[Xmca-l] Re: Object of activity (was: Swedish activist Elon Ersson wins the day)
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Thu Jul 26 18:47:00 PDT 2018
Julian,
In Activity Theory, the idea of 'germ cell' has partially
incorporated the fact that projects 'evolve' as they are
realised. It always amused me that the Russian word
/proyekt/ translates as either 'project' or 'design'. The
research into "design projects," like Mike's work on 5D, are
based on the idea that goals evolve in the course of a
subject-object interaction. My main criticism of the
Engestrom approach is that it does not theorise
/mis/conceptions, only concretisation.
I can see your logic in theorising Elin's project in terms
of particular and universal. Certainly, we can make no
progress without understanding the the goal is a /concept/,
and I think that it is a weakness of the Leontyev approach,
in its insistence on the goal being objective, rather than a
concept, which inherently contains unforeseen contradictions
and misconceptions in its subjective/objective unfolding.
However, universal/particular does not quite capture the
essential issues here. In Hegel's theorising the
transformation of Purpose into Intention is in terms of
/realisation/, which hinges on the idea that there can be no
unproblematic boundary placed around the object - the
initial act has necessarily has unforeseen consequences,
which go beyond what the actor can reasonably foresee. As a
result Hegel was not a supporter of civil disobedience.
Obviously, I part company with Hegel there!
I agree that the concept of 'object' is inherently slippery.
And it is no less slippery in Russian or German than it is
in English. My take on this is in
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Concept%20of%20Object.pdf
. I haven't read the text that Huw provided, but I will.
Hegel's take on all this, which I think, for all its faults,
is more adequate than any past formulation by CHAT writers,
I review here:
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Hegel%20on%20action.pdf
The points you raise, Julian, that Elon acted as part of a
movement, not as an individual, and that her goals were
those of there movement, not just her own, that the goal
(task) which was realised necessarily differed from the goal
which was initially conceptualised, but in either case, the
goal can only be understood in the context of the universal
/reason for doing it/, the concept which the movement had of
its object (motive, activity goal), which is realised only
by multiple actions by multiple actors overt time, and is in
any case never what anyone actually conceived of in the
beginning. Hegel calls this Welfare, the final outcome of
Intentions (which are not just subjective for Hegel, and nor
are they simply objective, but concepts which evolve from
subjective to objective as they are realised, and the
individual's action interacts with the world and ripples
spread across the surface of the pond).
Elon of course acted very much with a consciousness that the
object (in the sense of 'means') is unbounded - that is, the
impact of her actions on the entire social and political
world; she acts not just on an airline crew but on the
entire political set-up. This was a crucial issue on Mike's
5D Project - instances of 5D sank or swam as an outcome of
changes in the entire socio-political system as it was
realised in the particular community.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 27/07/2018 1:54 AM, Julian Williams wrote:
>
> Andy/Huw and all
>
>
>
> Elin (sorry I put Elon by mistake in my original) went to
> the airport to rescue a young refugee from deportation… I
> guess this was a coordinated effort by her refugee
> campaign group who would have helped her plan, buy the
> ticket, etc (and the Americans would have dragged them off
> and sent the lot to guantanamo bay on conspiracy charges …
> ?) but in fact she found a different, older refugee was
> being deported (the young man they expected to be there
> having been deported on a different route). So she did not
> fulfil her*initial* intended conscious goal, but something
> happened during the activity and she still did get a
> refugee off the plane and appear to win the day. The
> initial goal was not achieved, but a new goal developed
> during the activity… that made complete sense within the
> activity context. The activity was not just about the
> young man (or the old guy) … obviously.
>
>
>
> Ultimately, anyway, probably (like the workers’ struggles
> Andy mentions) this older refugee will also be deported at
> a later date. A loss then, because even the amended goal
> (to rescue him, and save his life) will be undone, but it
> would still be right to say that the action/activity was
> successful, because the campaign continues more strongly,
> and many people know better what is going on ‘in our name’
> than did before.
>
>
>
> The idea of goals and motives developing in activity is an
> important one (in any terminology) and I think Leontiev
> affords that by making the distinction (and offering a
> potential contradiction) between individual conscious acts
> (related to ‘goals’) and the object-motive of collective
> activity (which rarely aligns with the conscious goals of
> many of the acting subjects jointly engaged). A student
> may study the text because it is required for the exam (eg
> a history text), but become interested in it for the sake,
> developing a new social motive of the wider history-object
> (to make sure history doesn’t repeat itself!)
>
>
>
> What is not clear in Leontiev, I think, is that actions
> sometimes have conscious goals/motives at several levels:
> I think Elin knew what she was doing in the Particular
> case, but also acted consciously with a Universal
> principle in mind … this might help explain how she is so
> easily able to change the particular goal in line with the
> more general principle. And winning a bunch of passengers
> on that particular flight was an important moment – the
> football team that stood up also and maybe was
> supportively refusing to sit down , it is a symbol for
> footballers everywhere - while technology linked that to
> a worldwide movement.
>
>
>
> On the Object: I find in English language texts (which is
> all I can read) that the conception of Object is very
> slippery, yes: a lot has been written about this on xmca
> in the past. But I quite like this slipperiness, because
> it more suits a dialectic, where the ‘thing’ being worked
> on changes/develops over time and space, and over the
> consciousnesses of the many subjects working on it.
>
>
>
> But if someone could help nail all this down conceptually
> I think it would help clarify a lot of us.
>
>
>
> Julian
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of
> Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
> *Reply-To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Thursday, 26 July 2018 at 14:55
> *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Object of activity (was: Swedish
> activist Elon Ersson wins the day)
>
>
>
> Sure, the terminology is so variable, it is the meaning
> not the word which must be paid attention to. But it is
> not about *multiple* goals, or *plurality*. The crucial
> distinction, the distinction which is constitutive of
> consciousness, is the "task goal" and the reason for the
> task. That's a definite "two-ness." Though, this does not
> rule out "plurality."
>
> a
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>
> On 26/07/2018 11:46 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
> In this terminology the object is simply the artefact
> pertaining to the activity. I doubt very much whether
> there is alignment with Engestrom other than
> potentially some basic referents.
>
>
>
> As I said, the terms do not change my own system of
> relations. I simply bow to a custom articulated by a
> Russian speaker with a long history in the tradition
> of activity theory.
>
>
>
> On the matter of multiple goals, this is not ambiguous
> to the degree that it reflects the nesting that takes
> place in such activity, i.e. the plurality is authentic.
>
>
>
> If you wish to engage any thinking in the matter, I
> suggest you'd be better off starting from Gregory
> Bedny's chapter. I'll email Gregory to see if he is
> willing to share the chapter.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Huw
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 26 July 2018 at 11:28, Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
> So "object" in your sense, the same sense in which
> Engestrom uses "object." This is something quite
> different from "goal" in Leontyev's sense, which
> is what the subject intends to transform the
> object into. Except that that concept of "goal"
> (intention) does not exist in Engestrom's system,
> only "outcome", which is clearly not the same
> thing as "goal" because things don't always go as
> intended. But from what I gather of "according to
> the activity goal", the "activity goal" is what
> Leontyev called the "motivation" - the reason for
> doing something. What you (and Engestrom) are
> calling "object" is like what Marx refers to as
> /Arbeitsgegenstand /- or "object of labour" (the
> "something" in your quote) whose form is changed.
> I think that's the Russian /predmet/. Fair enough.
>
> So you are contrasting "task goal" and "goal of
> activity". Fair enough, but isn't it confusing to
> use "goal" for both? That means you can never use
> the word "goal" without qualifying it as the "task
> goal" or the "goal of activity".
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>
> On 26/07/2018 7:13 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
> Since my original endeavours I have switched
> to referring to the task goal or goal of
> activity, in conformance with Bedny et al's
> terminology. Personally this does not change
> my systemic formulations, but it does seem to
> point to holes in others', whilst reducing
> ambiguity.
>
> "An object of activity that can be material or
> mental (symbols, images, etc.) is something
> that can be modified by a subject according to
> the activity goal (Bedny and Karwowski, 2007;
> Leont’ev, 1981; Rubinshtein, 1957; Zinchenko,
> 1995)." Bedny (2015, p. 91)
>
>
>
> This is from the chapter "Basic Concepts and
> Terminology" which offers further elaboration
> (ref below).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Huw
>
>
>
> Bedny, G. Z. (2015) /Application of
> Systemic-Structural Activity Theory to Design
> and Training/. Boca Raton: CRC Press
>
>
>
> On 26 July 2018 at 02:54, Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org
> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
> ... to continue this dialogue on winning
> and losing, a now-departed friend who was
> a writer once commented to me after we had
> together watched an inspiring play
> performed by Melbourne Workers' Theatre,
> that for the working class *every*
> struggle, every story of victory, ends in
> defeat, simply because the object of the
> workers' movement lies if at all in the
> future; the road to socialism is a series
> of small victories followed by defeats.
> Until .... So Elon is acting in a fine
> tradition.
>
> The distinction between goal and object
> (by whatever names) was relevant for the
> recent xmca discussion around the
> Brazilian social movements, which kept
> popping up with different goals, but, one
> suspects, shared a common object.
>
> Andy
>
> PS. For the distinction between goal and
> object, I rely on A N Leonytev's succinct
> definition of action: "Processes, the
> object and motive of which do not coincide
> with one another, we shall call
> ‘actions’." but choice of words for
> object, goal, aim, motive, etc., is
> problematic. I have chosen "object" for
> what Hegel calls "Intention" and Leontyev
> calls "motivation" and "goal" for what ANL
> calls "object" in the above quote.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>
>
> On 25/07/2018 10:21 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>
> She achieved her goal. Her object will
> take longer to realise. Important to
> recognise the difference.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>
>
> On 25/07/2018 10:18 PM, Julian
> Williams wrote:
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> She wins and yet she doesn’t – the
> guy she went to ‘rescue’ was
> deported on another flight, but
> she got the support of people on
> the plane (some even joined her
> protest) and is being applauded by
> millions worldwide now: this is a
> growing aspect of resistance
> activism, losing and winning.
>
>
>
> And the battle against
> deportations, and indeed fascism,
> in Sweden and elsewhere continues….
>
>
>
> Julian
>
>
>
> *From: *<
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd>.edu>
> on behalf of Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org>
> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>
> *Reply-To: *"eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at
> 13:11
> *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu"
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Swedish
> activist Elon Ersson wins the day
>
>
>
> Yes, you can see the stress on his
> young women's face and she stands
> strong under enormous pressure and
> she wins. Wonderful!
>
> andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>
>
> On 25/07/2018 10:07 PM, Julian
> Williams wrote:
>
> I think you and xmca may like
> this:
>
>
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/25/swedish-student-plane-protest-stops-mans-deportation-afghanistan
>
>
>
> ☺
>
>
>
> Julian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180727/c81399ae/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list