Ana,
Sorry for such a slow reply! I have not been following the discussion for
some time.
>Why did Leontev use "predmetnaja dejatelnost"?? As opposed to what?
>Ne-predmetnaja?? What could that be?
Yes, there is an obvious tautology in saying "object-related activity",
because activities, according to Leontiev, are object-related sort of by
definition. In my view, Leontiev used this expression to differentiate his
specific understanding of "dejatelnost" from other uses in this word, which
is quite common in Russian and is being used in a wide variety of contexts.
>Is it a difference between actual doing and only "planning", "thinking",
>"dreaming" - doing in thought but not physically (materially) working?
>Or something else.
Internal processes may look like as if they are not related to objective
world and, thus, do not belong to object-related activities (like only
planning without actually implementing the plans). However, as far as I
understand, according to Leontiev a closer look will *always* reveal a
connection to the objective world. For instance, what appears to be just
dreaming now may cause great changes in the objective world in the future.
Also, a failure to implement a plan may have grave "external" consequences.
>What is the contrast to "object-related"?
Good question, Ana! One possibility is "subject-related" ("subjektnyj" -
Leontiev was fond of this term and I remember him encourage philosophers to
explore the difference between "subjective" and "subject-related" (resp.,
"subjektivnyj" and "subjektnyj"). However, other contrasts may also be
possible. Perhaps, Anna Stetsenko is the right person to ask this question.
Her paper on the principle of object-relatedness in activity theory is the
best treatment of the issue that I know of. A reference to and an abstract
of the paper are included below.
Best wishes,
Victor
________
Stetsenko, A. (1995). The role of the principle of object-relatedness in the
theory of activity. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 1995,
33, 54-69 (this was a special issue devoted to At edited by Jack Haenen).
This paper discusses how the concept of object-relatedness was used in
Activity theory. Five meanings of this concept are discerend within AT
framework. It is emphasized that Leontjev was more consistent when dealing
with several but not all of these meanings.
Original text: (1990) Printsip predmetnosti v teorii dejatelnosti. In V. V.
Davidov & D. A. Leontjev (Eds.), Dejatelnostnij podhod v psihologii:
Problemi i perspektivi [Activity approach in psychology: Problems and
perspectives] (pp. 20-35). Moscow: USSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences
Press.
>
>Ana
>
>
>
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Victor Kaptelinin <vklinin@informatik.umu.se>
>> > I do work with a Russian text.
>> >
>> > Generally, "objective" in the English version may correspond to either
>> > "objectivnyj" or "predmetnyj" in the Russian version.
>> >
>> > However, "objective world" is always "predmetnyj mir" and "objective
>> > activity" is always "predmetnaja dejatelnost" (at least, in Chapter 3).
>> > Therefore, "objective" in both "objective activity" and "objective world"
>> > is a translation of the same Russian word. (On one occasions, the "object
>> > world" is used instead of "objective world", but in Russian version there
>> > is no difference between these expressions).
>> >
>> > Hope it is not too confusing :)
>> >
>> > Folks, please, do not hesitate to let me know if you think my Russian copy
>> > of the book can be of any help.
>> >
>> > Best wishes,
>> > Victor.
>> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:29 PST