I have found the discussion on flexability and
conceptual unity interesting.
I am sympathetic to Paul's call on the one hand that
they have some kind of meaning. Engestrom, like
Marx, comes from a certain ethical standpoint in my
view that goes deeper than let's say the pragmatic
need to have a larger unit of analysis. In this
sense, it would be a loss in my view if the concepts
tools, community, activity etc lost their ethical
aspect.
I do however think it needs a certain degree of
flexability - a rigid view does not seem very useful
in the field. However; I agree with Paul that
situating the motive or contradiction in the
individual or group is problematic, mainly because
not all contradictions are equal.
Let's say I'm a white male who just got layed off -
I may think my contradiction of not finding another
job has to with women or minorities, but it is most
likely something entirely different.
But then on the other hand, if it is something we
already have when we come into a given AS is there
any point in research. If we know the answers before
hand - what's the purpose right.
My take is YE puts forward a softer view of
"history" carrying truth. It is not necessarily
there is (TRUTH) in the researcher beforehand, nor
is it there in the community itself, but only
available with historical research. There is no
easy way out of this, in order to have expansive
change requires an historical anaysis of the
contradictions, motives etc in the AT.
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:59 PDT