Re: [xmca] déjatel’nost

I am unable to keep up with all of these very interesting and educational
commentaries, but I think that the notion of interdisciplinarity as central
to the
sociao-cultural-historical-activity enterprise is extraordinarily important
to keep in
mind.

In trying to reconcile his views with those of Eugene Matusov, Toomela says
that the cultural historical and sociocultural views are complementary by
virtue of their different levels of analysis/associated disciplines:
psychology and sociology.

I take this to be fundamental, serious, error. If the followers of vygotsky,
luria, and
leontiev want to separate the social, the historical, the cultural and the
individual
by discplines, their enterprise is dead in the water. What does societal
mean if not
a combination of "levels."? What does cultural HISTORICAL mean if not a
mixture
of syncronic and diachronic, macro and micro?

Answer, "nothing" if it is suits you. But then jump out of the frying pan.

Me? I am trying to survive and development in the frying pan. Maybe it will
be the
fire next time for some. But this is my one and only time, so far as I know.

(In my bumb shelter, preparing for iscar)
mike

PS. There has been no commentary on Allan Lukes' interesting paper which is
presumably of great relevance to ISCAR. There have been no additional votes
on
a paper for discussion (following ISCAR). Is this fatigue, vacation,
overwork, indifference, or a technical glitch? I really do not know. Could
someone go and
vote for any old paper for discussion that they want and send me a note
saying they did so in order for me, and bruce jones, our trusty tech helper,
to figure out
if we have another bug in our buggy system??

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Thanks for that Dot.
>
> The article you provided us with from AA Leontyev really settled the
> matter, didn't it? But AAL also clearly showed how open is the whole
> science. In general, once a great founder has determined a unit of analysis
> - which is not *just* some thing known to everyone, which it is as well, but
> a clear *conception* of it, then, as you beg for, everyone else can just get
> on with doing the empirical and theoretical leg work without arguing about
> methodology all the time. But this is not the case (according to AAL, and I
> agree) with Activity Theory.
>
> You said, and I see that you are right, that ANL generally used the word
> "unit" in inverted commas, I think, (1) because he had not yet been able to
> form that *clear conception* of the thing, which dialectical science
> demands, and (2) because he worked with an interdisciplinary science which
> had three units: operation, action and activity. He explained what they are
> but IMHO, so far as I have read, which is not very far, being a slow reader,
> he never determined a clear Begriff of any of the three. But I think it can
> be done. Hegel gave us (I think) a good lead for "activity" and I think we
> go to other sources, and so some work, and maybe, hopefully find a way
> forward with "operation" and "action," but for now ...
>
> Andy
>
>
> Dot Robbins wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Friends,
>> I am writing without having thought through the implications, so in
>> advance, I hope you will forgive me if this does not make sense.
>> For me personally, I view Vygotsky's thoughts within a metacognitive
>> framework… that is simply an intense awareness of the environment/situation
>> in trying to solve a task/problem….the attempt is to stand aside and let
>> intuition play a role, within a non-linear, asymmetrical framework that is
>> not two-dimensional. Units of analysis for me are not basically concrete,
>> but have a concrete universality. First, Vygotsky: If we look at his
>> explanatory principle, we are viewing an attempt to understand consciousness
>> – personality through the modus of thought and speech….word meaning. Within
>> this approach, for me at least, it is so interesting to see components that
>> have different origins (thought is pre-linguistic, speech is
>> pre-intellectual), and with "engagements" and "separations," they intertwine
>> developmentally. Thought focuses on the whole, and speech on the part. There
>> are many concepts of this nature, when viewing phenomena from this
>> perspective…..spontaneous concepts (whole) and scientific concepts
>> (part). It is a fluid dance of developmental movement that we will never be
>> able to understand. Activity Theory takes a different mindset, for me,
>> because it does not have an explanatory principle that I know of….please
>> help me here. Therefore, speaking of "units of analysis" within this
>> understanding does not have the same application. AT goes directly into
>> various levels: activity, actions, operations, etc. A. A. Leontiev stated
>> that his father never defined "units" and always had parentheses around the
>> word. A. A. wrote: "…the concept of unit has little applicability to
>> activity, action, or operation, since it presumes their discrete nature….In
>> A. N. Leontiev's conception, the only thing that can be called a "unit" in
>> the strict sense is activity (in an activity act)…" Now, A. N. Leontiev was
>> most interested in "consciousness" and
>> "personality." Again, A. A. Leontiev: "So it is not the
>> element-by-element connections of "units" of consciousness with "units of
>> activity" that is most important, but first, the system-forming role of
>> consciousness in relation to the entirety of activities." So, there is a
>> reverse formulation with activity theory itself being understood as a system
>> of units of activity. For me, within the Vygotskian framework, units are a
>> metatheoretical prism to help focus our attention on a particular object of
>> study, and they cannot be viewed independently…..they remain within a sea of
>> flux – process. I believe it might be good for a few moments to loosen the
>> grip on trying to offer a precision definition of units, apart from the fact
>> that when they capture our awareness, as a guiding star or a firm anchor, we
>> need to see how we can translate that theory (whatever it means to each of
>> us) into action/methodology/praxis, etc., and not try to pin
>> down the exactness of this wonderful creative concept. The key
>> understanding of units for me is simple: I don't think of a unit of analysis
>> as a static term, but a moving dialectic/triadic…..within a developing
>> relationship. Units are helpful, in my opinion, to grasp the
>> genetic-development focus that is so difficult to comprehend and apply.
>> Units of analysis are extremely important as an answer to associationism,
>> just as the concept of "functional organs" is an answer to innatist
>> thinking. And, it is very important to include another unit of analysis for
>> Vygotsky, "experience" (see Peter Langford, 2005, p. 108). Thanks for
>> listening……just thoughts that will change, for sure.
>> Dot
>> P.S. "A 'unit' (edinica), can also be referred to as a 'cell' (lketockaor
>> jaceika) or arch (nacalo). It also bears an interesting relation to the idea
>> of the 'concrete universal' (konkretnoe vseobšcee) as developed by Soviet
>> philosopher such as IL'enkov who have attempted to develop Marx's method in
>> a way influenced by Vygotsky, see Dialektika abstraktnogo I konkretnogo v
>> 'Kapitale' Marksa, (Moscow, 1960). (Translated as The Dialectics of the
>> Abstract and the Concrete in Marx's Capital (Moscow, Progress, 1982)"
>> (Bakhurst, 1986, p.127). "Thought, speech and the genesis of meaning: on the
>> 50th anniversary of Vygotsky's Myšlenie I Rec." Studies in Soviet Thought
>> 31: 103-129.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/>+61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Received on Wed Sep 3 20:18 PDT 2008