You wrote,
> For another thing I'd just love to see the face of the bank
> teller when you
> deposit a check...
I remember that it was a woman. We pretended that we are interested in each
other (i.e., How are you doing? Fine. And you? Pretty well. I'd like to
deposit this check. Very well. Everything is fine. Thanks. Have a nice
day. You too.) We did a good job of the pretense so I can't remember her
face and I think it is mutual. We used each other, although I agree that
probably it was not the only relationship that we were involved. The other
day I used ATM (automatic teller machine). The result was the same (i.e.,
check was deposit, I did some actions that led me to a success, and I can't
remember how machine looked like and I'm sure it was mutual :-).
By the way, several months ago I sent money to ISCRAT for the conference
fee. Later I got a letter from my bank explaining how many institutions
negotiated the money transfer on my behalf. My agency (if you don't like
the term "my body") indeed can be spread over the ocean.
> Then, seriously but without much time I agree heartily with you, Eugene,
> that precisely because the functionality of things is tangled and
> changing,
> definitions of components of analysis aren't much help if they, too refuse
> to ever stand still and have sharp outlines.
Let me demonstrate why I see the necessity in functional definitions for
"agency/body", "tools", "objects," and "partners." I feel limitations of
activity theory to take into account deep essence of collaboration (or love,
as another example). Why people need each other in collaboration?
traditional answer is to work together on some goal, to build on each other
ideas. For me these answers are not satisfying because they imply that
people are in search of one mighty agency that have bigger, stronger, more
hands, legs, or mind-power. Thus, according this traditional approach, the
essence of collaboration is in creating one mighty agency/body that can do
the activity well (now you maybe understand better why I was talking about
stretching body over people).
I feel resistance to accept this view on human nature. Activity theory
approach seems to be dehumanizing for me. I think activity is only an
occasion for people to meet and engage in some other "trans-activity" ways.
I think that activity theory notions like goals, mediations, community
norms, division of labors, and so on, although useful, are too narrow and
not sufficient to describe the essence of human relations in collaboration.
I think Bakhtin can be a good source to think on alternatives to the
activity theory. I mean his notions of "surplus of vision," consummation,
transgradience, addressivity.
What do you think?
Eugene