This, I think, gets right to the heart of debates lately. The "real"
motive in AT is supposedly objective, right? So while individuals may
participate in an activity for different reasons, the difference between
their version of affairs and the "real" social motive is irrelevant,
unless it affects their actions, in which case they become the subjects
of analysis and the disjunctions between what they think they're
doing/their reasons for doing it and the collective object becomes the
'object' of analysis. Or do I have this wrong?


In Yrjo's interpretation of the contradictions in Stanislavski's methods
and of the workshops conducted as an intervention into theatre, the
subject's version of affairs does not define the object -- on the
contrary: the ideal of theatre is enunciated by the analyst. I buy it
because it's illuminating, inspirational, but we don't know what
participants in the workshop might have commented on Yrjo's analysis. So
what makes the ideal he identifies the 'real' objective ....? 





At 11:41 AM 1/30/01 -0800, you wrote:

>>>> 

<excerpt><smaller>Questions:



Does motive always determine the activity? 

Or, does different people having different motives change the activity
system for each individual even if they physically are doing the same
thing? 

Because people can have more than one motive while engaging in work
(e.g., survival, pleasure, social influence, etc.), can one person with
multiple motives doing the same thing be engaged in more than one
activity? 

Given the difficulty of determining motive(s), how do we identify the
"real" activity?



Charles Nelson 

</smaller>

</excerpt><<<<<<<<