Andy--
How do we interpret the following in light of your reply to Monica?
mike
------------
Leontiev defines activity as
“..the non-additive, molar unit of life for material, corporeal
subject…. It is the unit of life that is mediated
by mental reflection. The real function of this unit is to orient the
subject in the world of objects. In
other words, activity is not reaction or aggregate of reactions, but a
system with its own structure, its
own internal transformations, and its own development.” (Leontiev,
1981: p.46)
In contrast
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Yes, if I understand you correctly, that is what I was driving at.
Why do I say "Not many people, even in the history of CHAT, do"?
Well, LSV was very explicit about it and what he meant by unit.
Everyone recognises that. But AN Leontyev for example does not
follow this aspect of Vygotsky's method. True "operation" and
"action" are units, but I don't think his conception of "activity"
follows LSV's method. It could be seen in that way, but I don't
think ANL himself saw his work as guided by an "analysis by units"
and although we know of 3 units in his work, I don't think he uses
them methodologically as units. Engestrom accepts LSV's unit of
"artefact-mediated action" but it is kind of sublated into a
method which hinges around a "root model" of a system of activity
which is not a unit of analysis. Davydov follows LSV's method in
this respect n his method of maths teaching. Meshcheryakov
developed it in his work teaching the deaf-blind. But otherwise,
very broadly, I think people see it as part of the history of CHAT
and not really relevant to their own work. I might be wrong. I
haven't done a comprehensive survey on it. But that's the
impression I get.
Andy
Monica Hansen wrote:
Andy,
Just so I understand: When you asked Anna Sfard about "unit of
analysis", you were trying to get
her to make her assumptions explicit about the practice/method
of using the
"unit of analysis" in psychology as a science. Vygotsky's use
of this term
is appropriate in the larger discourse of psychology at the
time, isn't it?
I wouldn't say a historical accident, but rather as he is
participating in a
scientific discourse with logical argument it is likely that
his word choice
is deliberate. What do you mean by the following statement,
"Not many
people, even in the history of CHAT, do"?
Just following along this very interesting thread.
Thanks,
Monica
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>] On
Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 12:20 AM
To: annasfar@math.msu.edu <mailto:annasfar@math.msu.edu>
Cc: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
Subject: Re: [xmca] discourse and unit
OK, having taken the time to read what you say, you are quite
explicit then. You don't agree with the method of analysis by
units, in the sense that Vygotsky used the term. Which is
fine. Not many people, even in the history of CHAT, do.
Andy
anna sfard wrote:
Andy,
You seem to imply a unit must be a part of a greater
whole, perhaps even
an
invisible part, as is the case for molecules or cells.
While I don't see
invisibility ("see invisibility"? well, you know what I
mean) as a
defining
property of unit of analysis, I do believe that being a
part of something
bigger is a useful characteristic. The discourses I named
are all
irreducible parts, at least for me, of the greater whole
which is our
communicational activity - our thinking. The discourses I
named are
irreducible in that when you look at their separate
elements (e.g., words
or
concepts), the effect is exactly like in the case of
looking at single
atoms
inside a molecule: you lose the ties/relations to the
other atoms and the
gestalt is gone.
And now, I'm afraid, I must be gone. My immediate
non-virtual community
makes sounds of being annoyed with my unexpected departure
(whereas xmca
community may be annoyed with my intensive - all too
intensive - presence
in
these last few days, for which I'm asking its forgiveness).
anna
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>] On
Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 8:53 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [xmca] discourse and unit
The answer to my question, Anna, is that you just don't
see the word
"unit". Let's look at the whole of that Vygotsky quote
(apologies to
David and Martin for using the Minnick translation):
"In our view, an entirely different form of analysis is
fundamental
to further development of theories of thinking and
speech. This form
of analysis relies on the partitioning of the complex
whole into
/units/. In contrast to the term 'element', the term 'unit'
designates a product of analysis that possesses /all
the basic
characteristics of the whole/. The unit is a vital and
irreducible
part of the whole. The key to the explanation of the
characteristics
of water lies not in the investigation of its chemical
formula but
in the investigation of its molecular movements. In
precisely the
same sense, the living cell is the real unit of
biological analysis
because it preserves the basic characteristics of life
that are
inherent in the living organism." (Vygotsky 1986)
My problem with what you say, Anna, is that I can't see
"discourse" as
an irreducible part, "cell" or "molecule," to be
contrasted with the
whole. I always took discourse to be a whole, or a Gestalt
which, if not
a whole , then a holistic element of a wider life which
includes
discourse as an aspect. But not a unit.
Andy
anna sfard wrote:
Here is how Vygotsky answers your question, Andy,
after stating that
"word
meaning [concept] is [his] unit of analysis":
"'unit' is a product of analysis that possesses *all*
the basic
properties
of the whole" (T&S, 1987, p. 46, emphasis in the
original).
And he famously illustrated this definition by
speaking about the mistake
one makes when using too small a unit of analysis and
trying to tell
properties of water by investigating the properties of
oxygen and
hydrogen.
In my own words, the word "unit", when used in the
context of the
expression
"unit of analysis" is the smallest aggregate of
phenomena I need to
consider
in my research to be able to say anything really
helpful/useful and
trustworthy.
I'm not sure what to make of your " historical
accident, or a mistake, or
simply a trivial thing". Why should unit of analysis
be any of those?
Could
you, please, extend the set of possible choices buy
adding, say, a
rational
decision (that is, a decision made for an articulable
reason).
Oh,.. now I can see, I think. You don't like the
traditional divisions
which
I seemed to be making while speaking about
mathematical discourse,
scientific discourse, political discourse... You even
asked whether my
unit
of analysis is the same thing as "subject matter". Ok,
so no, i'm talking
about *discourses*, which is ontologically quite
different than the
(underdefined) "subject matter". And why the
"disciplinary" division?
Because these discourses display the kind of inner
cohesiveness (not
necessarily in the Halliday's sense of the word
cohesiveness) - in their
word use, in their routines and meta-rules, in visual
mediators, in their
narratives - that make them stand out as obvious units
of analysis. Or,
to
put it differently, when I start with a word, such as
"number", and am
trying to investigate as much of its uses as necessary
to see anything of
importance, I invariably end up, whether I want it or
not, with looking
at
the whole of formal and informal) numerical
*discourse*, in any of its
developmental versions.
Did I mange to make myself understandable?
Anna
PS. Of course, you may go on and ask what I mean by
"the whole" of a
discourse. The boundaries are blurry, and I don't
really mean I am
checking
every piece of this rather elusive entity. But I do as
far as necessary,
never excluding in advance anything that may be deemed
as belonging to a
discourse in question.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>] Sent: Saturday, April 23,
2011 4:22 AM
To: annasfar@math.msu.edu
<mailto:annasfar@math.msu.edu>; eXtended Mind,
Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] activity and reification
Anna, no-one took this up, but let me pursue it
nonetheless.
I said I think we disagreee about what Vygotsky meant
by "unit of
analysis."
You concluded your third message in this exchange:
"...to speak about it as the use of word in
discourse (not just a
single act, Andy; rather, a discursive activity
with the word) ...
discourse (understood as a specific type of
communication) is what
may usefully be taken as a unit of analysis in
developmental (and,
obviously, historical) studies."
Leaving all other issues aside (I actually agree with
most of what you
said
in this message in response to Martin), what do you
make of the word
"unit"
in the term "unit of analysis"? Do you see it as a
kind of historical
accident, or a mistake, or simply a trivial thing? I
take it seriously,
you
see.
Do you see what I am getting at Anna? You seem to use
the term to mean
"subject matter."
Andy
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
<http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g932564744>
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
MIA: http://www.marxists.org
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca