Listening to the conclusion two quotes stood out for me.
"As Leont'ev stressed, the identity of any activity is primarily determined by its object. Thus, the analysis takes as its point of departure the qualitative transformations of the object, itself understood as an activity system. However, the system of object-activity cannot be regarded as external to the central activity, to be only 'connected' with it. To the contrary, the object is to be analyzed above all as an integral component of the central activity while simultaneously acknowledging it as a relatively independent activity system of its own. This procedure, moving 'from within' the central activity out to the object-activity and back into the central activity,
is essential if the researcher is to preserve his grasp of the self-movement, the self organizational dynamics of the activity under investigation. In other words, the object-historical analysis cannot be reduced to the self-contained object. The object becomes an object (Gegenstand) only as a component of the developing central activity."
I found this really interesting, but was left with questions such as the role of other AS. Ok practical concrete research is in now - everyone is doing it - but wonder about the conflicts between the activity systems. It would seem in reading the above quote that the historical research comes out the central activity (work, education) but in many ways the university may seem more central to the researcher or one they may identify with more.
I am wondering about YE's early comments about what he enjoyed in Finland, in particular, the less confrontational relationship between school- university, work-university, and theory-practice (my addition). In either case the above quote seems to point toward more of a historical closeness between these things - concrete historical research is not this "other" coming in and judging or telling one how to proceed. I guess part of me has a hard time seeing how expansion could occur when there is such a sharp division - but then I am a product of midwest conspiracy theories.
"'Expansive developmental research aims at making cycles of expansive transition collectively mastered journeys through zones of proximal development. In other words, it aims at furnishing people with tertiary and secondary instruments necessary for the mastery of qualitative transformations of their activity systems."
This sounds nicely utopian to me. This also seems very difficult especially in activities such as education. I did sense a gently avoiding in the early chapters partly a doubt I suppose that change can occur within that activity system. Better to have faith in other activities work, learning etc slowly transforming educational activity. Partly also because it is about expansion and how much expansion actually occurs in schools - where it matters -.
I really enjoyed the book and it really helped me make more sense out of dialectics, davydov etc and how they relate to AT. I think it also offers a fair assessment of American Vygotskian research and a useful synthesis from my POV.
***************************************************************************************
/\/\/\/\ Home of Nateweb
/ / http://members.home.net/schmolze1
(. (. )
( ]
/ ____ / Psychology and Marxism
\ | http://marxists.org/subject/psychology/index.htm
/-----\
/ / / \
/ \/ \/ \ I will not skateboard in the halls
/ / / \ \ I will not instigate revolution
((() / _______(/\))) Garlic gum is not funny
/ \ I will not sell school property
| /\ \ I will not belch the National Anthem
----| |---- I will not grease the monkey bars
|__ | \__ \ Coffee is not for kids
{____| {___} I will not celebrate meaningless milestones
================/ I will remember to take my medication
(o) (o)
***************************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 01 2001 - 01:01:04 PDT