[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Project
Brecht
Andy talks about projects being nested in each other. That is helpful.
I agree about the social situation of development, but then that must be
seen for what it is--it's about *development.*
*
*
I am currently taking a look at the possibility of drawing the concept of *
equlilibration* in.
Mratin your work is you project, not your job. Intellectuals have to be
clear about that. Would that we were autonomous, but we generally aren't
able to see self-sustaining.
Carol
On 3 April 2013 10:15, Brecht De Smet <Brechttie.DeSmet@ugent.be> wrote:
> Martin, I think your concern is genuine, i.e. that project are not
> isolated instances of activity and should relate to what you call "the
> social fabric".
>
> I don't have much time to write up an eloquent reply so I try my best to
> be concise.
>
> What Andy emphasis in his ITA book is the confusion in AT between its
> substance of analysis, its unit of analysis, and its "products" of
> analysis. The unit of analysis is that simple phenomenon which develops
> the complex substance in a concrete way. Expressed in a formula, what Andy
> proposes is quite simple:
>
> Substance of analysis = human (artifact-mediated) activity, a fuzzy whole
> Unit of analysis = collaborative project, an abstraction
> Products of analysis = practices, actions, activities, "system of
> activity", division of labor, etc. etc., a concrete whole
>
> E.g. in my research
> Substance of analysis = "workers' struggle", a fuzzy whole
> Unit of analysis = "strike", an abstraction
> Products of analysis = strike's "neoformations": organizations (strike
> committee, trade union, parties, etc.); forms of collective consciousness
> and memory; leadership; "democracy from below"; "bureacuracy"; etc. etc, a
> concrete whole
>
> E.g. Capital
> Substance of analysis = capital relation, a fuzzy whole
> Unit of analysis = commodity relation, an abstraction
> Products of analysis = fetishism; exploitation; labor theory of value;
> primitive accumulation; etc etc., a concrete whole
>
> So the problem with forcing the entire social fabric or "context" into
> project is that it creates yet another "system" instead of a unit of
> analysis. Of course projects do not exist in isolation, but I think in
> Andy's text and especially in ITA this is dealt with relations between
> projects, which then constitute new wholes, i.e. new projects.
>
> Talking in Marx's terms, the search for a suitable unit of analysis (here
> project as UoA for activity) represents the movement towards the abstract,
> looking for the "cell-form" or the simplest determination of the
> phenomenon, while "bringing in the social fabric" is part of the movement
> of the abstract to the concrete, exploring the many determinations of the
> subject-matter.
>
> I think Vygotsky also solved the problem of "context" in a brilliant way
> by his concept of social situation of development, which brings in "the
> social fabric" from the *perspective* of the object of analysis.
>
> Best,
>
> Brecht
>
> Quoting Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>:
>
>> 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> 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> 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<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> 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 [
>>>>>>> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin Packer [
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<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<http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>>> _____
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<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<http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**____________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>
>> ______________________________**____________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.eduhttp://dss.**ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>
> ______________________________**____________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>
--
Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
Developmental psycholinguist: EMBED
Academic, Researcher, Writer and Editor
Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca