Yes, I agree the tension between individual psycholoigism and collective
(historical) activity comes through in the work.
One element that might be interesting to explore is cultural-historical
activity - work, play etc - countered to the activity of historical
processes of mind. In the latter perception, memory, creativity etc came to
mind as an area of emphasis. Davydov, or at least my take, argues against an
approach of the activity of memory, perception etc which as I understand it
was one direction of Leontev's work. The other being the work of Zaporzhets
and El'konin with an emphasis on "leading activities" such as play, school,
emotional contact, work etc. Davydov's seemed to argue that the rightful
place to study perception, creativity etc is in cultural-historical
activities, not them being activities in themselves.
Second, in response to Phillip would not labor or work have a special
meaning in relation to Marxism. Its meaning is more than simply one of the
activities we engage in. We engage in variety of work, activity, which may
not be referred to as such in the everyday sense of the term. I believe it
was Helena who mentioned the importance of expanding to work activities such
things as parenting and child care. Yet, with labor being an historical
product and all, not all activities we engage in are Activity.
Lastly, when Phillip says,
"this seems a chicken/egg predicament - and i don't know what sort of
anthropological/archeological evidence he's using - it runs counter to
contemporary thought about the physical structure of the brain and
consciousness - (Edelmann, for example)"
what comes to the surface is a tension at least philosophically I think. I
mean would not Leontev situate the above as metaphsical or idealist. It is
not to say physical structure of the brain does not play an important role,
of course it does, but studying it outside the context of human activity
does not really tell us much. Like Marx's reference to the eye becoming a
"human eye" - can't find Leontev's reference at the moment.
Phillip, I am not familar with Edelmann - could you elaborate - he might
serve as an interesting contrast. It might also make the implications of one
view or the other more explicit.
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:00:59 PDT