I want to comment on what people wrote recently.
1. Individual activity. I guess when Gordon, Yrjo, and I wrote about =
individual activity we wrote in the context of human sociocultural =
activities and practices. Michael Glassman shifted the discussion to =
embrace non-human and non-sociocultural activities of apes in Kohler's =
experiments. I think this shift is interesting and intriguing as we =
could see in Ana's and Rolfe's (I wish both of them elaborated more on =
the issue of different level of analysis and different levels of =
development. I really agree with Ana that Vygotsky's, unlike Piaget's, =
focus on development from the social-individual to the =
individual-social).
As for Kohler's experiments with apes, my premise is that activity of =
individual (animal or human) should be considered in the context of =
their entire life. Kohler's apes were POZ ("Prisoners Of Zoo"). Their =
solo and joint activities with each other were embedded in the =
activities of the people structuring their life, including Kohler. Not =
only the apes' activities described by Kohler were structured and =
organized by him and his assistants and the zoo as an institution but =
the apes might be even aware of that. It is difficult to judge what =
kind of meaning of Kohler's situations the apes might have but the =
observations by Premack and Woodruff (1978, Does the chimpanzee have a =
theory of mind?, in The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4) on POZ apes =
and by de Waal (1982, Chimpanzee politics: Power and sex among apes) on =
semi-POZ apes make me think that apes are aware of people structuring =
their activities. I am not a specialist in ape or zoo- psychology but I =
think that the notions of solo and joint activities can be applied to =
such social animals as apes (i.e., where solo activity is embedded in =
joint activity, joint activity involves solo activity).
I'd like to ask Yrjo to write more on division of labor. I'm not sure =
that I understand what Yrjo meant by this notion. Is it firmly divided =
functions in the activity among people fixed by the norms or any =
flexibly or temporary distributed cognition? I guess what I don't =
understand is whether the notion of division of labor is referred to =
stable norms (which are often cultural, historical, and institutional) =
or to activity dynamics (or both)?
2. Agency & motive. I agree with Jesper who wrote,
"For those reasons I have increasingly come to think about motives or =
intention as something which emerges and develops trough the activity. =
The person might tell a story about his or her motives or intentions, =
but in some sense it seems like an account which is produced after the =
activity and not something which starts the activity. An interesting =
example is for instance the classroom talk, where it is my experience =
that when you ask people why they said something, they very often are =
unable to answer and thinks it is a funny question to ask. The utterance =
was more part of an ongoing activity in the classroom and not clearly =
motivated."
I think that motive as an expression of individuality is a =
socio-historico-cultural phenomenon rather than the initial principle of =
activity. Like Jesper, I suspect it is an ideological, story-telling =
phenomenon probably born with the question, "Why did you do that?" =
Russian historian Losev seems to suggest that the notion of personal =
responsibility developed with a transition to a city-type civilization.
3. Progress and diversity. I both agree and disagree with Jesper that, =
Ian Moll and Peter Smagorinsky were talking about "different things." I =
agree because Ian and Peter presented two different paradigms that, like =
any different paradigms, have different focuses and themes. The main =
theme of Ian's paradigm (similar to Luria's in many respects but, I =
hope, not identical) seems to be "nation building" -- struggle against =
poverty, illiteracy, hanger, unemployment, and consequences of the South =
African apartheid. Peter's main theme seems to be peace coexistence of =
different cultures, struggle against cultural dominance and oppression, =
appreciation of cultural synergy and diversity of cultural values.
I respectfully disagree with Jesper because close look at both Ian's and =
Peter's papers shows that both voices use each other as backgrounds that =
they criticize. Ian criticizes Peter's paradigm for the "paralysis of =
action" and "tacit apartheid" -- Ian seems to feel that it is =
hypocritical to talk about diversity of values when power and welfare is =
strongly associated with literacy, schooling, and other Western skills =
and values. The question becomes how to give these skills to =
disadvantaged population. Peter seems to imply a reform of Western =
society to allow power and welfare to be associated with diversity of =
skills and values. Having historical experience of South Africa, Ian =
probably considers Peter's goals as utopian and idealistic that =
potentially can block the ongoing progress of deconstruction of the =
apartheid. While, having historical experience of the US, Peter =
probably can suspect the danger for a new form of cultural domination =
and oppression in the goals proposed by Ian. I think that the resent =
decades in both countries have provided the ground for both paradigms: =
destruction of the institute of apartheid in South Africa seems to push =
for the universal progress paradigm while changes in gender, race, =
cultural relations in the US seems to push for the appreciation of =
cultural diversity paradigm.
Parenthetically, I want to add that I seem to hear these two paradigms =
in the US as well. In the US school reform movement, there are many =
voices and many paradigms. One of which belongs to minority (but not =
only minority) voices who want to gain success for their children within =
Western values and Western system of education considering school as =
equalizer for societal and economic power and welfare. Another belongs =
to mainly white liberal voices who want to reform the system of =
education all together to embrace different cultures considering school =
as an extension of local community. I found support for this picture in =
Graubard's analysis of the free school movement at the end of the 60s -- =
beginning of the 70s (1972, The free school movement. In Harvard =
Educational Review, 42 (3), 351-373).
Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz