17 october 2000
from peter jones, sheffield hallam university
hi folks
the whole text really needs a new translation doesn't it? on 'turning': this
must be a translation of vrashchenie - turning round, turning back (on itself)
and i think has been translated as 'rooting' elsewhere hasn't it? on 'objective
activity': this is a problem, isn't it? i don't think 'objective activity' does
it justice. in section 3.2 leontyev contrasts it with 'objectless activity'
implying that predmetnaya deyatel'nost' means 'activity which has an object'
('object-orientated' i think misses the mark slightly as well). he goes on to
explain that this object (Gegenstand) which activity has 'is twofold: first, in
its independent existence as subordinating to itself and transforming the
activity of the subject; second, as an image of the object, as a product of its
[= ?] property of psychological reflection that is realized as an activity of
the subject and cannot exist otherwise' [badly garbled translation again].
a few other comments: much of the text appears to be a (relatively overt)
critique of the rubinshteinian school. in section 3.3 leontyev criticises
rubinshtein's characterization of the proper object of psychology. the
rubinshteinians objected for various reasons to the picture of
'interiorization' given by leontyev. section 3.4 appears to be a reply to the
rubinshteinian charge that vygotsky's was a 'sign-centred' as opposed to an
'activity approach'. leontyev argues that vygotsky's focus (in some of his
research) on 'meaning' could make it appear that meaning 'is something that
lies behind life and directs activity' but that this appearance is misleading:
meaning, he argues, appears here 'in its so to speak reverse movement'. [i
think that this is a very important point which was not understood or accepted
by the rubinshteinians]. leontyev then seems to present his own line of
research as one that preserves the 'positive program resulting from this' ie
'having preserved the active function of meaning and thought' but turns to a
reconsideration of the formation of meaning and thought within 'objective
activity'. he goes on to discuss the idea that 'external and internal activity
have a similar general structure' (which was a new, post-vygotskian idea -
wasn't it??). he returns to the detail of this claim but i find it very hard to
follow in parts. for example when he discusses 'the problem of uniting
processes of activity that are internal and external in their form' he argues
that 'the principle or law of this uniting is that it always takes place
precisely along the 'seams' of the structure described'. does anybody get this??
best wishes to all
P
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:23 PST