At the same time, the claim as to the _origin_
of motives I think directs too quickly our attention
away from the thorny issue of how motives
become the object of considerable debate among co-participants in activity.
My fear here
is that in arguing that motives emerge out
of activities is that there is an implicit
assumption that it is up to the analyst (and
only if she so chooses) to articulate what people
were doing and why, rather than the co-participants.
I know that this may not be our _intent_ (to
beg the issue in question) or what is necessarily
implied in such a view, but my own bias is to
emphasize and problematize how people differ
as to their construction of the purposes and goals
of the activities in which they participate. "Goals"
and "motives"--whatever their "real" status within
activity, are deemed as important rhetorical aspects
of human activity, whether they are located in
individuals, societies, or spirit.
In this connection, the communicative construction of
goals in both instructional and everyday/professional activities--where
goals and motives are debated and
certainly valued within a Western epistemology--
seems one of the most important moments of action
that might be analyzed by sociocultural researchers.
Bill Penuel
____________________________________
PreventionInventions
139 Holly Forest
Nashville, TN 37221
(615) 646-9682