This is a long response to Paul re. units of analysis, CHAT and linguistic
philosophy which are things I'm still struggling to understand. Delete it if
you're one of the brilliant, terrifying, scintillating people who knows this
stuff inside out already.
Paul,
Many thanks for your long and thoughtful message. I hope I've understood you
correctly in my reply but I know you'll tell me if that's not the case!
I think there *is* a fundamental difference here and it comes back to the
central dilemma I have with CHAT - coming as I do from a cultural theory
tradition and having been influenced by continental linguistic philosophers.
Your assumption is that the intentions of individuals form a definitive
element of the activity system. My assumption is that the activity system
posits individuals and their motives - not in a totally determining way but
in a *generic* way i.e. in the way that the genre 'historical novel'
constrains what can properly be said - and properly be heard - between two
embossed paper covers selling for £5.99 in Smiths (excuse the culturally
specific referent). So the genre 'Eng lit seminar' (which you rightly point
out is determined by my own focus on adult education in a particular
culture - but lets stick with it for now) does not allow individuals to
pursue their own motives in an unconstrained way. I'd use Althusser's
concept of 'interpellation' here. The subjects of the activity system are
called into being by the activity system - or rather by the vastly
interwoven complex of systems which they have taken part in over the course
of their lives, some of which have a bearing on their participation in the
genre 'Eng lit seminar'. The student in the Eng lit seminar is *not* free to
pursue her supposed intention to get a good grade unconstrained by the
conventions of that generic situation - for example that she should share
her thinking with the seminar group, that the responses of the group dictate
whether her thinking is valued or not, that the assessment tasks will
ultimately be marked by the tutor who 'knows' the difference between deep
understanding and strategic performance, that certain readings of a certain
text will be well received and others will not, that the awarding
institution will penalise her for plagiarism (if she is caught) and so on.
These are only some of the constraints which bear most obviously on the
intention 'to get a good grade'. The seminar addresses the student as a
particular kind of member (novice) of a particular academic community of
practice. One of the great problems facing UK HE after the massive expansion
of the 80s and 90s is that students continue to be addressed in this way
when they lack the cultural allegiances that would enable them to respond
unambiguously. Or put another way, students are at the intersection of
contradictory activity systems, interpellating them in different ways, and
it is no longer the case that the academic one will prevail. For example,
the student's family (who have never sent one of their number to college
before) may be addressing her as 'the person who will do well at college,
because we all admire/love/respect/support her so much'. Consumer culture
may be addressing her as 'the person who deserves a good grade in this
seminar because she's paid in all the hours that the course handout says she
should pay in and now it's up to the tutor to deliver her side of the deal'.
The competitive culture of the examination system may be addressing her as
'the owner of certain ideas about this text, which are valuable currency
when it comes to examination and which she should keep to herself'. These
internalised interpellations influence her response to the immediate
intepellation of the seminar itself. Disruptions to the genre may be
assimilable within the genre, and the genre may change. Or they may not be
assimilable, in which case there is breakdown, 'faux pas', and the
possibility of social exclusion or 'failure' for the disrupter.
For Derrida et al substitute 'language' or semiotic system for activity
systems and human agency/intentionality (individual and collective)
disappears from view or is dispersed in the interplay of local activity
systems (Lyotard). I do not say that I am on the side of Derrida here - in
fact I gravitated to CHAT as a way of expressing my optimism that human
agency can be brought back in - but I don't think it can be done by
pretending that identity-in-language or the concept of individual motivation
hasn't been problematised in the first instance. (I think one way forward
may be to understand more about the nature of language as an activity
system, not just ontogenetically but in the currency and particularity of
concrete speech acts, rather than seeking to interpret human activity as
structured like a language - as per Lacan - but that's another story).
The logical conclusion of your separation of the learning interaction into
two activity systems is that it can continue to be separated ad infinitum
according to the intentions of all the individuals involved (why stop at
teachers and students when students come to learning with many
culturally-determined differences in their approach to learning?). And
surely that undermines the whole principle of taking the interaction as the
unit of analysis rather than the individual? What is interesting about the
interactionist approach is that we have to attend to how individuals, and
their motives, are called into being - their identity is *given to them*,
provisionally and conditionally - by the activity system in which they
participate. And this *without* losing sight of the fact that they are
simultaneously interpellated by other activity systems which they have
internalised more or less successfully in order to construct a more-or-less
continuous and integrated human identity. Yes, students and teachers take
part in different activity systems but to suggest that we therefore can't
analyse the learning interaction as a single system in an interactionist way
is surely the counsel of despair?
The beauty of activity-system-as-genre as a unit of analysis is that it
brings to life the maxim that 'We make our own history but in circumstances
not of our own choosing'. But for the analysis itself, I think we're just
laying out where the problems might start! (any thoughts on methodology
anyone???)
very best wishes,
Helen
(If there's anyone on the XMCA circuit who's interested in this stuff and
would like to supervise my research I would be overjoyed to hear from you.
I'm stuck on a peninsular in the SW of England but I'd happily travel, in
reality or virtuality, to work with the right person.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:44 PDT