Nate,
You and others have mentioned how the term "subject may be better
here or at least take us further." Could you expand on this?
Charles Nelson
>1) On the TOC of the Engestrom reading I have linked the paper and figures 6
>and 7 in (WORD) doc format. Note there are two files horizontal and
>figure6_7 in word format. If there are difficulties let me know. Also
>Davydov is available on a 1 page html file.
>http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm
>
>2) I caught Martin message which said,
>
>""I am following this thread with great interest and I particularly
>appreciate your reminder that "it *is* possible to be individual and
>social at the same time".
>
>My inclination was huh how can one be individual without being social - to
>me the very fact that I am an individual speaks to the social, so I have a
>hard time here. It seems outright impossible to speak of the individual and
>the social as being categories opposed to each other. I agree with Marx who
>said there can be no contradiction here.
>
>I agree that subject may be better here or at least take us further. It
>seems to me that with Activity being this social-cultural-material process
>we as individuals are part of it - inseperable from it.
>
>But, I think the seperate categories of individual - social are real strong
>in American political thought. I think Martin's statement would make more
>"sense" to most people I associate with - family and teachers -
>particularily because its so consistent with an american world view. I know
>explaining the opposite or a view closer to Paul's usually gets me blank
>stares. My point which I think Diane touched on in an earlier view is one's
>acceptance or rejection of arguments has a lot to do with world views we
>hold.
>
>I do not think this is without consequence either - if one holds onto a
>strong categorical seperation of individual and social one would also
>situate agency, transformation, expanding in the individual which of course
>YE does not do.
>
>One could bring up the dolphin which to me demonstrates the individual
>exists because of the social not the other way around, but I don't think in
>the end it matters much. We hold world views with all their political
>ramifications and the consequences are high to give them up.
>
> "The individual, when he apprehends himself as such, is social in his
>essence. He is social not as a result of external contingencies, but by
>virtue of an internal necessity, by virtue of his genesis." Henri Wallon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:48 PDT