[Xmca-l] Re: Leontyev's activities

[Andy Blunden]

Huw, Leontyev is quite specific that needs are the product 
of activity.
One of the distinctions he makes between human life and 
non-human life
is that human beings produce their own needs, historically, 
as a
community, whereas for an animal its needs are given. So we 
have a kind
of duplicated world: needs and the means of their 
satisfaction (labour).
Like stimulus and response: which comes first? or do we need 
a new
concept which avoids this duplication of the world.

There are different interpretations of Leontyev; as I read 
him, the
motive (let's use this word rather than "need") is objective 
for a
person, that is the motive of the activity, as opposed to 
the actions of
an individual person who participates in the activity, who 
may have
other motives. Even though the motive of the activity is 
produced
culturally and historically, it is in the world, objective. 
It has
always been a problem for me what on Earth can be an 
objective need
(other than those elusive "vital" needs). Like, you work in 
a gun
factory; your motive is to earn a wage so as to look after 
your family.
But you know the motive of the work is to produce guns. But 
why does the
community need guns? Where did that come from? And does the 
factory
owner really care whether he is selling guns or toys, so 
long as he
makes a profit. Others may do better justice to Leontyev's 
argument
here, but I have trouble with this.

Peg: yes, Leontyev starts off with single-cell creatures and 
works his
way up. There *is* a big leap though, with tasks that are 
completed by
multiple actions, potentially by different individuals, and 
most
imporantly, the production of tools, means which become 
themselves
needs. Tracing mind from its origins in non-human life is 
OK, but I have
trouble with ANL's concept of "subject", which could be a 
microbe
equally as a human.

Andy

Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> On 10 August 2013 15:12, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net 
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     Well Huw, I didn't mean to introduce a diversion by taking
>     computers as an example. I could have taken a stone tool just as well.
>
>
> Yes.
>  
>
>     It seems, Huw, that in responding to my challenge you have made a
>     start at developing a theory of human needs.
>
>
> 'fraid not.  Simply asking the question.
>  
>
>     Viz., that there are certain "vital" needs, and all other "needs"
>     are merely means to meet these vital needs. I don't imagine that I
>     am going to be able to refute the claims for a theory of human
>     needs in a single message, it is after simply the claim for the
>     existence of human nature - a concept with a very long history!
>     (Aristotle built his theory of biology on the basis of a theory of
>     needs.) But "vital" human needs are very elastic and other than in
>     very general terms are quite indefinable. But as we change our
>     world, what you need to live in that world are very real and very
>     specific, and those needs arise directly out of participation in
>     that life-world. Which of the thousand different ways that there
>     are to meet the "vital" need of, say, nutrition, becomes a real
>     need for a person, is determined by the cultural context of a
>     person's life and their activity.
>
>
> But these "real needs" are known needs.  Which Leontyev calls motives, 
> does he not?
>  
>
>     So I prefer Activity Theory, in which needs are the product of
>     activity, while, as conceived in any given activity, they provide
>     the motive for that activity.
>
>
> So it seems that we do not know whether needs are produced, or whether 
> they are exposed.   Did Leontyev make such a distinction?
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>
>
>     Andy
>
>
>     Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>         On 9 August 2013 14:57, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>          
>
>             I don't have any doubt that needs are produced. 25 years
>             ago no-one needed
>             a computer. Now it seems that everyone needs them. I don't
>             see you r
>             objection to this, Huw?
>
>
>                
>
>         Well, if you consider needs as primal (vital) such things as
>         computers and
>         the languages people speak are simply ways to meet such needs.
>
>         >From a Marxian social perspective computing is interesting in
>         this respect
>         in that the needs met by the first generation workers is
>         qualitatively
>         different to the management saturated situation we have now.
>          i.e. on the
>         cusp of technological practice workers are more free from the
>         tyranny of
>         alienation.
>          
>
>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden