RE: [xmca] artefacts

I think Elinami's explanation is consistent with the middle and third term of Andy's three-part "subject": first being the individual, second the ensemble of social relations and activities, and third the material products of culture.

Helena Worthen, Clinical Associate Professor
Labor Education Program, Institute of Labor & Industrial Relations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
504 E. Armory, Room 227
Champaign, IL 61821
Phone: 217-244-4095
hworthen@uiuc.edu
http://lep.ilir.uiuc.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Elinami Swai
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 2:15 PM
To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] artefacts

Let me dare to continue. I entertain an idea that when we say
artifacts, we mean cultural productions, and tools, to mean material
objects. While cultural productions --language, technology, etc. in
the name of artifacts mediate our thinking, material objects--pens,
computers, etc. in the name of tools mediate our behavior. These are
my thoughts, but I'm still trying to make sense of all these.

Elinami.

On 1/9/08, Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> Believing as I do that the terms tool and sign are subordinate to the more
> general category
> of artifact I am having a little difficulty understanding what is at issue
> here. In what follows
> distinctions appear or disappear that I personally find useful. So, for
> example, I am really
> unclear about the difference between a social and a cultural artifact. Is
> language, to take
> an example from below, a material artifact? An ideal artifact? Doesn't
> qualification of a
> toothbrush rather than an artifact qualify its function in the activity of
> which is a part?
>
> Is there a message in this stream I am missing that blinds me to the purport
> of these
> recent messages? Could you point me to it if so?
> mike
>
> On Jan 9, 2008 7:45 AM, Elinami Swai <swaiev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I completely agree with this observation Andy, for when we think of
> > learning as a social activity, or the formation of one's identity as
> > originating from society, we come to see that what one learns, how one
> > learns, and why one learns something, is mediated by his/her social
> > and cultural artifacts. These can be anything from individual's own
> > disposition, the material culture in which he/she finds
> > himself/herself in. In this sense, things like language, computer,
> > one's interests, abilities, etc. are important mediators of that
> > learning activity. Of course some are termed artifacts and others
> > tools, but this separation is secondary, for it does not change
> > (qualify/disqualify) their function towards the activity
> > system--learning.
> >
> > Elinami.
> >
> > On 1/9/08, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> > > One of the implications of my paper is that from the point of view of
> > > psychology, it is a secondary question whether an artefact is
> > categorised
> > > by someone as tool, sign or part of the human body.
> > >
> > > I think of the example of a person logging into their computer by (a)
> > > entering their password (b) swiping a card or (c) having their iris
> > scanned
> > > by the computer. You get access to the computer much the same any way.
> > >
> > > Does everyone agree with this? And is there any problem with calling the
> > > mass of such artefacts used by a group of people to access their
> > collective
> > > activity, "culture"?
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > At 06:35 AM 8/01/2008 -0600, you wrote:
> > > >Hi -- So it actually looks as if we have an instance here where Andy's
> > > >"subjectivity" fits a real case and illuminates it. Two cases,
> > actually!
> > > >
> > > >Regarding nurses, we definitely "get into the logic of the court
> > decision"
> > > >and also we (they) addresses it through organization. (Not me
> > personally
> > > >-- a labor educator teaches HOW to do it but doesn't actually do it, at
> > > >least not in the sense the union leadership would do it).
> > > >
> > > >Your advice to Brian in Arizona regarding "acting like a union" is
> > exactly
> > > >what seems to be working among day laborers in the US, various
> > community
> > > >groups/workers' centers, and among contingent faculty especially, many
> > of
> > > >whom are excluded from full-time/tenure/tenure track bargaining units.
> > > >It's the consciousness first, the institution second -- but the
> > > >institution is the tool.
> > > >
> > > >Helena
> > > >
> > > >________________________________________
> > > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > Behalf
> > > >Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
> > > >Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:20 AM
> > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > >Subject: RE: [xmca] Helena's view of Andy's paper
> > > >
> > > >Of course my thinking is at a very basic level and we don't expect much
> > in
> > > >terms of practical cases.
> > > >But a number of points strike me: the supervisor/nurses retain the
> > > >consciousness of union-members/carers not employer-agents/managers,
> > even
> > > >though the legal decision tries to take this away from them. But the
> > court
> > > >decision has to be justified in some way. "All that is real is rational
> > .."
> > > >but also "deserves to perish" (according to Goethe). So you have to get
> > > >into the logic of the court's decision, and not only defeat it by an
> > > >immanent critique but also in practice though organisation. You
> > rehearse
> > > >the legal argument in the ranks, don't you?
> > > >.
> > > >
> > > >You know, my friend Brian that I introduced you to, Helena, is facing
> > the
> > > >same problem in the college he works in in Arizona, where a group of
> > staff
> > > >have been "ruled out" of the union bargaining unit. My advice to him
> > was
> > > >that the group had to organise themselves as if they were a union
> > branch,
> > > >and the legitimate union local had to assist them. Because only the
> > > >mobilised employees can ultimately prove the truth of their claim to be
> > > >unionists not employer-agents, and prove it to the satisfaction of
> > othes.
> > > >So, as Steve Gabosch correctly pointed out, you have a multiplicity of
> > > >"subjectivities" (including the contradiction that you have referred to
> > > >Helena, about being both a carer and an employee, etc) and you have to
> > run
> > > >the argument in and through the human existence of the logic of each
> > > >argument, the organised workers and the various state and employer
> > > >organisations. The court agrees with the employer that a certain group
> > of
> > > >workers are its agents not its employees. (BTW, this crap is only now
> > > >beginning to show itself in Australia, but only for those earning like
> > more
> > > >than $100,000 pa) So you have a number of subjects overlapping here and
> > > >they hinge around self-concepts of whole extended groups of people who
> > > >probably only partially identify with the concept, and also negatively
> > by
> > > >exclusion, of course.
> > > >
> > > >Andy
> > > >At 05:56 AM 8/01/2008 -0600, you wrote:
> > > > >But now that I think about it, isn't the example I give (of a nurse
> > whose
> > > > >relationship to her employer, her work and the way she earns a
> > living) has
> > > > >suddenly changed because of a decision that came out of a court case)
> > the
> > > > >very thing that Andy was talking about in his paper, the "subject" as
> > the
> > > > >unit of analysis?
> > > > >
> > > > >Helena
> > > > >________________________________________
> > > > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > Behalf
> > > > >Of Worthen, Helena Harlow [hworthen@ad.uiuc.edu]
> > > > >Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:31 PM
> > > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > >Subject: RE: [xmca] Helena's view of Andy's paper
> > > > >
> > > > >Andy --
> > > > >
> > > > >You're probably right about Winnicott, and I was using the term with
> > a bit
> > > > >of tongue in cheek -- but I did mean that as far as my work goes, the
> > > > >theory has to work as a tool for getting the job done. Even if it's
> > not
> > > > >the perfect tool, if it gets the job done, that's OK (and the tool
> > will
> > > > >get refined by doing the job, too).
> > > > >
> > > > >You wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"And in those terms your problem with the reclassified nurses is a
> > classic
> > > > >case of the contradiction between
> > > > >concept (definition of a nurse) and intuition (the immediate
> > > > >self-perception of a nurse). That is the terms in which I took it. Do
> > the
> > > > >nurses need to change the law or should they get used to it?"
> > > > >
> > > > >The plane on which that contradiction might get resolved would not be
> > the
> > > > >plane with the most material consequences. It would be a plane that
> > > > >involves an individual adjusting to being defined as something other
> > than
> > > > >what he or she thought she was. But on a different plane, there
> > > > >are tremendous material consequences. The contradiction that frames
> > that
> > > > >plane is the contradiction between healthcare as a profit-making
> > private
> > > > >business and healthcare as a public good. On that plane, the
> > > > >reclassification of nurses as supervisors (if they do a certain
> > number of
> > > > >a certain kind of task) tries to resolve that contradiction by
> > checkmating
> > > > >the power of nurses to collectively resist the devolution of the
> > > > >healthcare system into maximizing profit. By reclassifying them as
> > > > >supervisors, they are stripped out of the bargaining unit and lose
> > their
> > > > >protections -- they can get fired at will, forced to work overtime,
> > they
> > > > >lose the advocacy of their union if they need to speak out, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > >As you probably know, the healthcare system in the US is an
> > incredible
> > > > >mess. (After budget cuts this time last year, the waiting time for
> > > > >patients in the Cook County Hospital emergency room was FOUR DAYS).
> > Nurses
> > > > >are organizing into unions in many places, and one of the issues they
> > > > >organize around is patient-staff ratios, which has behind it a major
> > > > >health and safety agenda.
> > > > >
> > > > >First envisage the activity system of a hospital ward in which nurses
> > have
> > > > >union protections and can, for example, refuse an assignment to a
> > ward
> > > > >where they do not have the proper training (to take an example from
> > the
> > > > >experience of a nurse I've worked with -- an oncology nurse getting
> > > > >assigned to a pre-natal ward). The tools which mediate the
> > relationship
> > > > >between the nurses and the hospital system include employment laws
> > and the
> > > > >contract, among other things. Then, flip the law -- whoops, some of
> > the
> > > > >nurses are no longer in the bargaining unit. For them, their whole
> > > > >relationship to their work has changed. Should they get used to it?
> > This
> > > > >is not a trivial thing. Can they change the law? Not directly -- it's
> > a
> > > > >court case. Actually, it's a Supreme Court decision called "Kentucky
> > > > >River," after the nursing home the case came out of. Getting used to
> > it
> > > > >versus changing the law are not the relevant questions. The relevant
> > > > >questions are more like, "What is the whole unit of analysis? What
> > are the
> > > > >tools? What are the rules? What is the motivation? What's going on
> > here?"
> > > > >This may seem like a pretty nuts-and-bolts use of the CHAT framework
> > but I
> > > > >haven't found anythign else that is as comprehensive.
> > > > >
> > > > >Helena
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >________________________________________
> > > > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > Behalf
> > > > >Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
> > > > >Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 8:29 PM
> > > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > >Subject: RE: [xmca] Helena's view of Andy's paper
> > > > >
> > > > >Helena,
> > > > >I just wanted to respond to your off-hand reference to the
> > "good-enough
> > > > >mother."
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this mean I'm sloppy and content with any
> > "good
> > > > enough"
> > > > > theory that will fry eggs for me? You know, like
> > the
> > > > concept
> > > > > of a "good enough" mother?
> > > > >
> > > > >Now, as a non-professional I am quite unaware of debate there may
> > have been
> > > > >about this term over the past 30 or 40 years, I only know what I read
> > in
> > > > >Donald Winnicott's "Playing and Reality" which I thought was the
> > origin of
> > > > >this phrase. I took his meaning quite differently. I took it that he
> > meant
> > > > >that if the child is to be weaned and become a person in their own
> > right,
> > > > >then the requirement on the mother is *not* to perfectly meet the
> > infant's
> > > > >needs, but on the contrary to be just "good enough" so that the
> > frustration
> > > > >which arises from the non-perfect meeting of her needs is the
> > beginning of
> > > > >a process in which the infant begins to work out the nature of
> > objective
> > > > >reality for itself. I really liked the idea. And surely it is very
> > very
> > > > >relevant to your work as well.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Just a note on ideographic and nomographic. I responded to Mike on
> > this in
> > > > >terms of how Hegel responded to Kant. And in those terms your problem
> > with
> > > > >the reclassified nurses is a classic case of the contradiction
> > between
> > > > >concept (definition of a nurse) and intuition (the immediate
> > > > >self-perception of a nurse). That is the terms in which I took it. Do
> > the
> > > > >nurses need to change the law or should they get used to it?
> > > > >
> > > > >Andy
> > > > >At 09:54 AM 6/01/2008 -0600, you wrote:
> > > > > >Eric:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I did not come out of a educational background that immersed me in
> > the
> > > > > >kind of theory. My work is very practical. However, I have to use
> > theories
> > > > > >in order to get anything done, and CHAT and Activity Theory and the
> > > > > >sociocultural approach generally work for me in ways that other
> > > > > >theoretical approaches simply do not. I look around in these
> > theoretical
> > > > > >discussions like someone who is cooking looks for utensils or
> > someone who
> > > > > >is preparing a legal brief looks for precedents and arguments. The
> > > > > >question of what the unit of analysis is is very important to me,
> > for
> > > > > >example -- because when I encounter a complex situation, for
> > example, a
> > > > > >group of nurses who have, as a result of a bad decision by the
> > National
> > > > > >Labor Relations Board, have been re-classified as supervisors and
> > lost
> > > > > >their memberhsip in a bargaining unit with the union protections
> > that go
> > > > > >along with that, and therefore become "at will" employees -- I need
> > to be
> > > > > >able to discern what is going on. What is the unit of analysis
> > there? What
> > > > > >is the activity system?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Note that I said "group." The collective subject is important to
> > me, too,
> > > > > >since workers' rights are collective rights. This means I'm not so
> > > > > >interested in figuring out a way to envision an individual as a
> > unit of
> > > > > >analysis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >There has to be something like a rubber band between the actions I
> > take
> > > > > >while doing labor education (whether it's teaching classes, doing
> > research
> > > > > >or helping someone one-on-one who is in a bad employment situation
> > or in a
> > > > > >bad union) and the theory that I go to to use for doing something.
> > I go
> > > > > >back and forth, back and forth,with the reality testing the theory
> > and the
> > > > > >theory testing the reality, all the time.If the theory doesn't
> > help, I
> > > > > >don't use it. If the theory doesn't help, (if the rubber band
> > snaps) I
> > > > > >don't use it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Given the extreme practicality of what I need theories for, there
> > are some
> > > > > >concepts that just don't help me much. Idiographic/nomothetic is
> > one. I
> > > > > >have no idea what that means. I know there was some discussion on
> > xmca
> > > > > >about it, but I skimmed it. Also, purely theoretical discussion
> > that
> > > > > >appears to swim deeper and deeper into theory rather than
> > connecting back
> > > > > >across the wall between theory and everyday reality does not help
> > me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Does this mean I'm sloppy and content with any "good enough" theory
> > that
> > > > > >will fry eggs for me? You know, like the concept of a "good enough"
> > > > > >mother? I don't think so. I think the test of a good theory is its
> > use as
> > > > > >a tool -- as part of an activity system, maybe one of the cultural
> > > > > >artefacts that Andy talks about.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Helena
> > > > > >
> > > > > >________________________________________
> > > > > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > Behalf
> > > > > >Of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org [ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org]
> > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:04 PM
> > > > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > >Subject: [xmca] Helena's view of Andy's paper
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Very thoughtful post Helena:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >You have provided me with great understanding of what andy's thesis
> > > > > >represents. I agree his thinking enriches CHAT but I too get lost
> > in the
> > > > > >ethereal of his musings : ) My critique of his theory not
> > presenting
> > > > > >both an idiographic/nomothetic methodology of psychological
> > investigation
> > > > > >has been stymied by Andy claiming such a critique is a dichotomy
> > and that
> > > > > >he disavows dichotomies. Any thoughts on this issue?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >eric
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Worthen, Helena
> > > > > > Harlow" To:
> > > > > > "mcole@weber.ucsd.edu" <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>, "eXtended Mind,
> > > > > > <hworthen@ad.uiu Culture, Activity"
> > > > > > <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > > > > c.edu> cc:
> > > > > > Sent by: Subject: RE: [xmca]
> > > > > > Subject: Verb, Object
> > > > > > xmca-bounces@web
> > > > > > er.ucsd.edu
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 12/29/2007 07:37
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > Please respond
> > > > > > to "eXtended
> > > > > > Mind, Culture,
> > > > > > Activity"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Hello --
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I want to join in with some thoughts on Andy's paper. I've actually
> > > > read it
> > > > > >about 3 times and came away with such different thoughts each time
> > that I
> > > > > >kept losing confidence that I understood what he was getting at.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I really need some empirical content in a paper like this. When a
> > paper is
> > > > > >entirely theoretical, I am always asking what a real-life example
> > of
> > > > > >something would be. This slows me down and distracts me and I'm
> > always
> > > > > >having to correct myself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >But here is what I see, on the third try:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The actual problem is the postmodern condition, which Andy
> > describes (p.
> > > > > >262) as "There is no identification of the person with the state,
> > or with
> > > > > >society as a whole or even a class...The endpoint of development is
> > an
> > > > > >anomic individual who does not see in any institution a
> > representation of
> > > > > >their own identity and aspiration."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >This is a description of a "subject" (in the sense of an
> > individual) that
> > > > > >is locked out of culture and society. Locked out whether he is a
> > free
> > > > agent
> > > > > >acting on society or a totally determined product of society. This
> > is the
> > > > > >problem where the paper begins.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >To liberate this "anomic individual", Andy goes back to the
> > foundations of
> > > > > >CHAT and finds three trichotomies: The CHAT trichotomy (the
> > > > > >individual/collective subject, culture and society); Hegel's
> > trichotomy of
> > > > > >the Individual, Particular and Universal, and Vygotsky's individual
> > > > person,
> > > > > >element of culture, and activity or material practice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Then he proposes a new trichotomy as the unit of analysis: this one
> > is the
> > > > > >individual, culture and society, all of which is the subject. Andy
> > says
> > > > > >that the unit of analysis is "the activity of individual human
> > beings
> > > > > >utilizing artifacts as a means of collaborating with (or fighting
> > > > with) one
> > > > > >another (p. 256 in MCA). I'm not sure how this differs from the
> > unit of
> > > > > >analysis that Jim Wertsch talks about in Vygotsky and the Social
> > Formation
> > > > > >of Mind, quoting Leont'ev (p. 203 -- "the nonadditive, molar unit
> > of
> > > > > >life....the unit of life that is mediated by mental reflection") or
> > > > > >Zinchenko ("tool mediated action" - Wertsch p.205). I don't see
> > these as
> > > > > >inconsistent with each other. This doesn't bother me -- they enrich
> > each
> > > > > >other.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >But two other pieces of Andy's paper catch my eye. One is the
> > suggestion
> > > > > >that the commodification of parts of the trichotomy is a way to
> > understand
> > > > > >the paralysis (anomie?) of the individual in postmodern society.
> > This
> > > > makes
> > > > > >sense to me. Think of how the price of access to cultural artifacts
> > > > > >determines who can use them. I pay $110 per month for my
> > > > cellphone/internet
> > > > > >package in Illinois -- how many people can afford that? But that's
> > a key
> > > > > >artifact with which I engage with my family and my social world.
> > This is
> > > > > >like the price of accessing myself. Within the subject, as Andy
> > proposes
> > > > > >it, commodification has intervened to set prices and manage
> > exchanges.
> > > > Kids
> > > > > >in rich schools do business plans in math class; kids in poor
> > schools get
> > > > > >farmed out to "work" trade shows as "interns" -- I'm not kidding. I
> > can
> > > > > >think of more examples of ways that the essential mediating
> > artifacts of
> > > > > >culture shape people's activity through their commodification.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The second is about the view through the scope of Andy's
> > trichotomic unit
> > > > > >of analysis, individual-culture-society. When all three lenses are
> > > > lined up
> > > > > >so that there is one sightline from the individual through what
> > culture is
> > > > > >available to him (or can be created by him) into the landscape of
> > society
> > > > > >where he is engaged, it sounds like an adequate description of or
> > account
> > > > > >of consciousness. We are also shown how sharply different the
> > > > possibilities
> > > > > >are for different people and how stark are the differences between
> > what is
> > > > > >supposed to be out there and what is actually experienced. These
> > are both
> > > > > >important aspects of consciousness. This seems like something we
> > could
> > > > come
> > > > > >back to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >But I don't accept Andy's view of the world today as adequately
> > described
> > > > > >by the capitalist postmodern condition. I would say that some --
> > possibly
> > > > > >many -- experience their lives that way. I have in my files a
> > handwritten
> > > > > >10-page autobiography of a young black man who was a death row
> > prisoner in
> > > > > >Texas, whose story is "I was in the wrong car with the wrong person
> > at the
> > > > > >wrong time." He died of AIDS before his execution date. Looking out
> > (via
> > > > > >his autobiography) through the three lenses of Andy's trichotomic
> > unit of
> > > > > >analysis, you'd have to say he saw nowhere "in any institution a
> > > > > >representation of [his] own identity and aspiration."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >But just as Andy re-enacts the Battle of Hastings every time he
> > chooses an
> > > > > >Anglo-Saxon or Latin word in speaking English, every time someone
> > > > clocks in
> > > > > >at work or cashes a paycheck (or accepts cash under the table), he
> > > > > >re-enacts the transition from feudalism to capitalism (or the
> > French
> > > > > >revolution, or the Flint sit-down, take your pick). It's not
> > surrender,
> > > > > >it's re-enactment. If you keep in mind that resistance, criticism
> > and
> > > > > >struggle are also engagement, identity and aspiration, then you
> > don't need
> > > > > >to unseat postmodernity as the framing context. We can still use
> > the three
> > > > > >lenses of individual-culture-society as the subject as a unit of
> > analysis
> > > > > >that enables us to approach consciousness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Helena Worthen, Clinical Associate Professor
> > > > > >Labor Education Program, Institute of Labor & Industrial Relations
> > > > > >University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> > > > > >504 E. Armory, Room 227
> > > > > >Champaign, IL 61821
> > > > > >Phone: 217-244-4095
> > > > > >hworthen@uiuc.edu
> > > > > >http://lep.ilir.uiuc.edu
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > > > > >Behalf Of Mike Cole
> > > > > >Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 4:02 PM
> > > > > >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > >Subject: Re: [xmca] Subject: Verb, Object
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Leontiev, you mean, Peg. And in the book that David K was reading
> > last
> > > > time
> > > > > >around.
> > > > > >(My spelling is attributable to the use of the "whole word" method
> > of
> > > > > >reading instruction and perhaps
> > > > > >to the fact that I am left handed. Glad it also pushes at the
> > > > > >skill/knowledge issue as a bonus.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I picked on the same phrase Peg did, but mostly the firs part where
> > > > you ask
> > > > > >the question of whether
> > > > > >the object of activity can be defined in advance. This sparked two
> > > > > >different
> > > > > >lines of thought. First,
> > > > > >that Yrjo speaks of the object of activity always being over the
> > horizon.
> > > > > >Which is related to a line from
> > > > > >Tennyson's Ulysees quoted by Dewey:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Yet all experience is an arch wherethro'
> > > > > >Gleams that untravell'd world, whose margin fades
> > > > > >For ever and for ever when I move.I take this metaphor to include
> > > > listening
> > > > > >to what other's say and seeing where it leads,
> > > > > >and to point to a process in time (a developmental process?) by
> > which a
> > > > > >merely understandable
> > > > > >motive (having been imagined by others who describe it to you) and
> > a
> > > > > >"really
> > > > > >effective" motive,
> > > > > >e.g., one that now guides your action and its (future) direction.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >It also fits with an understanding of the ideal and material
> > aspects of
> > > > > >objects being wildly interwoven.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On Dec 29, 2007 8:05 AM, Peg Griffin <Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Interesting work, Andy, thanks for what you have done and
> > pointing to
> > > > > >what
> > > > > > > is yet to be done!
> > > > > > > I am particularly moved to reply to a little point at the end
> > with a
> > > > > > > question. When discussing immanent critique, you write "But I
> > think we
> > > > > > > can't
> > > > > > > define the "object" of activity in advance. To start with, we
> > have to
> > > > > >take
> > > > > > > it as a whole. We have to listen to what subjects say and accept
> > to a
> > > > > > > certain extent what they say the object is, and see where it
> > leads."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is my question: Do you see here any connection with
> > Leonie's
> > > > > > > distinction and relation between "really effective" and "merely
> > > > > > > understood"
> > > > > > > motives?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PG
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 6:14 PM
> > > > > > > To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Subject: Verb, Object
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That remark is really to signal that I don't as yet have a
> > worked-out
> > > > > > > response to the issues David has been raising in relation to
> > ANL's
> > > > > >concept
> > > > > > > of "activity" only some criticisms of my own. But at the moment,
> > I
> > > > > >believe
> > > > > > > that "immanent critique" holds the key. Here is how I understand
> > > > the idea
> > > > > > > of "immanent critique".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Immanent critique" was first developed by Hegel in his
> > Phenomenology.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phprefac.htm#m053
> > > > > > > where Hegel explains it. The Phenomenology is the canonical
> > example of
> > > > > > > "immanent critique". Hegel does not back sit back and look at
> > the
> > > > various
> > > > > > > forms of consciousness which have succeeded one another in
> > history, and
> > > > > > > "criticise" tehm from his own superior point of view, but
> > "enters into"
> > > > > > > them, adopts and follows their logic and asks questions of a way
> > of
> > > > > > > thinking from its own standpoint. That is, he follows the path
> > of
> > > > its own
> > > > > > > critique, until the "ideology" itself leads to an impasse.
> > > > Subsequently,
> > > > > > > sometimes after an interval, sometimes directly arising from the
> > > > > > > self-scepticism, a new way of thinking arises, which is able to
> > > > cope with
> > > > > > > or avoid the contradictions into which the previous one fell.
> > And
> > > > so the
> > > > > > > process goes on. Americans will recognise shades of Thomas Kuhn
> > > > here, and
> > > > > > > we should all recognise Marx's obsession with political economy.
> > (For
> > > > > > > example, if you look at how capital worked up until 1883, i.e.
> > before
> > > > > > > Taylor's experiments in scientific management, you will see that
> > Marx's
> > > > > > > concept of value was just how capitalists worked. Taylor made a
> > > > critique
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > this business of lengthening the working day and keeping wages
> > > > down. Marx
> > > > > > > was following capital's own critique, but he died in 1883 and
> > his
> > > > > > > followers
> > > > > > > didn't know what to do next)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So "immanent critique" means critiquing an object by following
> > its own
> > > > > > > logic:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "So my friend you say that ..., so doesn't that mean that
> > > > ... and
> > > > > > > didn't you say you were against that?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What does it mean to say that social psychology should adopt
> > "immanent
> > > > > > > critique" as an approach to defining the subject-object relation
> > > > and its
> > > > > > > concept of "activity"? Well, as I said, this is work in
> > progress,
> > > > OK? But
> > > > > > > we have to see a subject (its opinions, its strengths, its
> > > > psychoses, its
> > > > > > > "standpoint", its identity, etc.) as one of many or several
> > possible
> > > > > > > subjects which are part and parcel of a certain way of life. The
> > > > activity
> > > > > > > which a subject is involved in is defined *by the subject* (and
> > to a
> > > > > > > certain extent vice versa) and becomes something else as a
> > result
> > > > of the
> > > > > > > working out of that system of activity (and the subject's own
> > > > critique of
> > > > > > > it).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So for example, the subject might say "I am a tradesperson.
> > > > Everyone will
> > > > > > > always need a plumber. I don't have to beg for my money. These
> > > > > > > paper-pushers could disappear tomorrow and we wouldn't miss them
> > ...etc
> > > > > > > etc" - the collected prejudices of a randomly chosen figure in
> > our
> > > > > > > society.
> > > > > > > He is involved in the practice of a trade which guarantees her a
> > > > > > > respectable living standard. The question is, how do
> > contradictions
> > > > arise
> > > > > > > in *that* way of thinking as the trade become more and more one
> > of
> > > > > > > plugging
> > > > > > > in integrated components, work that can be done by a kid, but
> > work
> > > > > >control
> > > > > > > requires the use of all sorts of computers, etc., etc., and
> > altogether
> > > > > >all
> > > > > > > the assumptions his or her way of life is predicated on change.
> > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am only guessing with the above. But I think we can't define
> > the
> > > > > > > "object"
> > > > > > > of activity in advance. To start with, we have to take it as a
> > > > whole. We
> > > > > > > have to listen to what subjects say and accept to a certain
> > extent what
> > > > > > > they say the object is, and see where it leads.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At 10:09 AM 28/12/2007 -0800, you wrote:
> > > > > > > >I follow you right up to the last paragraph in this note, Andy,
> > where
> > > > > >you
> > > > > > > >write:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I want to go back to Hegel methodologically and work on the
> > claim that
> > > > > >an
> > > > > > > >*immanent* critique of the categories of activity is the only
> > viable
> > > > > > > >approach. Otherwise, we are just pulling pre-determined
> > categories out
> > > > > >of
> > > > > > > >our own heads. The latter is the usual approach in my view.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Probably this means that I need to go back and read your
> > article more
> > > > > > > >carefully.
> > > > > > > >What is an *immanent" critique?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >mike
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >On Dec 27, 2007 2:35 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re Leontyev's concept of "activity'. I wanted to leave this
> > to
> > > > a kind
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > "stage two" but since I want to use a category of activity
> > too
> > > > I have
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > get to it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So far as I can see, for ANL, "activity" is
> > paradigmatically
> > > > but not
> > > > > > > > > exclusively the "external" activity, of an individual
> > organism.
> > > > So it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > the same category of "activity" as Fichte used in his
> > critique of
> > > > > > > Kant,
> > > > > > > > > which Hegel picks up on. And for ANL it is "instrumental" to
> > use
> > > > > > > Mike's
> > > > > > > > > word (instrumental allows the object to be another subject,
> > treated
> > > > > >as
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > object though), or "purposive", though I think inclusive of
> > > > > >unintended
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > non-conscious components of the actions. So it must be very
> > similar
> > > > > >to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > category of "practice" insofar as theory and practice are
> > > > > > > differentiated.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The problem comes for me when you have to get "stuck into"
> > this
> > > > > > > category
> > > > > > > > > and work out the appropriate way of elaborating the various
> > *forms*
> > > > > >of
> > > > > > > > > activity. With some good reason, ANL I think moves to a
> > Marxist
> > > > > > > paradigm
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > "mode of production", practice-as-labour, in order to
> > mobilise a
> > > > > > > series
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > categories through which activity can be grasped. This leads
> > to the
> > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > that David identified, namely, that the dichotomy between
> > > > labour and
> > > > > > > > > communication is a false one. In fact this dichotomy has
> > caused
> > > > havoc
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the whole stream of Cultural Psychology over the past 200
> > > > years, from
> > > > > > > > > Hegel
> > > > > > > > > to Marx to CHAT to contemporary contintental philosophy.
> > Hegel
> > > > > >dropped
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > paradigm of labour in favour of a paradigm of critique
> > around 1805,
> > > > > >at
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same time as he adopted a monological concept of Spirit.
> > Marx
> > > > > >returned
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > paradigm of labour in 1844. Then in the anti-Marxist tide of
> > the
> > > > > > > post-WW2
> > > > > > > > > period everyone from French philosophers to critical
> > theorists
> > > > > > > abandoned
> > > > > > > > > labour for communication as the paradigm. Some also turn to
> > > > aesthetic
> > > > > > > > > acitivity as the paradigm (subject-object, subject-other or
> > > > > > > subject-self
> > > > > > > > > are the three possible relations here).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It seemed to me that the position of LSV which I so valued
> > was that
> > > > > > > LSV
> > > > > > > > > held that it was the WHOLE of social practice (not just
> > > > labour), and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > WHOLE of culture (not just means of production) which were
> > the
> > > > > > > operative
> > > > > > > > > concepts for psychology.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The problem remains though, if we are not to simply adopt
> > and take
> > > > > > > over
> > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > >xmca mailing list
> > > > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > >xmca mailing list
> > > > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > >xmca mailing list
> > > > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >
> > > > > Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
> > > > >mobile 0409 358 651
> > > > >
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >xmca mailing list
> > > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >xmca mailing list
> > > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >xmca mailing list
> > > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > > > Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
> > > >mobile 0409 358 651
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >xmca mailing list
> > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >xmca mailing list
> > > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > > Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
> > > mobile 0409 358 651
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Elinami Swai
> > Womens' and Gender Studies
> > University Hall 4220-A
> > The University of Toledo
> > Toledo, OH, 43606
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>

--
Dr. Elinami Swai
Womens' and Gender Studies
University Hall 4220-A
The University of Toledo
Toledo, OH, 43606
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca