like Pentti, I do not find the explicit theory that "a breakdown induces
a form of reflective practice" (Tim) in AN Leont'ev's text around the
first quote from chapter 3.5 "general structure of activity" (-- this, as
all following, my translation from German.
I do not have access to the English book.).
But, there is also no big doubt in my mind that ANL used ideas like
these for the empirical research in the Labs in Charkov and
Moscow.
Four paragraphs down he writes:
>The definition/specification of activity-forming units is of utmost
>importance for several basic research questions. One of these is
>the problem of the unification of formally external and internal
>processes of activity. The principle or law of this fusion consists
>in its following exactly and always the "seams" of the respective
>structure.
To find out about the internal structure of activity is very complicated,
we need special instrumentation like, e.g. gaze recording equipment
(see Raeithel & Velichkovsky in Nardi's (Ed) "Context and Consciousness",
MIT Press 1996), to look at the role of conscious reflection and regulation
of attention.
To conclude, Tim, I think that you are on the right track in looking
up quotes to support the similarity of ANL's activity theory with
Heidegger/Maturana/Winograd..., but you should also be aware that the
activity theoretical tradition is much more solidly based in classical
theoretical and experimental psychology (Gestalt theory and Janet's
culture-aware psychology included).
Arne.
p.s. Looking back at the ANL quote given above, I see that this is
the very idea that Ed Hutchins has so beautifully explicated
in his coordination model in "Cognition in the Wild". My German
copy of "Activity, Consciousness, Personality" has a big question
mark in the margin. I drew it in 1981, because I found the
metaphor of the "seams" quite opaque at that time...