[Xmca-l] Re: Leontyev's activities
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Wed Aug 14 19:14:08 PDT 2013
Two things Greg.
Firstly, most definitely the caddy and the player are involved in the
same project or activity. Self-evidently. Each are also involved in
other activities, and reflecting on these other activities may shed
light on how they come to be collaborating in the shared project of the
player's game. Like master and servant, people always collaborate in a
particular mode. The archetypes of these modes of collaboration are
master-servant, customer-provider and collaboration per se. It is
important to recognise these different modes of collaboration because
otherwise we tend to force *all* collaboration into the same mode, which
may cause us to misconstrue some relations. The fact that different
participants have different social positions within a project means that
they each are bound by different sides of the same norms. That is, the
norms of meaning, belief and action prevailing in the project mandate
different meanings, beliefs and actions for different participants. The
tensions arising from these asymmetrical relationships is one of the
motors of change.
Secondly, no, projects do not exist *between* persons, persons exist
*between* projects. This is just another effort by you, Greg, to make
the unit of analysis the individual person. The relevants units of
analysis of Activity Theory are operation, action and activity. :)
Andy
Greg Thompson wrote:
> ...
>
> "Motive" seems a slippery concept to rest too much on. Andy I'm
> wondering how you answer the question you put to Roland, namely
> whether or not master and slave are participating in the same
> activity/project? Or, what about a golfer and caddy? And so on down
> to, as Phillip and Carol point out - the different participants in a
> discussion on XMCA.
>
> ...
>
> Goffman's answer is interesting in that he doesn't rely on the motives
> (motivational relevancies) of the participants, but rather creates a
> notion of the local context as a "frame" that exists somewhere between
> participants. No one person can dictate the frame (even dictators have
> to deal with the possibility of duplicitousness - the word with a
> side-wards glance - hence irony is a powerful weapon of the weak -
> even if James Scott didn't recognize this, Bakhtin clearly did).
> Frames emerge as participants take parts in the unfolding play of some
> event or happening, and, to a certain extent, without regard to
> alignment of the motives of the participants. Every once in a while
> the motives of all participants create a frame may be relatively
> closely aligned, but it seems much more common that frames are built
> out of a plethora of motives.
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list