On the contrary, Henry, you are nicely describing the central "object"
of rhetorical criticism. What is interesting is that rhetorical
theorists have spent the past three thousand years or so fussing about
what rhetoric "is"... and are still at it! Most would probably
disagree with me, in fact, about the discipline's "object". Some
would grant that each critic is entitled to her own opinion/academic
niche; others would object that I misunderstand the field completely.
So..am I "wrong"? or is this a "slippery" object? or are rhetoricians
simply cursed with the endless self-reflection that comes for all of
us who study themselves in some sense?
But, to answer your question, yes. Attention to the discursive "phase
shift" between individual conceptualizations and the "social
consensus" that guides the activity is a very useful way to understand
the shifting, multifaceted nature of the object.
dale
> Dear Merja
> I was wondering -- if objects are produced and transformed or become
slippery is it that
they do so in the relations between
> different perspectives that are brought to activities by
participants and their histories.
Given that they are often tacit and not open to articulation there is
an interesting
question as to how a new participant in an activity orients themselves
to the object which
is hegemonic at a particular moment. I suppose I am still pondering on
the value of
analysing the discourses on the object that maintain an activity and
hence considering the
discursive field which allows for / shapes the possibilities for
subject positions in that
field. This may be a way of understanding the formation of objects in
the relation between
collective activity and indivcidual actions.
>
> This is ( a probably unwise) attempt at thinking aloud in what for
me is an unfamiliar
medium
> Harry
>
>
>
> [Harry Daniels]
>
> helsinki.fi]
> Sent: 18 June 2003 13:10
> To:
> Subject: chasing object(s)
>
>
>
> The object seems to be evolving also in our discussions
and 'object ' is slippery indeed
as Foot/Engeström remind us.
>
> "The object should not be confused with a conscious goal or aim. In
activity theory,
conscious goals are
>
> related to discrete, finite, and individual actions; objects are
related to continuous,
collective activity
>
> systems and their motives...The slippery and transitional nature of
objects sometimes
evokes a denial
>
> of their very existence."
>
> In Helsinki many of us use the distinction between collective
activity and
individual/group actions and their goals, and how they influence each
other, see Leontjev.
>
> So in that sense there is no individual activity. Perspectives,
interests, tensions are
used to describe the slipperiness and multifacedness of the object.
>
> Acouple of years ago I collected a list of concepts/approaches
people in our center have
been using in their writings about the object that.
>
> My hunch is there are new ones out there.
>
> *Emerging concepts of discussion: Potential object , *Rhetorical
object , Disrupted
object.
>
> This also points to the issue of the temporal dimension of the
object of activity. A
historical analysis of a long station social 'institution' like heatlh
service can produce
an evolving object from curing a sickness to preventive medicine.
But what about
emerging forms of e. g. net/knotworking, scientific or design
projects. How to figure out
their object, if there ever will be a common enough and enduring
object of an activity
system?
>
> *Object of activity/Y. Engeström
>
> *Dual/double object/Miettinen
> Epistemic object/Miettinen/Knorr-Cetina
> *Emerging object/Hasu
> *Partial object/Hasu
> *Heterogeneous object/Contested
> *field of negotiations/helle
> *Shared object (in Competence Laboratory)/Ahonen
> *Referential object/R.Engerström
> *Boundary crossing object/Toiviainen
> *Temporary object/activity in Border Crossing Laboratory/Kkerosuo
> *Practical object of transformation/Miettinen/Hyysalo
> *Objest as a learning Challenge/Seppänen
> *Developmental task/Mott
>
> *Object-tool shift/Miettinen etc
> *Boundary actions/Kerosuo
> *Boundary object/Star
> *Levels of operations/Engeström Y.
>
> Merja
> working on an article about the heterogeneous object of
journalism/publishing
>
> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
'''''''
>
> Merja Helle
> Researcher
> Center for Activity Theory
> Box 47
> 00140 University of Helsinki
> Finland
> e-mail:merja.helle@helsinki.fi
> phone 358-(0)50-4485 111
> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> You'll never know the facts before you know the fiction"
> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:29:44 PDT