A doctoral student of mine at our Center in Helsinki, Laura Seppanen, is
writing her PhD thesis on expansive learning in the transition from
traditional to organic farming on two Finnish farms. Laura's home page is:
http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/people/lauras.htm
Cheers,
Yrjo Engestrom
> From: "Paul H.Dillon" <illonph@pacbell.net>
> Reply-To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:27:04 -0700
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Activity theory and agricultural change
> Resent-From: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Diane writes,
>
>> YES!!!! institutions , by their historical structure, can NOT endorse
>> learning III
>> because this invariably calls the institution itself into question -
>> again, i think an actual context would help me - a specific activity -
>> like introducing new agriculture technologies into rural communities, and
>> what kinds of structures are
>> involved - beliefs, values, histories, traditions, ideologies, politics -
>> these are, to me,
>> particular to the context, and so potentially more expansive in terms of
>> OUR learning here.
>
> A lot of the time I think about activity theory and the ideas expressed in
> LBE in relation to the problems of technology transfer, particularly in the
> Andes, since I worked there and in that field (applied anthropology) for
> about 10 years. The problem is complex since there are so many different
> actors involved in processes of technology transfer and their are a lot of
> different kinds of technologies, too. Most of the time, the new
> technologies, are oriented to the production of market crops and often
> require a lot of purchased inputs -- ranging from the seed itself, through
> various kinds of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Technology
> transfer, in this context, can only be viewed from the perspective of the
> expansion of market systems and many of the foreign aid organizations (eg,
> USAID) realize that the change of agricultural technology is only feasible
> when other conditions ranging from technical support to roads to irrigation
> systems to market storage facilities, etc. are in place as well. So, if
> change of ag technology is viewed as a type of learning, it must be seen as
> something subordinate to a transformation of the entire system at numerous
> other levels as well. Another way to say this is: improved agricultural
> technologies rarely help the poorest farmers because they dwell in areas
> where the conditions for market economies are weak and can't be artificially
> transformed through government intervention where there are market
> economies.
>
> Then too, there is the entire range of so called "appropriate technologies"
> in which the extension people do not go out with a specific technology to
> offer but rather go out with a took kit of possible technologies and
> approaches and work collaboratively with the people to develop systems that
> fit the needs and the possibillities. These approaches look a lot more like
> Freirean type interventions and his ideas have been seminal in a lot of that
> work. In some cases I think there is often an implicit activity systems
> type approach. One of these is known as "farm systems analysis" and it
> basically starts from an examination of the agricultural production unit in
> terms of all of the internal and external relations that make it up with
> reference to the basic productive activity. Interventions are based on an
> in-depth familarity with that totality and include an understanding of all
> of the various social and cultural elements. (They hired a lot of
> anthropologists to work on farming systems analysis-oriented af
> development projects for that very reason. Farm systems analysis was a
> very important approach the last time I was working in this area (1989) but
> I've been out of the field for some time now. I wouldn't be surprised if it
> isn't so important anymore, not because it wasn't effective and successful,
> but because it didn't really focus on producing capitalist farms and, in
> some sense reinforced, the peasant sectors, since it aimed to give them the
> ability to withstand the fluctuations in the market prices. As you might
> well imagine, this didn't set well with the U of Chicago oriented economists
> for whom such "obstructions" to the price-mechanism represent limits to the
> operation of the market whose freedom from constraint they believe (or at
> least maintain) is necessary for "democratic society", etc.
>
> Anyway, you're right, it's an interesting area for the extension of more
> self-conscious activity theoretic ideas and I'm sure, if you're interested,
> that a quick look into farm systems analysis would be fruitful.
>
> Paul H. Dillon
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:00:58 PDT