[Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic motivation?

[Andy Blunden]

Yes, I understand that, Cristina. That is Leontyev's approach. You have 
correctly represented it.
It's just that I don't agree with it.
As I suggested, to privilege one point of view as the true point of view 
and all other points of view as "personal"
(1) Sets up a bad dualism, actually far worse than any dualism Descartes 
was guilty of.
(2) Reflects the world ANL lived in: the PolitBuro's view was the 
"objective" and "true" aim of all activities in the USSR.  Everyone 
fulfilled their targets, exceptr of course for dissidents and saboteurs, 
but in fact it was all mostly a fiction. Since the 1940s, sociologists 
have shown that multiple interests are at play in any business 
enterprise. A binary relation is quite inadequate to represent the 
relations active within a business or any activity, far less a modern 
capitalist country.
(3) Vygotsky's approach is in my opinion far superior, in that instead 
of having an unproblematic, objective or true object, it relies on how 
each of the participants in the activity conceive of its object. This 
was not in itself sufficient for an Activity Theory, but it is a much 
better start than Leontyev's which is inferior to sociological theories 
of 60 years ago, as I see it.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Maria Cristina Migliore wrote:
> Andy,
>
> I intend objective motive as the motive of the activity. Objective does not
> refer to objectivity, objectiveness and judging objectively here. Objective
> motive refers to the idea that "the object of an activity is its true
> motive."
> This is the terminology proposed by Leontiev in Activity, Consciousness,
> and Personality, section 3.5 The General Structure of Activity, page 62
> However, I tend to not use the locution 'objective motive'. But
> motive/object.
>
> H
>