Hi Paul,
I don't see physical and mental labor as separated. A separation appears neither in Engeström's theory, nor Lang's. I take the unity as a given. It is problematic that others see a difference and operate on that difference. Quite so.
I partially agree with your seond point. My take being: understanding the relationship of teaching and learning (the education industry) to the other branches of production in the social division of labor can lead to a better understanding of the phenomena, its forms of appearance. With the exchange of "better" for "complete", I completely agree.
The difference being "better" vs. "complete", and it was a long path for me to claiming that a theoretical description can not be considered complete. But arguing this point would indeed take us far from Leont'ev and there are better times for that discussion to take place.
>
>I have been trying to hatch an egg that popped out with Dot's discussion of
>internalization v appropriation: specifically her comment that
>internalization also includes the internalization of "unconscious" elements.
>A prime educational example is found in Eckhert's "Jocks and Burnouts".
>Following in the tradition of Willis' "Learning to Labour", Eckert
>demonstrates that one of the most important components of high school
>students' education is the internalization of positions within a social
>division of labor characteristic of the society as a whole. All of this
>functions much to the side of what goes down in "Civics".
>
This sounds interesting -- l'd like to know more.
bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:01:02 PDT