Thanks for the interesting discussion!
A lot of what you have been discussing touches upon my own problems of 'getting to grips' with pursuing dialogic objects while carrying out life history interviews. Do any of you have any immediate reflections on this subject, i.e. life history data collection situations in which research activity turns in on itself and participants start realizing that dialogic objects are intermeshed with dialogic activity.
Look forward to your reflections!
Sacha in Sweden
>>> mcole@weber.ucsd.edu 06/18 11:59 >>>
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