Dear Friends,
Paulo Freire once stated that "theory is great, but friends are better."
This discussion group is really nice and I do hope that we are using
"understanding as an activity," the best idea ever. As well, many people
are struggling to create a "stronger" bridge of understanding between
Vygotsky and Activity Theory, not a weaker bridge. However, when I was
trying to find out the specifics of Activity Theory (of A.N. Leontiev)
when in Moscow, I felt like I did when talking to catholics who grew up
as catholics, stating "we just lived it, we didn't sit and discuss it as
a theory." Most of us, I think, are trying to reflect on -line in order
to grow, and that thinking is surely open to change, and it is certainly
not positioned in absolutes. At the same time, some of us are getting
frustrated with all of this, and my frustration is located in the fact
that I would like to have specifics about Activity Theory (here
regarding A.N. Leontiev and the actual book we are reading. And perhaps
the only person who could really help out here is A.A.
Leontiev).However, there must be many people on-line who could give
specifics and help us. Activity Theory a la A.N. Leontiev must contain
more that views on "appropriation" (e.g., regarding teaching, learning,
communicating), and A.T. must include more than discussions of
"subject-object." Almost all theories of communication deal with these
aspects with or without mentioning them as such. I am growing so weary
of the A.N. Leontiev book, and truly don't know what I have learned at
all. Could someone answer the following questions?:1) What actually
distinguishes Activity Theory (A.N. Leontiev)==with concrete points==
from other similar theories (please go beyond act, action, goal, etc.,
and the triangle)? As we know, Radzikovski wrote a stinging critique of
Activity Theory, stating that “however many times the word activity is
repeated, there is not an activity approach here . . . This approach,
alas, actually boils down to merely the ‘proposed terminology’ . . .
Although this theory made no real progress, it spread unbelievably in
the 1970s. The word activity became all but obligatory”
(Radzikhovskii,1991, p. 93, in Soviet Psychology). I always assumed that
this was an emotional reaction on the part of Radzikhovski, and it is
something that I cannot accept; however, I am still not clear what
constitutes A.T. as a THEORY, beyond the concrete situation, and how
it actually goes beyond Vygotsky's method to carry out research. The
terminology "activity theory" alone means that we must transcend the
concrete, or reach another level of understanding, or? 2) What exact
tenets from Vygotsky were carried into Activity Theory
( via A. N. Leontiev), and which aspects were totally deleted, and why?
I always notice the emphasis on the "social" regarding Vygotskian theory
(also within A.T.) that is worrying. For example, Y. Engestrom in his
1999 edited book speaks of the following: "The idea is that humans can
control their own behavior - not "from the inside," on the basis of
biological urges, but "from the outside," using and creating artifacts"
(p. 29). This is indeed what Vygotsky stated on page 40 of Mind in
Society. However, that was not the end. "In the initial phase reliance
upon external signs is crucial to the child's effort. But through
development these operations undergo radical changes: the entire
operation of mediated activity (for example) begins to take place as a
purely internal process . . . The internalization of socially rooted and
historically developed activities is the distinguishing feature of human
psychology, the basis of the qualitative leap from animal to human
psychology" (pp.55-56). I see so many interpretations of viewing the
internal as biological urges, and I apologize for picking on Engestrom,
only used as an example of many thoughts I read. I would assume that the
followers of Vygotsky would have worked out the misunderstandings and
paradoxes of Vygotsky long ago so that there would be a clearer
understanding of his intentions. While in Moscow I was overwhelmed at
the fact that there were so few books directly related to Vygotsky, and
so little in-depth analysis of Vygotsky in the interviews I conducted,
and in personal talks with tons of people every day for five months.
V.'s name was mentioned so often (if fact there was always a
concatenation of famous names given), but I seldom found follow up
analyses directly related to the theories of Vygotsky "in-depth", often
just lots and lots of words, with many exceptions of course, especially
Akhutina, Zinchenko, Zuckerman, Umrikin, and some others. Certainly, I
did not speak to all psychologists in Moscow, so perhaps my lack of
understanding is totally my fault. What is the exact bridge of
Vygotskian theory for A.N. Leontiev, and how was it implemented? 3) How
do activity theorists (directly following the line of A.N. Leontiev)
transcend dualisms via the dialectic (or whatever) to arrive at a sense
of wholeness that is more specific than just focusing on concrete
situations, or staying at the level of dialectical movement? (I think a
general problem is that wholeness equals totality in the philosophical
sense, and the term totality is sometimes viewed negatively by many who
relate it to political systems of totality. Therefore, more open
systems/theories (e.g. postmodern, phenomenology, etc.) are appealing,
something I understand. However, we need to be clear about the
philosophical meaning of "totality" that is really different, it means
"holism." Within Activity Theory (speaking of A.N. Leontiev, certainly
not A.A. or Dmitry Leontiev) I don't read about the tools that I can use
as general principles in concrete situations (however,I do understand
these principles within the thoughts of A.A. and Dmitry). In other
words, I truly do not believe that we "normally" establish principles
when we are in the middle of a concrete situation or problem for the
most part (of course there are many exceptions), and that we need
overarching principles to orient us to act appropriately in concrete
situations (I don't mean anything absolute, but principles that can help
guide us through the relativity of everyday life). The old example of a
car accident is used: Someone in the former East Germany, a Communist,
was in a car wreck and suddenly cried out to God for help. He did not
cry out to Marx for help, although he was an avowed Marxist. I first
heard this as a joke, and then heard of it as a true story. At the same
time, the concrete situation is the test or reflector measuring the
actual appropriated or even internalized principle, and it also affects
and changes that principle. That is the asymmetrical dynamic
representing the fluidity of the dialectic, that is anchored, not just
free flowing.
Now, this is my problem: I did "internalize" Vygotskian thought from the
side of German and Spinozian philosophy, but only "appropriated"
Activity Theory. And I seem to stand totally alone in one aspect:: My
understanding is in contradistinction to Anna's statement ("This
dichotomy [externalization/internalization] is nothing but an instrument
that can help in thinking about certain issues and achieving some
specific goals, an instrument that makes sense in some concrete contexts
but not others.") This is not true for me, as that would represent a
subject-object relationship (of course, all relationships incorporate
subject-object). First, I keep hearing and reading (over and over) in
articles, books, and on-line that: a) Vygotsky's thoughts are implied
to be some type of absolute, an implicit correlation to the impersonal
world of German Idealism (implying that A.T. is the antidote). There is
nothing farther from the truth for me personally at this point in time.
b) that Activity Theory can only be discussed in a "concrete"
situation (used in opposition to the problems of "totality" and
"abstract," I think), implying that the same is not true for Vygotsky.
And yet, for me at least, I find that Vygotskian thought does not need
to be located within totally concrete examples, and at the same time,
his "overall" philosophy is indeed concrete but in a different sense
(and this is in line with the educational-Marxist philosophy of Paulo
Freire). I take Vygotskian and Spinozian thought into the classroom and
use it everyday as a(n) heuristic in dealing with students, colleagues,
in creating projects, and in working with the Mexicans, etc. It is a
METAPHOR (and meta-principle), it is not always CONCRETE for me
personally; however, ironically it ends up as a semi-concrete principle
(Bernd Fichtner once wrote:"As a modeling idea, the metaphor orients the
learner to totality. Two heterogeneous spheres are transformed into
components of a new, systematically organized total meaning." In
Engestrom's book, p. 323). With the externalization/internalization
METAPHOR (not understood as something concrete) I actually attempt to
speak to people linking into their internal reality and to the external
reality (once again as a metaphor) as a whole----knowing I cannot really
do that-- (perhaps the words are also simple dignity, real listening to
their context, not judging so much, listening from a holistic point of
view, all of which is also based in part on Paulo Freire's thinking).
This does not always work and I fall short of this everyday, but the
principle (derived from the social) guides the concrete experience, not
the reverse. The concrete experience can sometimes drive the principle
and strengthen it or weaken it, but ultimately it is the principle
(simply our inner beliefs that create much change, either personally or
even socially). In the end, thoughts create much of our reality [not
all], and thoughts used as overarching principles can completely shape
our external, concrete realities (example of Victor Frankl). At the same
time, the concrete constantly reshapes and refocuses the principle. And
I use this method (and others from Vygotsky) in many concrete
situations, as well as using the very same principles of Vygotsky for my
research, especially related to Chomsky. Without this feeling of
wholeness, I would not be so linked to Vygotsky. I have not captured the
same feeling within the Activity Theory of A.N. Leontiev and truly want
to. I just cannot feel the mind and heart working together with A.N.
Leontiev, as compared with Vygotsky. Therefore, Vygotskian aspects such
as genetic-development, dialectics, synthesis=unity, concept
development, viewing history as change, inner speech, self-regulation
are very real psychological tools that I use in very real concrete
experiences. What are the exact holistic tools in the Activity Theory of
A.N. Leontiev, that guide by principle (and I truly don't mean
absolutism)?
Post modernity (here viewed somewhat as philosophical relativity): For
me (and many other friends who totally grew up in post modernity),
having a sense of grounding (i.e., traditional thoughts, philosophy) is
very beneficial, as long as it is used as a tool to grow, and is not
viewed as an absolute. I sincerely feel that this is why Vygotsky is so
popular in many parts of the postmodern world (e.g., his grounding as
opposed to postmodern theories). I have heard various stories of people
who have actually cried when reading Vygotsky for the first time,
stating that they had found their own voice and theory (and grounding)
through him. It is also interesting that the serious Marxist writers I
know of (writing directly and explicitly on Marxism) live in post
modernity; once again I assume that this focus is a search for the
theoretical grounding not always present in post modernity. Now, I
love life in post modernity, because of the lessening of the voice of
the "expert" and the ascension of more equality in most realms of life
(something evident on this Listserv).I feel very young in postmodern
society, and much older when visiting other societies. However, there is
a real need for a balanced position (in both life and theory) of
tradition/postmodern, concrete/abstract, relative/absolute. The danger
is in lending too much weight to one side or the other. Within
Vygotsky's thoughts I completely find this balance. I am asking
specifically for help in finding the same balance within A.N. Leontiev's
Activity Theory. In my understanding, Vygotsky's theories are not
absolute, nor are they "out there" somewhere drifting within German
Idealism.
And I would also like to better understand the specific meaning of
"activity as epistemological principle." Anna, is this a guiding
principle, or can it only be discovered within a concrete activity?
Perhaps this is a good way to start to go deeper, much deeper, into the
understanding of what Activity Theory (of A.N. Leontiev and this book)
really means. Chapter 5 was just as frustrating as the other chapters.
It tended to view the whole of personality without
looking at the parts, and of course, the reverse seems to be evident in
much of Western psychology. If asked what I had learned from the entire
book, I really would have very little to say. But, have learned from all
of you and a big thanks.
We are a group of people interested in the same ideas and I value all
of your thoughts, and moreover, you as people. Most of all I value the
friendship with people like Peter Jones and Anna Stetsenko more than any
discussion of any theory. I hope that all of our friendships can grow
deeper through these thoughts we have, all of which are different for
each person. I wish those of you who have grown up with Vygotsky and
A.T., or have studied these areas for many years (and have written on
these topics) could explain things with very specific, yet in-depth
answers that would help some of us who are relatively new to all of
this. I do understand that Activity Theory in general has a focus on
real change and transformation within the concrete situation(and it
seems to truly focus on development in some areas). However, what tools
are offered for that to "really" happen on both the individual/societal
level (apart from the simplicity that I cannot breakthrough)? We were
asked to "become part of the same activity that he [A.N. Leontiev] was
involved in while developing his theory." This is where I and others
need help from Anna, Victor, Igor, and many others who actually studied
with A.N. Leontiev, worked with him, and understood him. As well, many
of the works we read are only in English (and sometimes with poor
translations, as Peter pointed out). I am certainly going to go back to
some of the truly brilliant authors on this topic in German, J.
Lompscher, G. Ruckriem, Berndt Fichtner and W. Jantzen. I think that
they can also offer pivotal answers to the questions asked. I also wish
that Mohamed would offer thoughts on the French thinkers he mentioned
related to A.N. Leontiev. Thanks!
Have a wonderful weekend!
Dot
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:37 PST