If it can all be made better by chemicals, then social experience counts for
much less.
It seems possible that activity theory (and related theories) account for
only one form of human experience, i.e., the socially mediated, experiential
kind. This seems the "natural" way the world works because so far we haven't
had, on a large scale, the drugs to mediate experience that are now becoming
available.
It is probably just as possible to create a human culture in which we all
manage our lives through chemicals and social experience (good and bad)
recedes in relative importance.
One interesting thing about the descriptions of what we can do on drugs is
the assumptions about what is useful and good ("have a better command of
arithmetic," "get a sense of humor," etc.). The child on Ritalin is on
Ritalin so they can conform to a specific social setting, not because there
is really anything wrong with them (in my opinion). That these assumptions
go unexamined and unchallenged seems terrible.
Of course it's harder to make this argument about aids dementia, suicidal
depression, etc. as John St. Julien pointed out.
There must be some Greek myth about this situation. Or several. Certainly
Pandora's box. If we treat depression with drugs, then why not less life
threatening conditions? I know people on Prozac who are not suicidal but
just find life easier on Prozac. That makes me nervous. But I don't have a
philosophy that says why they shouldn't take Prozac the rest of their lives.
------
Bonnie
p.s. I bet there'll never be a drug that gives you a better sense of humor.
That has to be experience-based :-)
Bonnie A. Nardi
Design Anthropologist
AT&T Labs West
75 Willow Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 463-7064
nardi who-is-at research.att.com
fax:(650) 327-3796
www.best.com/~nardi/default.html