I understand Bill's response (citing Wertsch and Bakhtin for the tensions
between stabilitities and instabilities and de Certeau's notion of tactics
of use) to mean that mediational means by their nature are variable or
multifunctional, so solo activity is not a special or complex case, it is
just one normal outcome of internalization.
I think another issue here is that in many cases internalization is not and
cannot in principle be complete because what I am learning is how to *act
with* artifacts. For example, when I learn to play the piano, I don't
internalize the piano--and the piano is a sociohistorical object that
emobodies musical theories (as the gamelan embodies other theories) , the
practice of individual performance, particular craft practices, particular
social locations (e.g., is it a Steinway grand or a shortened electronic
keyboard?), etc.
The other issue that that I think is important is externalization. A lot
of activity, even "solo" activity, involves externalizations. Writing is a
good example. I'm externalizing now, drawing on what I have internalized
earlier, but my writing also is mediated by the evolving textual
artifact(s) I produce. For that matter, speech and piano playing are also
externalizations of this kind.
I guess my sense is that activity is always joint because it is embedded in
histories, which is not to deny that the person (mind and body) is
miraculously capable of learning and transforming.
Paul Prior
p-prior who-is-at uiuc.edu
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign