>
> Interesting citation, Nate, from contemporary practitioners right on cue!
But
> I am not sure of its bearing on the idea of "activity carrying its own
meaning"
I think your right, Engestrom focuses within that quote much more on
externalization and internalization. I put it out as the other side of the
coin so to speak. Leontiev's Activity Theory is critiqued below by the
Russian authors of the Golden Key Program.
The Golden Key
unpublished manuscript
G. G. Kravtsov, E. E. Berezhkovskaya, E. E. Kravtsova
"The solution of problem of sense and meaning, which was offered by L.S.
Vygotsky, where many-sided personal sense is primary, and meanings,
proceeded from it, is settled current zone of sense, is principally
important. According to the determination of L.S. Vygotsky " the meaning is
the only stone in the building of sense ".It's necessary to mark that there
was offered direct opposite solution, according to which the subjective
personal sense and objective meanings are the subject of principally
different spheres of activity, in the activity theory approach of A.N.
Leontiev. This approach theoretically legalized the splitting of psychology
into psychology of the intellect and psychology of the personality. Besides
it the process of training got its psychological interpretation as the
process of mastering of social experience, mastering of objectively
existing normative knowledges. According to the approach, stated in
cultural and historical conception, really there is no the direct mastering
of socially fixed objective meanings. The deep layer of movement from
personal sense to normative meaning is always laid beyond the outward
process of mastering of knowledge."
My understanding of the quote is it is in reference to what in an earlier
message I referred to as "goal directed activities" (perception, reading,
creativity etc) Davydov in his chapter in "Perspectives in Activity
Theory" argues against such an interpreatation of Activity Theory. I think
it would be safe to say Engestrom does too with his emphasis on
internalization/externalization and of course the earlier quote.
I see some similarity between the Golden Key quote and Lave and Wenger in
that "meaning" comes about through practice as in negotiation of meaning,
rather than a priori of sorts in which motive could be interpreted as
argueing.
"The different ways in which old-timers and newcomers establish and
maintain identities conflict and generate competing viewpoins on the
practice and its development. Newcomers are caught in a dilemma. On the one
hand, tehy need to engage in the existing practice, which had developed
over time: to understand it, to participate in it, and to become full
members of the community in which it exists. On the other hand, they have a
stake in its development as they begin to establish their own identity in
its future." (ibid, p 115)
My concern with this statement is as Jay mentioned awhile back that the
expectation that one should understand a practice before one critiques it,
is one rarely does. I may be misreading the quote but it seems to me and
this might be that ontology thing that the individual interacts with
practice, but is seperate from it. Establishing an identity is something
seperate from practice, rather than something that comes about through
practice. Object oriented - artifact mediated as a unit of analysis seems
to take more of the viewpoint that the subject can not be seperated from
the activity.
Nate