In my list of material aspects of patient visit to a doctor I do not want=
to
claim that each aspect is an object but all together they constitute
"materiality' of the visit as an object. Following Bakhtin, I think obje=
ct
is body of meaning. And I agree with Leont'ev that object of activity is
not any entity of the environment and that participants active in
construction such object,
>For Leont'ev, the object is what the collective effort of the participan=
ts
>of an activity are directed at, whether consciously or non-consciously. =
The
>object is not just any entity in the environment; participants of an
>activity construct the object, they make it their object. Since the obje=
ct
>becomes an object by meeting a need, the object carries in itself the
>motive of the activity.
However, the problem of the Leont'ev definition, in my view, is in the
notion of "the collective effort." His examples look as if "collective" =
is
another individual. I think Leigh's notion of boundary object starts
addressing this problem by looking on historically specific (museum)
practices and by noticing that object involved in the practices have
different motivational meaning for the participants. But even more, ofte=
n
the participants of these practices do not coordinate their goals and
motives directly with each but only through physical sharing (i.e., havin=
g
in common) the objects of their activities. In this sense, architectural
designs or doctor visits or university class in the modern industrial
societies often (if not almost always) are boundary objects for their
participants. Of course, this phenomenon of boundary objects is not
inherent in architecture, medical, or education practice per se but rathe=
r
is induced by social and historical and economical relations in our socie=
ty
(of exchange of services).
I can be wrong but it seems to me that you see the difference between
architectural design and doctor visit in the fact that design often exist=
s
in blueprints while for the doctor visit it is difficult to pinpoint at i=
ts
material body. However, it does not mean that doctor visit does not have
material body -- its corporeal body is highly distributed in the practice.
My list was aimed to reveal this distribution. By the way, although it i=
s
less evident but architectural design is also distributed in references h=
ow
to read the blueprint, technical specifications, tools, discourses (e.g.,
ways of talking with users), and so forth. As my car dealer says, "We wa=
nt
our customers to be satisfied." So my way of talking about my newly boug=
ht
car and his dealership is his object as well.
When a doctor come to a patient s/he usually wears white robe and often
washes hands. Robe and washed hands are not objects of the activity per =
se
but they contribute to construction of the activity object namely doctor
visit. The doctor's motives in specific medical institutions nicely
described in your work as different from patient's motive. Unfortunately=
,
the coordination of their motives often solely done through corporeal bod=
y
of their boundary object, which doctor visit. It is best evident in thei=
r
discourse (but not only).
What do you think?
Eugene