You ask what is social responsibility in a CHAT framework. I've been
thinking along the lines of what is morality in a CHAT framework.
Perhaps the two might coincide. I actually see Activity Theory as
one with a strong moral component. It entails, as I see it, two
types of morality: cooperative morality and critical morality, and
therefore two levels of social responsibility. The first level of social
responsibility is cooperative morality. This is where we take on the
cooperative structure of our social organization. We play the roles
that are assigned to us. We are all relatively successful in this:
we are socially responsible because we are humans, and we are humans
because we are socially responsible. The second, and more important,
level of social responsibility is critical morality. We need to
realize that although the social organization was created to act
in the best interests of all, as it reproduces itself (which it is
able to do through cooperative morality) its motivations do not
necessarily serve the interests of every (or even most). Thus, it
is our responsibility to be aware of the cooperative motivations of
our social organization, and the way in which they relate to our
individual actions. Much more difficult, and more uncomfortable
than cooperative morality. Beyond that, it is our duty as socially
responsible teachers to enable our students to do the same thing.
(We can't teach them the connection, we can only teach them that
there is a connection, and that there is a way of making the
connection). What will occur is individuals begin to realize
disconnections between the cooperative motivations for the actions
they take, and the motivations they realize is part of their life
(I'm sorry, I'm not saying this well) is tension that will
eventually cause a change in the larger activity system.
Michael Glassman
University of Houston