[Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic motivation?

[Andy Blunden]

Perhaps Greg. I am not familiar with Leight Starr's work.
The only boundary objects I know are Engestrom's, and in his case it is 
a step in a good direction, but it is a bit like putting a lightweight 
into a heavyweight fight but giving him bigger gloves to compensate.

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


greg.a.thompson@gmail.com wrote:
> Andy,
> I wonder if you would be warmer to Leigh Starrs idea of boundary objects? I do believe a special issue of MCA on Starrs work is in the works. Rumor has it.
> Greg
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>   
>> On Aug 7, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>       
>
>
>