Charles,
I think you bring up an important point and it is here where I like Tobach's
*Perspectives on Activity Theory* reference to integrative levels. She
argues all living organisms are social in nature.
On http://www.helsinki.fi/~jengestr/activity/6b0.htm it is also argued,
"In animal evolution, we witness ruptures in each of the three sides of the
triangle depicted in Figure 1. The uppermost side of 'individual survival'
is ruptured by the emerging utilization of tools, most clearly demonstrated
by the anthropoid apes. The left hand side of 'social life' is ruptured by
collective traditions, rituals and rules, originating at the crossing of
adaptation and mating. The right hand side of 'collective survival' is
ruptured by division of labor, influenced by the practices of breeding,
upbringing and mating, and appearing first as the evolving division of labor
between the sexes (Figure 2). "
Our friends the chimps seem to have a division of labor, have made and used
tools, and passed that knowledge on to 3 + generations. Also that knowledge
was not limited to a certain space - it spread to disbursed communities of
chimps.
Recently read a little on dolphins and in addition to their complex social
organization it seems every dolphin is given a unique name. An organization
complex enough where its members are individualized as members of a
community.
Where is seems other species lack that we have as humans is the ability to
impart knowledge from a given space and time through materializing activity.
Chimps no doubt in my mind can impart this knowledge across generations from
organism to organism but it is the ideal-material forms that explains humans
discontinuity from other animals.
We have written language, speech, artifacts, buildings, community centers,
art, music etc. which brings the cultural-historical into the picture.
Koko is interesting here - by participating in a different activity system
he seemed to be a very different creature. There is that baby kitty he
loved with all his/her heart. Went onto AOL and communicated with the
world. He was participating in something very different than if he was in
the wild with other Gorillas. I believe Mike in CP connected this to the
ZPD.
I think there are probally two dangers on one hand of reducing all social
activity to reproduction - lowest common demoninator approach and creating a
strict animal / human dichotomy humans are social - animals arn't. Any one
who has a kitten, dog, or even a bunny knows that there is a level of social
organization and motivation that goes beyond innate needs. Do they have a
social consciouness? I'm not sure, but chances are their behavior is not
mediated by ideal forms through language and artifacts.
Nate
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Nelson [mailto:c.nelson@mail.utexas.edu]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 7:27 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Re(2): Ideal - Ilyenkov
Paul wrote that "Consciousness is social, not individual."
And Andy, citing Ilyenkov, wrote:
>"... the passage (of Marx) may be understood to mean that man acquires a
>new, second plane of life activity precisely because he possesses
>consciousness and will, which the animal does not possess. But this is just
>the opposite of the case. Consciousness and will appear in man only because
>he already possesses a special plane of life activity that is absent in the
>animal world - activity directed towards the mastering of forms of life
>activity that are specifically social, purely social in origin and essence,
>and, therefore, not biologically encoded in him."
What evidence is there that no animals learn socially and that
animals do not learn activities that are "not biologically encoded"
in them?
Charles Nelson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:00:45 PDT