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