thank you all for great comments.
I don't have any answers, just furher questions.
my take on leontjev is that he talks of individual or group actions, not
individual activity, activity is always not-only- individual. but i might be
wrong on leontjev.
my question is when and why is it interesting/nececessary to try to analyse
and capture the slippery object. why just not be content with actions. or
individuals.
for me situations of change in an activity when the object (products,
service) becomes outmoded, contested, does not satisfy the customers or
owners, or the society, citizens groups etc. or when trying to implement
change interventions, these bring up the discussion of the object or guiding
principle of organizing like foot describes it. and what would the new,
emerging object (in both senses) be. and how the complex division of labor
in modern and global organizations affects the object and the actions of
groups and individuals. how there are many sides to striving for a common
obejct, e. g. in critical management research criticism of organizations for
trying to build "iron cages" (barker) or "manage lives" (rose) to merge
corporate and private goals to a "common" object. Even the writers seem to
overlook the possibilities for agency of individuals. So the construction of
the object can be looked from different viewpoints. and for me it is always
contested, negotiated, reproduced by individuals and their actions and
operations.
this relates to mike's comment of the potential object. yes, object in the
gegenstand sense is potential, but in stabilized practices/activies there is
usually the material object or service that is produced.
there are situations where e.g. networked way working needs to build a
common object, or in product development there might be several competing
objects/business plans, products, services to strive for. so maybe new
analytical concepts need to be tried out to make sense of the different
phases and dimensions of object construction.
the construction and following the object is for me a practical matter and I
try to find where the differing objects, actions, motives and goals collide,
cause problems and thus can become visible.
in journalism vs. newspaper publishing I have e.g. focused on the work of
the newsroom and daily problems and talk about filling the newshole, meaning
the division of the space between ads and news stories. this is where use
and exchange values, the old and new objects of journalism/publishing
collide, and which need to be negotiated daily between the newsroom, the
printing presses and the ad department. the newshole also has a great
influence on the amount and what kinds of stories can be fitted on a page.
often there is not enough space for analytical and explanatory stories, or
pictures, on pages filled with ads.
in finland the three-days long midsummer nights holiday is starts on friday.
The towns are deserted as people migrate to their countryside cottages. I
look forward to read more stimulating e-mails when I return to my desk.
merja
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
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"
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
> Sent: 19. kesakuuta 2003 1:00
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: chasing object(s)
>
>
> Merje, Harry, Dale--
>
> Thanks to you all for your comments today (at least, today my time zone!).
>
> Merje reinforced my discomfort with talking about an individual's activity
> (which I think Leontiev does) because it seems to belie the historical,
> already-thereness of activities that Yrjo emphasizes. But Harry's take
> on the individual/collective dynamic mediated by different perspectives/
> postions in discourse seems to provide a toehold on the topic that might
> help to stabilize it for me, just a little. As Dale summarized the point,
>
> 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.
>
> The idea of a "potential object" seems odd, Merje. In so far as objects
> are "just beyond the horizon" aren't they always, necessarily, potential?
>
> Anyway, that set of notes was sure worth the price of admissions!
> mike
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:29:44 PDT