It is a little hard for me to understand your continued confusion. I can
see that it makes sense defining electrons and protons by their specific
defining attribute -- it is what makes sense for the purpose of the
discipline, isn't it?
To me, it makes just as much sense when it comes to psychosocial phenomena
to have analytic tools like the Vygotskian triad of subject-tool-object
that refer to the functions in a dynamic psychosocial system of action or
activity. For understanding what goes on in an activity system it is vital
to be open for the possibility that as situations unfold the people and
things that are involved do not have fixed functions. Their functions in
relation to each other change and reorganize, and the same goes if the
system is analyzed from different perspectives, which makes a lot of sense
for the purposes of institutional change that AT is often used for.
On the other hand, the definitions of the related functions --
subject-tool-object -- in the Vygotskian triadic system (and its AT
expansions) should of course be clear. Aren't they?
Eva