xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
Dot scrobe:
> 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.
i think, Dot, that (and here, i'm again attempting to explain what i
tried to explain earlier, and didn't do too well) there is a difference
between the _activity_ of writing and talking about A. T. and the
_activity_ of practicing A. T. (by practice, i mean being in an activity
and at the same time being mindful of the theories of A. T. - meaning for
me the writings of Lave, Wenger, Cole, Engstrom, Valsiner, Vygotsky, and
who ever else is important for you - and using the theories to inform your
understanding of what's happening within the activity).
>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.
>
i think that part of the difficulty is that Leontiev isn't _just_ writing
about A. T., but rather he's is also struggling against a dominant power
structure that could also hurt him - so what he is writing about is more
than just attempting to explain about A. T., it's a simultaneous attempt
to attack others and protect himself.
in fact, i find it fascinating that the roots of A. T. are within the
cultural historical context of a violently repressive society - and this
has to have had multiple effects on the construction of the theories -
just in how it is talked about.
and often it seems to me that when A. T. is being discussed here on xmca
that the goal isn't just to write how one understands A. T. and then
struggle to understand how another understand A. T. , but instead there
are struggles for/against dominance. so that the talking is going to be
different than the practice - at least, i hope so.
>
>Have a wonderful weekend!
well - your posting helped for me to have a wonderful weekend.
thanks,
phillip
>
* * * * * * * *
* *
The English noun "identity" comes, ultimately, from the
Latin adverb "identidem", which means "repeatedly."
The Latin has exactly the same rhythm as the English,
buh-BUM-buh-BUM - a simple iamb, repeated; and
"identidem" is, in fact, nothing more than a
reduplication of the word "idem", "the same":
"idem(et)idem". "Same(and) same". The same,
repeated. It is a word that does exactly what
it means.
from "The Elusive Embrace" by Daniel
Mendelsohn.
phillip white
third grade teacher
doctoral student http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~hacms_lab/index.htm
scrambling a dissertation
denver, colorado
phillip_white@ceo.cudenver.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:41 PST