Funny, I was in a dream this morning of being among some sociologists in the UK. One lead fellow was describing some theory completely incomprehensible to me, apparently a radically different theory. Others were asking questions of him. Finally he put on his overcoat and exclaimed to the group while facing in my general direction, "Well that is what I am doing. There are just too many Engeströms". Someone said "What?", and he repeated his assertion. I was about to respond when the phone rang and I awoke.
I have been playing and making modifications to Yrjö's triangular model, to understand the theory better, and to better understand the work that I am doing. As it is a model, I would not maintain that there are "correct" and "incorrect" ways of reading/constructing it. Certainly Yrjö has specific categories and relations of categories in mind and these are carried in the geometrical organisation of the triangular form -- capturing the interrelationships without losing a sense of the whole. The triangular form is not as rich a depiction when it does not include the relations "exchange", "production", "distribution" and "consumption" that appear in learning by expanding -- these bring a dynamic sense to the static figure. Indeed, as a physicist, who is familiar with mathematical modeling and system dynamics, these terms relate change and rates of change. These relations are the basis for my incomplete work of modeling mailing list dynamics. Dynamics of interaction is also carried in the dialectic processes.
The organization of the triangle and subtriangles is important to examine, depicting differentiation within complex society. Each subtriangle "is potentially an activity of its own", and this further development of the model results in juxtaposed triangles, capturing a sense of the boundaries of differentiated labor, making headway not only into such things as how farms and grocery stores interact, but also being able to capture the division/fragmentation and interaction within a large institution as a university.
I take the triangle as representing a collective subject and have thus made the point of replacing "subject" with "people". There is a need, however to be able to describe people in any number, from one on up, and in such a generalization, "people" can be one person.
bb
At 1:11 AM -0500 2/3/01, Helena Worthen wrote:
>Dear people --
>
>I've had some back-channel responses to my farmer/helper example on the "different
>motives" thread. Several of these seemed to me to be about the way we "read" the
>activity system diagrams. So I'd like to get very concrete about how we read these
>diagrams. I think we are reading the activity systems diagrams differently.
>
>So does anyone mind if we use the AT diagrams in Michael's paper as an
>illustration? I spent some time reading it this afternoon, as Chicago dimmed and
>the temperature dropped.
>
>There are two of these diagrams on page 4 of Michael's paper as I downloaded it.
>I would like to compare the different ways that we read them. These are
>Engestrom's famliar diagrams but it's not until you load them up with concrete
>specifics that you begin to see how they can be read differently.
>
>Either one of the two triangle diagrams on page 4 will do fine for this. I guess
>I'll choose the one on the right because it represents the more familiar
>traditional classroom situation (albeit with co-teachers).
>
>Each diagram has 6 features ranged around the triangle, 3 at the points and 3 in
>the midpoints of the sides. The strongest -- or most obvious and familiar --
>connection is between the "subject" and the "object," the two features on opposite
>midpoints. In fact, you could say that the entire remaining diagram exists in
>order to explain the connection between these two features.
>
>The part of the diagram that I think is related to the immediate discussion is the
>"division of labor" corner in the lower right. Above it is "object," which flows
>in this diagram into "outcome." To its left in the cetner along the bottom is
>"community." Here 's how I read the "division of labor" corner: The "division of
>labor" mediates between the community and the object. Or, saying the same thing
>differently, "The community, through division of labor, creates a way for the
>subject to act on the object."
>
>Or, to read that corner entirely: In order to achieve outcome (x) through object
>(y), the community (z) produces through the process of division of labor the
>social roles which will enable subjects (a) to act on object (y). When I do this
>I'm reading the whole AT system as it is engaged from the "division of labor"
>corner.
>
>And you can do this with all three corners.
>
>In the case of Michael's paper, I would read the "division of labor" corner of his
>right-hand diagram as "The community, meaning both the class and society that
>needs to educate its youth and citizens, creates through a division of labor a
>system of education that includes teachers and students and researchers who
>working together make it possible for students to learn about the world and act in
>the world."
>
>This is not how Michael reads the division of labor corner. He does not read it
>as the division of labor mediating between the community and the object. He reads
>"division of labor" as the social roles adopted by the group immediately around
>the subject, not necessarily formed from the community in response to the object.
>
>Now this certainly is reasonable, and other people may read the diagram this way
>too. However, to read the diagram the way Michael reads it is to suggest that it
>doesn't matter where the labels belong on any of the points of the triangle -- it
>suggests that they are interchangeable. I think this is a mistake. Rules
>actually do mediate between the subject of an activity system and the community
>from which that subject has emerged; tools do actually mediate between the subject
>and the object. The labels are on those particular corners for good reasons that
>make sense.
>
>So -- I would like to hear how other people read these diagrams. Michael, thank
>you for putting your paper up and creating the opportunity for me to ask these
>questions which I didn't even know I needed to ask!!!
>
>Helena
-- Bill Barowy, Associate Professor Lesley University 29 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 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 01:01:05 PST