[Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder
Huw Lloyd
huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
Mon Sep 22 15:25:33 PDT 2014
Hi Andy,
So it was the object until it was fully recognised that it shouldn't be.
Why does this contradict Leontyev?
Best,
Huw
On 22 September 2014 14:32, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> It's an 12 minute talk, Huw, (8 mins for discussion) aimed at critiquing
> the foundations of AT, proposing a new foundation, and presenting an
> outline of how asbestos was first produced and then banned. :) The full
> story is in the book. But thanks for the pointer. I'll try to address it.
>
> I don't touch on AN Leontyev's dualism of need and object, but you have
> raised it. There is a need for insulation material for buildings. There is
> also a need for buildings that don't give you cancer. The need for
> insulation does not find an adequate object in asbestos because asbestos
> fails to meet the need for safety. A need can be met by different objects.
> I can resolve that contradiction by spelling out the need more precisely.
> But asbestos production *was* the object and yet it didn't meet the need -
> for safe insulation.
>
> But the real object of the talk is to critique the idea that if a social
> formation is producing something (either because the Central Ctee said so
> or because the market said so) then ipso facto there is an objective need
> for it. This is OK for dealing with the child who is not doing their
> homework and failing to learn to read. The teacher with some good reason
> thinks they have the final say, the Truth, about the objective need for
> literacy. But the fact is that the Central Committee and the Market both
> get it very wrong sometimes. And these are after all, for social theory,
> the interesting cases. In large measure that is the problem I am addressing
> myself to.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> One's conceptual frame is unified through commitment to a
>> life-project. Opinions and evidence which don't fit the conceptual
>> frame generated by the central concept of a life-project, its
>> vision of the Good Life. There is a 10 minute talk on this in
>> relation to denial of the dangers posed to health by asbestos
>> here:
>> https://www.academia.edu/8179060/Activity_as_Project_
>> The_Case_of_Asbestos
>>
>> Apologies for going on too long.
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> I've caught up with this thread, briefly.
>>
>> Andy, I think your article could be tightened up a little on the notion
>> of objective as simple. You make the case towards the end that objective
>> need should not be considered as unproblematic (which can be generalised to
>> the notion that anything objective should not be taken as unproblematic).
>> However you also state early on:
>>
>> "Far from there being any need which is met by asbestos and provides an
>> objective motive for its production, it is now universally acknowledged
>> that asbestos kills people."
>>
>> Which, to me, seems to confuse the substance with the functional
>> (technological) properties deemed to be of good value, i.e. that it would
>> be a mistake to state that asbestos itself fulfils a need, rather it is the
>> functional relations fulfilled and established by it, that was deemed
>> productive.
>>
>> I don't think this undermines your point about projects here, but it
>> does, I think, change the view that Leontyev's formulation was not adequate
>> sociologically, to an assertion about how to construe motive (i.e. as
>> related to a means of production).
>>
>> There is, of course, a new danger that one takes the concept in
>> "projects" as some new kind of fixed point. But I think there is already a
>> tradition here, in the form of myth as a means of production.
>>
>> Best,
>> Huw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Charles Bazerman wrote:
>>
>> Michael,
>> I am with you, and not only because of climate change
>> deniers. The sociocultural critique has been important to
>> show that humans make knowledge, and they do it from their own
>> interests and perspectives. Yet, various disciplines and
>> sciences, have come to know more about the world in ways that
>> are less entangled with the limits of individual or small
>> group perceptions and interests.
>> Disciplines do represent the world outside of themselves,
>> gathering data--of course selectively through their own
>> devices, their means of collection, forms of inscription and
>> display, etc... Historically, the methodological standards in
>> different fields have evolved to include more awareness of the
>> contingency, fragility, and specificity of samples, data and
>> analysis--along with increasing cleverness of our tools.
>> This is what methodology is all about. I tend to view
>> objectivity not as an absolute, but an awareness of ways in
>> which we are entangled with the phenomena we are trying to
>> study, and to find ways to disentangle ourselves less.
>> So from this perspective, incorporating the sociocultural
>> critique creates challenges to maintain the persuasiveness of
>> our data, representation, and analysis. Over the last few
>> decades, we have been struggling in different disciplines to
>> incorporate this critique but yet maintain the disciplinary
>> projects of advancing contingent, but useful and reliable
>> knowledge. I like your term warranted assertability. I myself
>> have relied on the idea of accountability--in terms of being
>> able to give a good account of your research actions when
>> queried from various directions. But it is important to the
>> advance of knowledge that we find ways to gather and
>> understand information about the world (in which we are both
>> living parts and the constructors of knowledge about that
>> world including ourselves) that recognizes the contingency of
>> our knowledge but does not evaporate our confidence in that
>> knowledge into a vapor of contingency only.
>>
>> I have struggled with this issue for many years in my work on
>> the rhetoric of science and have discussed it in various ways,
>> drawing on the work of many others (Ludwik Fleck still seems
>> important to me over many years), but more work needs to be
>> done to crystallize an understanding that leaves science and
>> social science standing despite it being created by poor,
>> frail, interested, humans of limited and skewed vision.
>> best,
>> Chuck
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Glassman, Michael" <glassman.13@osu.edu
>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>>
>> Date: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:21 am
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder
>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that articles like this can be a double
>> edged sword. They use examples where culture has an
>> influence on how we see things but then offer the
>> generalization that science is perspective. This is the
>> same line you hear by climate deniers who claim that the
>> climatologists have a liberal bias. Science is based on
>> individual perspective until it doesn't. I'm their book
>> is a much more nuanced discussion. This is a really
>> complex issue which at this particular moment has
>> extraordinary import. Maybe we need to find other ways to
>> discuss this - like warranted assertability. Perhaps I
>> have been spending too much time reading about the
>> politics of climate change lately and it has spooked me.
>>
>> Michael
>> ________________________________________
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>] on behalf of
>> David Preiss [daviddpreiss@gmail.com
>> <mailto:daviddpreiss@gmail.com>]
>> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 9:41 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder
>>
>> And they make claims for all humankind.
>>
>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>>
>>
>> El 21-09-2014, a las 22:16, Martin John Packer
>> <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co <mailto:mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>>
>> escribió:
>>
>> So there are two distinct problems here: First, the
>> researchers are
>> not diverse. Second, the people they (we?) study are not
>> diverse.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> On Sep 21, 2014, at 8:11 PM, David Preiss
>> <daviddpreiss@gmail.com
>> <mailto:daviddpreiss@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Loved the WEIRD acronym. One of the best ironies
>> I've seen in
>> recent scientific writing.
>>
>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>>
>>
>> El 21-09-2014, a las 18:57, Rod Parker-Rees
>>
>> <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk
>> <mailto:R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>> escribió:
>>
>> Great article, David - highlights the
>> importance (at every level)
>> of being aware of what others might find odd about us
>> (secondary socialisation?).
>>
>> Rod
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>
>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>] On Behalf Of
>> David Preiss
>>
>> Sent: 21 September 2014 18:31
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder
>>
>> This article is revelant for this topic:
>> http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~
>> henrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf
>> <http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/%
>> 7Ehenrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf>
>>
>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>>
>>
>> El 21-09-2014, a las 13:42, mike cole
>> <mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>>
>> escribió:
>>
>> The book by Medin and Bang, "Who's asking"
>> published by MIT is GREAT
>> reading. Seeing this in Scientific
>> American is super.
>>
>> mike
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:18 AM, David
>> Preiss <daviddpreiss@gmail.com
>> <mailto:daviddpreiss@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What a fantastic piece Peter! Loved
>> the references to primatology.
>> David
>>
>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>>
>>
>> El 21-09-2014, a las 7:31, Peter
>> Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu
>> <mailto:smago@uga.edu>> escribió:
>>
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.
>> com/article/point-of-view-affects-how-s
>> cience-is-done/
>>
>> --
>>
>> Development and Evolution are both ...
>> "processes of construction
>> and
>>
>> re- construction in which heterogeneous
>> resources are
>> contingently but
>>
>> more or less reliably reassembled for each
>> life cycle." [Oyama,
>> Griffiths, and Gray, 2001]
>>
>> ________________________________
>> [
>>
>> This email and any files with it are
>> confidential and intended
>> solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is
>> addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then
>> copying, distribution or other use of the information
>> contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely
>> on it. If you have received this email in error please let
>> the sender know immediately and delete it from your
>> system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure.
>> While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no
>> responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility
>> to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University
>> does not accept responsibility for any changes made after
>> it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments
>> constitutes an order for goods or services unless
>> accompanied by an official order form.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list