Phil,
I agree with you that "it is not our right to lead them to a predetermined
understanding" and that isn't my intention but I think that we have to
recognize that those of us who are working with different groups have a
discourse that we carry out among ourselves that proceeds at a theoretical
level that isn't necessarily directly and mechanically translatable back
into all the spaces we work. It's sort of like working from a plan --
modifications are always necessary. There is a very important
political/ethical question here about our relationship to others but that's
for another discussion. In any event I agree with you about not imposing
predetermined understandings, its not a question of molding but of gardening
or nurturing. But i don't think "right" has much to do with it. It simply
doesn't work.
> I agree, but I also suggest that the terms 'tool', 'rule', 'community',
and
> so on, are not static. We may find a phenomenon about which it is
legitimate
> to say "this phenomenon has all the functional characteristics of a tool,
> but we never quite thought of a tool that way before. Perhaps we need to
> expand our understanding of the term in order to embrace the phenomenon."
I also agree with you but that still leagves the problem of the initial
agreement as to what those characterist are, what those functions are.
'Community' for example, is it the community that is generated within the
activity system itself? Is it restricted to all those who have a role in
the division of labor or does it consist of those who occupy only one role;
e.g., in an educational activity system, do we consider all those involved:
secretaries, janitors, in addition to fellow teachers, or just the teachers
themselves. Clearly there are questions of community the pertain to the
teachers amongst themselves, but if we start talking about different levels
of community then it seems we're back into a check list approach such as
Helena Worthen mentioned.
>
> I would also argue that there is a qualitative difference that needs to be
> made (through the concepts of 'nesting' on the one hand, and 'linking' on
> the other) between systems which exist only because of the existence of
> another (e.g. a soecific classroom in a school exists only because the
> school exists), and systems which are interdependent in respect of their
> essential nature, but not for their very existence (e.g. between two
> different classrooms within a school).
This is a very interesting point. Very reminiscent of Durkheim's
distinction between mechanical and organic solidarity and this also plays
back into the question of community in activity system.
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:01 PDT