Hi, Peter J., Anna, Dot, everyone:


I've not yet read the last chapter - I'm responding to previous messages,
trying to articulate my understanding of the 'external/internal'
confusion.


Peter J. contributed a complexifying :) discussion of 'the social' hoping
to move beyond these terms. I find it useful to push semantic boundaries
like this, but I think I might be landing on a different position (?).
Peter wrote:


"when I am active _scientifically_ ... my activity is SOCIAL...

My OWN existence IS social activity, and therefore that which I make of
myself, I make of myself for society and w/ the consciousness of myself
as a social being..."  


and later:

"this "internal" activity in the head is part of any activity! if
activity is truly conscious and purposeful (ie it has an object,
motive...)"


and "the plan is the thing" (that distinguishes the architect from the
bee)


The line between 'internal' and 'external' is removed; a line is drawn
between 'science' & 'play'? 


Maybe Peter can say more about what counts as "conscious" and what does
not. The emphasis on conscious purpose and scientific production concerns
me if it is taken as exclusive of the non-scientific, the
quasi-conscious, the intuition, etc. I think Peter would agree, these
distinctions are false. I certainly agree with him that to BE fully
conscious one must "make of (oneself) for society and with the
consciousness of (oneself) as a social being." 


Let me spin the notion of the social individual out along the line of
being aware of oneself as a social being. Since we are social beings and
both affected by the actions of others and affecting them, then to
understand ourselves as social beings presupposes at least partial (full
isn't possible) awareness of the effects we have on others. And that
presupposes that we necessarily READ the social -- societal structures
and patterns -- in the ways in which we and others act and interact.
Moreover, I would say that it is in the way we READ that we necessarily
perform ourselves as social. Our reading is our DOING of the social as
much as our production of artifacts. 


Big lessons here for me. 


I really appreciate, from the exchange between Anna and Dot, getting a
better picture of the historical context of CHAT. I've learned a lot
about activity theory and CHAT thoughout the semantic pushing and pulling
of various threads. There is one point that Anna made that I would make
somewhat differently (nothing of course to do with context of CHAT!) --
the point she made:


"we draw a line between discourse-oriented constructivism which believes
in changing reality through changing the discourse and
activity-oriented... constructivism that puts practice at the foundation
of psychology as a scientific discipline."


My rephrasing: "We draw a line between discourse-oriented constructivism
which believes in changing reality through words alone... "


In my understanding of discourse - and that of all those I know who are
interested in discourse -- we presuppose that the term refers to
<underline>practices</underline>, not simply talk, but ways of doing &
interacting, in service of <underline>particular</underline> objects/
motives... 


As everywhere, the dualism, the line, should be understood as
problematic. 

Our activities, not our ideologies, are the basis for meaning. There I
think everyone concurs.


Judy