mike,
if there is an issue that I'd like to hear more about, it's simply how
people are relating "self" to "subject" in activity systems: subject is an
element of activity theory, self not. But the two terms seem to be used
interchangeably in some cases although, as far as I can tell, they don't
*necessarily* have anything to do with each other and certainly aren't
identical or equivalent. My bias is that the subject of an activity system
is necessarily collective (and historical) in a sense that is not reducible
to a collection of selves. Self requires dealing with another element
Lurking in the wings : the notion of individuality, e.g., "the individual
responsible for . . ." , which likewise might or not be related to self and
subjectivity. Is this all the inescapable horizon of euro-american
culture: the dialectic of freedom and necessity?
As you might suspect, I'm not overwhelmed with other things to do.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 01:00:11 PDT