Hi Glenn,
The "neighbouring activity systems" is along the lines of what I have been thinking about also -- as in extended triangles that are juxtaposed (alternatively: bordering and merging umwelts). Recently I have been thinking mostly about the collective description, as you can see in the working postings parts 1-6 last month. But my own interactions are often with one other -- dyadic, like those that you have referred to.
I have been using the term 'interpenetrating activity systems' to try to capture the sense in which activity systems can share several elements, but not all -- these might be rules, community, etc. , but without complete overlap. Sometimes there are triadic interactions. When Bill, Bob, and Susan get together, they are embassadors of their respective institutions, their collective day-to-day activity systems, and the three form their interactions together in yet another emergent-system, that is subordinate to their day-to-day systems, as are many of our dyadic interactions. It is unclear how to represent these interactions well, except as juxtaposed systems in which the subjects are re-presented at an individual level, with different rules and community re-presented by their embassadorship, and so in some ways our investigations are similar. I cannot well describe the interactions as one system, because that system is not well formed -- the interactions seem better described as three interpenetrating
systems (insofar as we share the same object -- sometimes)
This brings me to the notion of 'between-ness' and an alternative: "among-ness", the distinction, respectively, being a description of that shared pair-wise and that shared as distributed three-wise, four-wise, etc. Now it is only a guess that this sense of between-ness is NOT the same as what was being thought of by Arne and Jay-- some oldtimers ( Eva, Jay, Alfred, Mike et al.) might be able to correct me here and are whole-heartedly invited to comment. As I have been able to re-formulate in an historical vacuum (my own fault for not taking the time to search the archives) my take on "between-ness" and "among-ness" are not equivalent -- one cannot be reduced or built up to the other, but are complementary lenses, affordind different views. At the collective level, it would seem as if the emphasis is on "among-ness". Among-ness collapses to "between-ness" in the special case of dyadic interaction.
The ideal facets of Object to which Arne was referring might be described, with this distinction in mind, as "among-ness" that I will substitute with some trepidation: i.e. "but also social subjects, that it seems better to speak of the *among-ness* of objects and motives: shared *among* actors inside of one community, and also *among* communities, and still larger associations." ???? It would be a waste to make this distinction unless it has some import -- the difference that makes a difference being the resolution of contradictions that might emerge *between* interpenetrating,or neighboring, systems. In the case of my "what's the point?" paper, the resolution of the "contradiction" became the goal of subsequent actions. In my present project the resolution must occur in order to form a larger collective system, that unless resolved precludes the collective's formation.
If you would like a copy of the "what's the point paper", i'd be glad to send it to you -- look for the 'guided inquiry' and discussion sections that index "socio-cognitive dissonance". In that paper it was the resolution of the competing predictions by two students (a contradiction?) that affected what we did together -- the emergent quality seems similar to what you have been describing.
All of what I have written tonight is as formative, aka half-baked, as one can get, especially as everything that I have read so far treats contradiction between categories within one system of activity, not between systems of activity. (Can anyone suggest something otherwise?)
Glenn, I'd like to be more grounded in what you are working on, so I do not draw ecologically-invalid parallels -- are there some things that might be OK for you to post?
Sincerely,
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Lesley College, 31 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:01:39 PST