[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Project



Mike, my proposal is very much for a "tweak" *within* Acivity Theory: a project is an activity. You and I have discussed the serious problems we have with aspects of the Soviet and Finnish versions of AT. I believe the "tweak" I suggest deals with these problems. You have raised with me the evident "subjectivism" of "project", but I am confident that the conception of the object(ive) being immanent within the project, and realised by it, deals adequately with that problem.

Andy

mike cole wrote:
Hi All -The notion of a project is really interesting to me, but neither current life nor my education prepare me to enter into the important lines of social theory that are being brought into the present discussion. Sarte is important in this discussion as I recall. But how that connects to Heideggar, and how Heidegger.... is very tough sledding for me.

At a gut level, I like the idea of project as a unit of analysis for human development. I like it because it gets us to think of our activities "in the long run." Activities are a part of other/larger systems of activities that exist over time.

I have engaged in many projects in my life. I have written about them. They are not randomly related to each other. Ditto for everyone on this list, grad students as well as old timers. The patterning of that "not randomness" over successive "projects" seems to be close to what might be thought of as Projects in the way that I think about it. I also like the future orientation of its verb form, which fits nicely for a guy hooked on prolepsis.

Sorry for philosophical naivete. How to square all of this with various interpretations of Activity Theory I gotta leave to them what knows. And sit back and lurk!
mike


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu <mailto:packer@duq.edu>> wrote:

    I read it, Andy, several times. I've copied below the final
    section in its entirety. Much of that final section seems to be
    discussing problems with the definitions of  "activity" in
    Activity Theory, and it's a bit hard to fish out the positive
    statements about "project."  Here are some excerpts with my responses:

    At the end of the previous section you write:

    "‘Project’ functions to theorise the connection between human
    actions and the societal context in which individual actions are
    meaningful."

    My problem in a nutshell is that I cannot see how the concept of
    project accomplishes this.

    "In Activity Theory there is nothing in an activity other than
    human actions."  I think you're disagreeing with this, no?

    "The harmonization of the contradiction between societal and
    individual needs is resolved by the development of a social
    division of labor and a societal system for the circulation and
    distribution of the products of labor. "

    I think you're disagreeing with this too. If you're not, and this
    is a statements about "project," then "project" has become so big
    that it includes "a societal system," which seems to defeat its
    purpose.

    Here's, then, what seems to be key to the definition of "project,"
    as distinct from "activity":

    "What the notion of Project is intended to do is to bring the
    concept of an activity back to a simple concept which can also
    mobilise everyday meanings, and at the same time to give greater
    emphasis to the dynamic nature of activities and a vision of the
    social fabric in which the unlimited agency of individual human
    beings is manifest".

    Again, this sounds great. But let's see how the "social fabric"
    shows up.

    "To this end two important concepts of Hegel have been brought to
    bear, namely the concept of immanence and Hegel’s mediation of the
    molar/molecular relation in a logical concept."

    Okay, two key ingredients! That's what I like to see in a definition:

    1. "The objective of a project is immanent within the project
    itself. The project arises in response to some contradiction or
    problem within some social situation, but the object cannot simply
    be conceived of as “to solve problem X.” The problem stimulates
    efforts to find a solution but it is not in itself sufficient to
    form a concept."

    Yes, I get this. The object(ive) is not external to the project.

    2. The relation between an action and the project which gives to
    the action its “rational meaning” is the same as the relation
    between any individual discursive act and the concept which it
    instantiates, and the same as the relation between any individual
    thing and the category under which the thing is subsumed.

    I find the hegelese a bit hard to follow here. But let's assume
    that what is "the same" in each case can be spelled out (because
    it certainly is not spelled out), then we still have here
    something that is *internal* to the activity.

    In short, we have defined a project in terms of the actions that
    it involves, the object(ive) of these actions, and the relations
    between each action and the whole project. But this definition
    makes no reference to the societal context.  As I wrote in a
    previous message, there seems to be no market, not legislation, no
    social classes.

    My sense, then, is that an analysis that builds on the concept of
    project still has to look elsewhere for its understanding of the
    "societal context," the "social fabric."

    But I'm sure this is just my sloppy reading or thinking.

    Martin

    ============
    The Concept of Project

    A ‘project’ is an activity, that is, a unit of activity, and as
    such is the basic concept of Activity Theory. To say
    ‘collaborative project’ is simply to emphasise that ‘project’
    represents the basic relation between people brought together, not
    by some contingent attribute, but by commitment to a common aim.

    Activity Theory has its roots in Classical German philosophy
    especially that of Hegel, in particular as appropriated by Marx,
    especially Capitaland Theses on Feuerbach. The proximate source of
    Activity Theory was the Cultural Psychology of Lev Vygotsky. On
    these foundations, A. N. Leontyev first set out a framework for
    Activity Theory, elaborated, for example, in The Development of
    Mind (2009) and Activity, Consciousness and Personality (1978).
    These foundations were further developed by a number of Soviet
    writers, by Yrjö Engeström with hisLearning by Expanding (1987)
    followed by numerous journal articles and book chapters, and
    separately by a number of researchers in Europe.

    An activity or project is an aggregate of actions, so the
    conception of a project rests on the conception of an action. In
    Activity Theory actions are both subjective and objective –
    behavior is not abstracted from consciousness. Consequently, an
    aggregate of actions is also equally objective and subjective.
    Implicit in the concept of ‘action’ is that actions are
    artifact-mediated; that is, all actions are effected by means of
    tools or symbols meaningful in the wider culture. Consequently,
    activities are also inclusive of the material conditions they
    create and presuppose.

    Activity Theory with Project as the concept of ‘an activity’ is
    continuous with all the research conducted in the above scientific
    tradition and incorporates its insights. Briefly, the concept of
    an activity which was first formulated by A. N. Leontyev, can be
    defined as follows:

    “'An activity’ is a molar unit of the human psyche and the life of
    a subject; it is social in nature and is the rational meaning of
    that to which the subject’s activity is directed.” (Leonytev 2009,
    p. 197)

    ‘Molar’ means a large mass of material of some quality, in
    contrast to ‘molecular’ which means the smallest unit of material
    of some quality. The concept of a molar unit originated in German
    Romanticism and is reflected in almost every action and thought of
    a human being – which is not directed towards its immediate object
    and result but by a relatively distant whole. Nonetheless, ‘molar
    unit’ is a concept with which modern social science has a great
    deal of trouble. In Activity Theory there is nothing in an
    activity other than human actions, and this is a thesis with which
    contemporary interactionist theories would be in agreement,
    eschewing recourse to biological determinism, religious or
    structural fatalism or any other force outside of human action as
    determinants of human life. But because there is nothing other
    than human actions to be found in an activity this does not mean
    that an activity is simply the additive sum of actions. In fact,
    the activity generally pre-exists any of the component actions
    which instantiate it: when we act we do not create an activity, we
    join it. So Activity Theory recognizes that there are aggregates
    of actions which have a unity of their own for which, as the
    saying goes, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The
    question then is what is it that gives an activity its unity?

    An activity is defined by the universal, societally produced
    concept of its object. Individual participants may be aware of the
    motive of the activity in which they are participating, but its
    meaning for them, and their motive for participation in the
    activity, is individual. The harmonization of the contradiction
    between societal and individual needs is resolved by the
    development of a social division of labor and a societal system
    for the circulation and distribution of the products of labor.
    Each individual action is motivated by a goal which may not be the
    same as the motive of the activity which it realizes. An
    individual action which serves an individual’s goal, such as “Go
    to point A,” realizes the motive of the activity of a large number
    of individuals thanks to a social division of labor and a socially
    produced means of the supervision of labor.

    The above outline has a number of problems chief among which is
    that its context was a planned economy such as was known to the
    Soviet writers, and it does not extend well to life in the
    capitalist world, or for that matter, to a really existing
    ‘planned economy’.

    Yrjö Engeström freed Activity Theory from the shortcomings of this
    first model and introduced his ‘expanding model’ of activity. Here
    the elements mediating subject and object are introduced at the
    ‘ground floor’, so to speak, of analysing an activity. The subject
    and its object are mediated by instruments and the community. In
    turn the relation between the subject and the community is
    mediated by norms and rules, and the relation between the
    community and the object of the activity is mediated by a division
    of labor. Engeström thus introduced into the concept of an
    activity, explicit consideration of the culturally produced
    artifacts used in the activity, the community engaged in the
    activity, and the norms and division of labor. Engeström describes
    this model as “expanding” because each mediation arises in
    response to contradictions and an iterative process of new
    mediations and new problems bring about an expansion of the
    activity system and changes in the object.

    What the notion of Project is intended to do is to bring the
    concept of an activity back to a simple concept which can also
    mobilise everyday meanings, and at the same time to give greater
    emphasis to the dynamic nature of activities and a vision of the
    social fabric in which the unlimited agency of individual human
    beings is manifest. To this end two important concepts of Hegel
    have been brought to bear, namely the concept of immanence and
    Hegel’s mediation of the molar/molecular relation in a logical
    concept.

    How is the relation between a project and its object to be
    understood? If we take the object to have an independent,
    objective existence, then we are left with a number of problems.
    Is the object to be determined by the Central Committee or does it
    suffice to say that it arises from human activity in the past? An
    aim or ‘human need’ cannot be added to an activity otherwise
    lacking in motive, or an activity added to a pre-existing need.
    The objective of a project is immanent within the project itself.
    The project arises in response to some contradiction or problem
    within some social situation, but the object cannot simply be
    conceived of as “to solve problem X.” The problem stimulates
    efforts to find a solution but it is not in itself sufficient to
    form a concept. (Vygotsky, 1934/1987, p. 126) The formation of a
    project with a concept of the problem is an original and creative
    social act. From that time forward the project and its aim
    continues to develop according to its own logic, so to speak.
    Where a project may ‘end up’ cannot be determined in advance. The
    plot unfolds according to its own dynamic and through interaction
    with the wider community. This is what is meant by immanence.

    How can we understand the relation between the actions and
    ambitions of individual participants on one hand, and on the other
    hand, the immanent objective of the project which forms the
    unifying principle of the project uniting all the disparate
    individual actions into a single activity? Hegel resolved this
    problem in his solution to the problem of the subsumption of any
    number of individual actions under a concept, but there is no
    criteria other than the concept itself determining this
    subsumption. The relation between an action and the project which
    gives to the action its “rational meaning” is the same as the
    relation between any individual discursive act and the concept
    which it instantiates, and the same as the relation between any
    individual thing and the category under which the thing is
    subsumed. The relation between the individual and the universal is
    mediated by the particular, and is not to be conflated with the
    subjective-objective relation which is a quite distinct relation.
    The universal has no separate existence, but exists only in and
    through its particularization in individuals.

    It is the failure to grasp this conception which has meant that
    interactionist discourses fail to see the forest in their
    fascination with trees. Attempts to replace the
    individual/universal relation with the categorization of
    individuals according to contingent attributes leads away from
    activity theory and projects to the theorization of society in
    terms of social groups made up of like individuals – a truly
    postmodern, fragmented view of the world. Activity Theory with
    Project as a unit of activity can, on the contrary, grasp the real
    participation of the individual in the universal and the universal
    in the individual.




    On Apr 2, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
    <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    > I humbly ask you to take the time to read my considered
    explanation, Martin.
    > Andy
    >
    > Martin Packer wrote:
    >> I looked and looked for the actual definition, Andy, but I
    couldn't find it. Could you post it here?
    >>
    >> Martin
    >>
    >> On Apr 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
    <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Martin, you found that 10,000 word article from which you
    noted that Heidegger "did not neglect either history or the social
    world", but not apparently note the exhaustive definition of the
    concept of project.
    >>>
    http://www.academia.edu/2365533/Collaborative_Project_as_a_Concept_for_Interdisciplinary_Human_Science_Research
    >>> After a comprehensive review of the history and context of
    idea of "project", a concrete definition is given on pp. 15ff.
    >>>
    >>> Andy
    >>> Martin Packer wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Michael,
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks,  but I am looking for the way that Andy has defined
    "project" as the fundamental unit of analysis of human activity.
    >>>>
    >>>> Martin
    >>>>
    >>>> On Apr 2, 2013, at 11:33 AM, "Glassman, Michael"
    <glassman.13@osu.edu <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hi Martin,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How about this,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> To project (the verb),
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The ability to extend human activity into a larger human
    arena where it can be joined or experienced by more minds.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> When I speak louder I project my voice so more can hear and
    consider what I say.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> When I write on the Internet I project the workings of my
    mind so more can consider what I am thinking.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> When I use a can I project out my own senses so I can have a
    better understanding of the world around me, gaining new
    perspectives of nature.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Project (the noun)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> To engage in an aim directed activity that has some
    intrinsic good (circa Dewey 1916)  that involves multiple
    minds/perspectives of nature.  The project is realized when the
    aim is achieved, but then it is possible to "project" you achieved
    aim outwards.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Michael
    >>>>> ________________________________________
    >>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
    <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu> [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
    <mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>] on behalf of Martin Packer
    [packer@duq.edu <mailto:packer@duq.edu>]
    >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:22 PM
    >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
    >>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Polls are closed: Manfred Holodynsk's
    article is choice
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No one can provide me with the definition of "project"?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Brecht, let me return to the material you copied from your
    doctoral thesis. Let's take the opening sentences:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On Apr 1, 2013, at 2:47 AM, Brecht De Smet
    <Brechttie.DeSmet@UGent.be> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "The historical process of capital accumulation and
    proletarianization
    >>>>>> on a world scale has created forms of wage labor and
    exploitation that
    >>>>>> constructed the modern working class as a passive Object of
    history.
    >>>>>> Persons who can freely dispose of their labor power, but
    who do not
    >>>>>> possess their own (sufficient) means of production are
    forced into the
    >>>>>> activity-system of modern wage labor.[1][1] Their activity
    of wage labor
    >>>>>> is born out of necessity, and oriented towards the goal of
    reproducing
    >>>>>> their natural and social life.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> What we find here is your explication of a "historical
    process" that has constructed (I'd say 'constituted,' but let that
    pass), a class of persons. Not simply a crowd (I recall your
    previous critique!), but a class, which I presume you would agree
    is not simply an aggregate of individuals. As a result, you
    suggest, the actions of individuals who find themselves to be
    members of that class (I presume they didn't choose to be working
    class?) are constrained - people are "forced" to sell their
    capabilities in order to obtain a wage in order to eat in order to
    live. Their goal - "reproducing their natural and social life" -
    is not intrinsic to their activity - "wage labor" - because, as
    you say, the goal exists prior to the activity, and to a great
    degree the activity undercuts the goal - for many it's hard to eat
    and live under the conditions of exploited labor.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> All of this is, IMHO, a great analysis! You take into
    account the social world in which people act, and how it
    constrains their activity, you take into account the history of
    this world, you take into account the necessity of reproduction. I
    just don't see that any of this is built on "project" as a unit of
    analysis!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But probably I'm confused...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Martin
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> __________________________________________
    >>>>> _____
    >>>>> xmca mailing list
    >>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
    >>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> __________________________________________
    >>>>> _____
    >>>>> xmca mailing list
    >>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
    >>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> __________________________________________
    >>>> _____
    >>>> xmca mailing list
    >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
    >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> --
    >>>
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>> *Andy Blunden*
    >>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
    <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
    >>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
    >>> http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden
    >>>
    >>> __________________________________________
    >>> _____
    >>> xmca mailing list
    >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
    >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    > --
    >
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > *Andy Blunden*
    > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
    <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
    > Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
    > http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden
    >
    > __________________________________________
    > _____
    > xmca mailing list
    > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
    > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
    >


    __________________________________________
    _____
    xmca mailing list
    xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
    http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden

__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca