > > one. I
> > > > > > >have no idea what that means. I know there was some discussion on
> > > xmca
> > > > > > >about it, but I skimmed it. Also, purely theoretical discussion
> > > that
> > > > > > >appears to swim deeper and deeper into theory rather than
> > > connecting back
> > > > > > >across the wall between theory and everyday reality does not help
> > > me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Does this mean I'm sloppy and content with any "good enough"
> theory
> > > that
> > > > > > >will fry eggs for me? You know, like the concept of a "good
> enough"
> > > > > > >mother? I don't think so. I think the test of a good theory is its
> > > use as
> > > > > > >a tool -- as part of an activity system, maybe one of the cultural
> > > > > > >artefacts that Andy talks about.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Helena
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >________________________________________
> > > > > > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > > Behalf
> > > > > > >Of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org [ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org]
> > > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:04 PM
> > > > > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > >Subject: [xmca] Helena's view of Andy's paper
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Very thoughtful post Helena:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >You have provided me with great understanding of what andy's
> thesis
> > > > > > >represents. I agree his thinking enriches CHAT but I too get lost
> > > in the
> > > > > > >ethereal of his musings : ) My critique of his theory not
> > > presenting
> > > > > > >both an idiographic/nomothetic methodology of psychological
> > > investigation
> > > > > > >has been stymied by Andy claiming such a critique is a dichotomy
> > > and that
> > > > > > >he disavows dichotomies. Any thoughts on this issue?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >eric
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Worthen, Helena
> > > > > > > Harlow" To:
> > > > > > > "mcole@weber.ucsd.edu" <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>, "eXtended Mind,
> > > > > > > <hworthen@ad.uiu Culture, Activity"
> > > > > > > <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > > > > > c.edu> cc:
> > > > > > > Sent by: Subject: RE:
> [xmca]
> > > > > > > Subject: Verb, Object
> > > > > > > xmca-bounces@web
> > > > > > > er.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 12/29/2007 07:37
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > Please respond
> > > > > > > to "eXtended
> > > > > > > Mind, Culture,
> > > > > > > Activity"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Hello --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I want to join in with some thoughts on Andy's paper. I've
> actually
> > > > > read it
> > > > > > >about 3 times and came away with such different thoughts each time
> > > that I
> > > > > > >kept losing confidence that I understood what he was getting at.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I really need some empirical content in a paper like this. When a
> > > paper is
> > > > > > >entirely theoretical, I am always asking what a real-life example
> > > of
> > > > > > >something would be. This slows me down and distracts me and I'm
> > > always
> > > > > > >having to correct myself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >But here is what I see, on the third try:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >The actual problem is the postmodern condition, which Andy
> > > describes (p.
> > > > > > >262) as "There is no identification of the person with the state,
> > > or with
> > > > > > >society as a whole or even a class...The endpoint of
> development is
> > > an
> > > > > > >anomic individual who does not see in any institution a
> > > representation of
> > > > > > >their own identity and aspiration."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >This is a description of a "subject" (in the sense of an
> > > individual) that
> > > > > > >is locked out of culture and society. Locked out whether he is a
> > > free
> > > > > agent
> > > > > > >acting on society or a totally determined product of society. This
> > > is the
> > > > > > >problem where the paper begins.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >To liberate this "anomic individual", Andy goes back to the
> > > foundations of
> > > > > > >CHAT and finds three trichotomies: The CHAT trichotomy (the
> > > > > > >individual/collective subject, culture and society); Hegel's
> > > trichotomy of
> > > > > > >the Individual, Particular and Universal, and Vygotsky's
> individual
> > > > > person,
> > > > > > >element of culture, and activity or material practice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Then he proposes a new trichotomy as the unit of analysis:
> this one
> > > is the
> > > > > > >individual, culture and society, all of which is the subject. Andy
> > > says
> > > > > > >that the unit of analysis is "the activity of individual human
> > > beings
> > > > > > >utilizing artifacts as a means of collaborating with (or fighting
> > > > > with) one
> > > > > > >another (p. 256 in MCA). I'm not sure how this differs from the
> > > unit of
> > > > > > >analysis that Jim Wertsch talks about in Vygotsky and the Social
> > > Formation
> > > > > > >of Mind, quoting Leont'ev (p. 203 -- "the nonadditive, molar unit
> > > of
> > > > > > >life....the unit of life that is mediated by mental
> reflection") or
> > > > > > >Zinchenko ("tool mediated action" - Wertsch p.205). I don't see
> > > these as
> > > > > > >inconsistent with each other. This doesn't bother me -- they
> enrich
> > > each
> > > > > > >other.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >But two other pieces of Andy's paper catch my eye. One is the
> > > suggestion
> > > > > > >that the commodification of parts of the trichotomy is a way to
> > > understand
> > > > > > >the paralysis (anomie?) of the individual in postmodern society.
> > > This
> > > > > makes
> > > > > > >sense to me. Think of how the price of access to cultural
> artifacts
> > > > > > >determines who can use them. I pay $110 per month for my
> > > > > cellphone/internet
> > > > > > >package in Illinois -- how many people can afford that? But that's
> > > a key
> > > > > > >artifact with which I engage with my family and my social world.
> > > This is
> > > > > > >like the price of accessing myself. Within the subject, as Andy
> > > proposes
> > > > > > >it, commodification has intervened to set prices and manage
> > > exchanges.
> > > > > Kids
> > > > > > >in rich schools do business plans in math class; kids in poor
> > > schools get
> > > > > > >farmed out to "work" trade shows as "interns" -- I'm not
> kidding. I
> > > can
> > > > > > >think of more examples of ways that the essential mediating
> > > artifacts of
> > > > > > >culture shape people's activity through their commodification.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >The second is about the view through the scope of Andy's
> > > trichotomic unit
> > > > > > >of analysis, individual-culture-society. When all three lenses are
> > > > > lined up
> > > > > > >so that there is one sightline from the individual through what
> > > culture is
> > > > > > >available to him (or can be created by him) into the landscape of
> > > society
> > > > > > >where he is engaged, it sounds like an adequate description of or
> > > account
> > > > > > >of consciousness. We are also shown how sharply different the
> > > > > possibilities
> > > > > > >are for different people and how stark are the differences between
> > > what is
> > > > > > >supposed to be out there and what is actually experienced. These
> > > are both
> > > > > > >important aspects of consciousness. This seems like something we
> > > could
> > > > > come
> > > > > > >back to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >But I don't accept Andy's view of the world today as adequately
> > > described
> > > > > > >by the capitalist postmodern condition. I would say that some --
> > > possibly
> > > > > > >many -- experience their lives that way. I have in my files a
> > > handwritten
> > > > > > >10-page autobiography of a young black man who was a death row
> > > prisoner in
> > > > > > >Texas, whose story is "I was in the wrong car with the wrong
> person
> > > at the
> > > > > > >wrong time." He died of AIDS before his execution date.
> Looking out
> > > (via
> > > > > > >his autobiography) through the three lenses of Andy's trichotomic
> > > unit of
> > > > > > >analysis, you'd have to say he saw nowhere "in any institution a
> > > > > > >representation of [his] own identity and aspiration."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >But just as Andy re-enacts the Battle of Hastings every time he
> > > chooses an
> > > > > > >Anglo-Saxon or Latin word in speaking English, every time someone
> > > > > clocks in
> > > > > > >at work or cashes a paycheck (or accepts cash under the table), he
> > > > > > >re-enacts the transition from feudalism to capitalism (or the
> > > French
> > > > > > >revolution, or the Flint sit-down, take your pick). It's not
> > > surrender,
> > > > > > >it's re-enactment. If you keep in mind that resistance, criticism
> > > and
> > > > > > >struggle are also engagement, identity and aspiration, then you
> > > don't need
> > > > > > >to unseat postmodernity as the framing context. We can still use
> > > the three
> > > > > > >lenses of individual-culture-society as the subject as a unit of
> > > analysis
> > > > > > >that enables us to approach consciousness.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Helena Worthen, Clinical Associate Professor
> > > > > > >Labor Education Program, Institute of Labor & Industrial Relations
> > > > > > >University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> > > > > > >504 E. Armory, Room 227
> > > > > > >Champaign, IL 61821
> > > > > > >Phone: 217-244-4095
> > > > > > >hworthen@uiuc.edu
> > > > > > >http://lep.ilir.uiuc.edu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > > xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > > > > > >Behalf Of Mike Cole
> > > > > > >Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 4:02 PM
> > > > > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > >Subject: Re: [xmca] Subject: Verb, Object
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Leontiev, you mean, Peg. And in the book that David K was reading
> > > last
> > > > > time
> > > > > > >around.
> > > > > > >(My spelling is attributable to the use of the "whole word" method
> > > of
> > > > > > >reading instruction and perhaps
> > > > > > >to the fact that I am left handed. Glad it also pushes at the
> > > > > > >skill/knowledge issue as a bonus.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I picked on the same phrase Peg did, but mostly the firs part
> where
> > > > > you ask
> > > > > > >the question of whether
> > > > > > >the object of activity can be defined in advance. This sparked two
> > > > > > >different
> > > > > > >lines of thought. First,
> > > > > > >that Yrjo speaks of the object of activity always being over the
> > > horizon.
> > > > > > >Which is related to a line from
> > > > > > >Tennyson's Ulysees quoted by Dewey:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Yet all experience is an arch wherethro'
> > > > > > >Gleams that untravell'd world, whose margin fades
> > > > > > >For ever and for ever when I move.I take this metaphor to include
> > > > > listening
> > > > > > >to what other's say and seeing where it leads,
> > > > > > >and to point to a process in time (a developmental process?) by
> > > which a
> > > > > > >merely understandable
> > > > > > >motive (having been imagined by others who describe it to you) and
> > > a
> > > > > > >"really
> > > > > > >effective" motive,
> > > > > > >e.g., one that now guides your action and its (future) direction.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >It also fits with an understanding of the ideal and material
> > > aspects of
> > > > > > >objects being wildly interwoven.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >mike
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >On Dec 29, 2007 8:05 AM, Peg Griffin
> <Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Interesting work, Andy, thanks for what you have done and
> > > pointing to
> > > > > > >what
> > > > > > > > is yet to be done!
> > > > > > > > I am particularly moved to reply to a little point at the end
> > > with a
> > > > > > > > question. When discussing immanent critique, you write "But I
> > > think we
> > > > > > > > can't
> > > > > > > > define the "object" of activity in advance. To start with, we
> > > have to
> > > > > > >take
> > > > > > > > it as a whole. We have to listen to what subjects say and
> accept
> > > to a
> > > > > > > > certain extent what they say the object is, and see where it
> > > leads."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here is my question: Do you see here any connection with
> > > Leonie's
> > > > > > > > distinction and relation between "really effective" and "merely
> > > > > > > > understood"
> > > > > > > > motives?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PG
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > > > > > > > Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 6:14 PM
> > > > > > > > To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Subject: Verb, Object
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That remark is really to signal that I don't as yet have a
> > > worked-out
> > > > > > > > response to the issues David has been raising in relation to
> > > ANL's
> > > > > > >concept
> > > > > > > > of "activity" only some criticisms of my own. But at the
> moment,
> > > I
> > > > > > >believe
> > > > > > > > that "immanent critique" holds the key. Here is how I
> understand
> > > > > the idea
> > > > > > > > of "immanent critique".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Immanent critique" was first developed by Hegel in his
> > > Phenomenology.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phprefac.htm#m053
> > > > > > > > where Hegel explains it. The Phenomenology is the canonical
> > > example of
> > > > > > > > "immanent critique". Hegel does not back sit back and look at
> > > the
> > > > > various
> > > > > > > > forms of consciousness which have succeeded one another in
> > > history, and
> > > > > > > > "criticise" tehm from his own superior point of view, but
> > > "enters into"
> > > > > > > > them, adopts and follows their logic and asks questions of
> a way
> > > of
> > > > > > > > thinking from its own standpoint. That is, he follows the path
> > > of
> > > > > its own
> > > > > > > > critique, until the "ideology" itself leads to an impasse.
> > > > > Subsequently,
> > > > > > > > sometimes after an interval, sometimes directly arising
> from the
> > > > > > > > self-scepticism, a new way of thinking arises, which is able to
> > > > > cope with
> > > > > > > > or avoid the contradictions into which the previous one fell.
> > > And
> > > > > so the
> > > > > > > > process goes on. Americans will recognise shades of Thomas Kuhn
> > > > > here, and
> > > > > > > > we should all recognise Marx's obsession with political
> economy.
> > > (For
> > > > > > > > example, if you look at how capital worked up until 1883, i.e.
> > > before
> > > > > > > > Taylor's experiments in scientific management, you will see
> that
> > > Marx's
> > > > > > > > concept of value was just how capitalists worked. Taylor made a
> > > > > critique
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > this business of lengthening the working day and keeping wages
> > > > > down. Marx
> > > > > > > > was following capital's own critique, but he died in 1883 and
> > > his
> > > > > > > > followers
> > > > > > > > didn't know what to do next)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So "immanent critique" means critiquing an object by following
> > > its own
> > > > > > > > logic:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "So my friend you say that ..., so doesn't that mean
> that
> > > > > ... and
> > > > > > > > didn't you say you were against that?"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What does it mean to say that social psychology should adopt
> > > "immanent
> > > > > > > > critique" as an approach to defining the subject-object
> relation
> > > > > and its
> > > > > > > > concept of "activity"? Well, as I said, this is work in
> > > progress,
> > > > > OK? But
> > > > > > > > we have to see a subject (its opinions, its strengths, its
> > > > > psychoses, its
> > > > > > > > "standpoint", its identity, etc.) as one of many or several
> > > possible
> > > > > > > > subjects which are part and parcel of a certain way of
> life. The
> > > > > activity
> > > > > > > > which a subject is involved in is defined *by the subject* (and
> > > to a
> > > > > > > > certain extent vice versa) and becomes something else as a
> > > result
> > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > working out of that system of activity (and the subject's own
> > > > > critique of
> > > > > > > > it).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So for example, the subject might say "I am a tradesperson.
> > > > > Everyone will
> > > > > > > > always need a plumber. I don't have to beg for my money. These
> > > > > > > > paper-pushers could disappear tomorrow and we wouldn't miss
> them
> > > ...etc
> > > > > > > > etc" - the collected prejudices of a randomly chosen figure in
> > > our
> > > > > > > > society.
> > > > > > > > He is involved in the practice of a trade which guarantees
> her a
> > > > > > > > respectable living standard. The question is, how do
> > > contradictions
> > > > > arise
> > > > > > > > in *that* way of thinking as the trade become more and more one
> > > of
> > > > > > > > plugging
> > > > > > > > in integrated components, work that can be done by a kid, but
> > > work
> > > > > > >control
> > > > > > > > requires the use of all sorts of computers, etc., etc., and
> > > altogether
> > > > > > >all
> > > > > > > > the assumptions his or her way of life is predicated on change.
> > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am only guessing with the above. But I think we can't define
> > > the
> > > > > > > > "object"
> > > > > > > > of activity in advance. To start with, we have to take it as a
> > > > > whole. We
> > > > > > > > have to listen to what subjects say and accept to a certain
> > > extent what
> > > > > > > > they say the object is, and see where it leads.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Andy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > At 10:09 AM 28/12/2007 -0800, you wrote:
> > > > > > > > >I follow you right up to the last paragraph in this note,
> Andy,
> > > where
> > > > > > >you
> > > > > > > > >write:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >I want to go back to Hegel methodologically and work on the
> > > claim that
> > > > > > >an
> > > > > > > > >*immanent* critique of the categories of activity is the only
> > > viable
> > > > > > > > >approach. Otherwise, we are just pulling pre-determined
> > > categories out
> > > > > > >of
> > > > > > > > >our own heads. The latter is the usual approach in my view.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Probably this means that I need to go back and read your
> > > article more
> > > > > > > > >carefully.
> > > > > > > > >What is an *immanent" critique?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >mike
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >On Dec 27, 2007 2:35 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Re Leontyev's concept of "activity'. I wanted to leave this
> > > to
> > > > > a kind
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > "stage two" but since I want to use a category of activity
> > > too
> > > > > I have
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > get to it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So far as I can see, for ANL, "activity" is
> > > paradigmatically
> > > > > but not
> > > > > > > > > > exclusively the "external" activity, of an individual
> > > organism.
> > > > > So it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > the same category of "activity" as Fichte used in his
> > > critique of
> > > > > > > > Kant,
> > > > > > > > > > which Hegel picks up on. And for ANL it is
> "instrumental" to
> > > use
> > > > > > > > Mike's
> > > > > > > > > > word (instrumental allows the object to be another subject,
> > > treated
> > > > > > >as
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > object though), or "purposive", though I think inclusive of
> > > > > > >unintended
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > non-conscious components of the actions. So it must be very
> > > similar
> > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > category of "practice" insofar as theory and practice are
> > > > > > > > differentiated.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The problem comes for me when you have to get "stuck into"
> > > this
> > > > > > > > category
> > > > > > > > > > and work out the appropriate way of elaborating the various
> > > *forms*
> > > > > > >of
> > > > > > > > > > activity. With some good reason, ANL I think moves to a
> > > Marxist
> > > > > > > > paradigm
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > "mode of production", practice-as-labour, in order to
> > > mobilise a
> > > > > > > > series
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > categories through which activity can be grasped. This
> leads
> > > to the
> > > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > that David identified, namely, that the dichotomy between
> > > > > labour and
> > > > > > > > > > communication is a false one. In fact this dichotomy has
> > > caused
> > > > > havoc
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the whole stream of Cultural Psychology over the past 200
> > > > > years, from
> > > > > > > > > > Hegel
> > > > > > > > > > to Marx to CHAT to contemporary contintental philosophy.
> > > Hegel
> > > > > > >dropped
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > paradigm of labour in favour of a paradigm of critique
> > > around 1805,
> > > > > > >at
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same time as he adopted a monological concept of Spirit.
> > > Marx
> > > > > > >returned
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > paradigm of labour in 1844. Then in the anti-Marxist
> tide of
> > > the
> > > > > > > > post-WW2
> > > > > > > > > > period everyone from French philosophers to critical
> > > theorists
> > > > > > > > abandoned
> > > > > > > > > > labour for communication as the paradigm. Some also turn to
> > > > > aesthetic
> > > > > > > > > > acitivity as the paradigm (subject-object, subject-other or
> > > > > > > > subject-self
> > > > > > > > > > are the three possible relations here).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It seemed to me that the position of LSV which I so valued
> > > was that
> > > > > > > > LSV
> > > > > > > > > > held that it was the WHOLE of social practice (not just
> > > > > labour), and
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > WHOLE of culture (not just means of production) which were
> > > the
> > > > > > > > operative
> > > > > > > > > > concepts for psychology.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The problem remains though, if we are not to simply adopt
> > > and take
> > > > > > > > over
> > > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > > >xmca mailing list
> > > > > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > > >xmca mailing list
> > > > > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > > >xmca mailing list
> > > > > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andy Blunden :
> http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>tel (H) +61 3
> 9380 9435,
> > > > > >mobile 0409 358 651
> > > > > >
> > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > >xmca mailing list
> > > > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > >xmca mailing list
> > > > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > >xmca mailing list
> > > > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >
> > > > > Andy Blunden :
> http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>tel (H) +61 3
> 9380 9435,
> > > > >mobile 0409 358 651
> > > > >
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >xmca mailing list
> > > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >xmca mailing list
> > > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > > > Andy Blunden :
> http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>tel (H) +61 3
> 9380 9435,
> > > > mobile 0409 358 651
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dr. Elinami Swai
> > > Womens' and Gender Studies
> > > University Hall 4220-A
> > > The University of Toledo
> > > Toledo, OH, 43606
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
>
>--
>Dr. Elinami Swai
>Womens' and Gender Studies
>University Hall 4220-A
>The University of Toledo
>Toledo, OH, 43606
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
mobile 0409 358 651
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Wed Jan 9 19:46 PST 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 13 2008 - 12:33:27 PST