Hi Paul-- I myself voted for self in activity for just the reasons you noted--
a lot of people are preoccupied with this category. It seems to be re/dis
placing the idea of communities of practice with its attendant arguments about
self and periphery.
This disucssion, generationally, is in my family, where my daughter, an
anthropologist, uses the terms subjectivity at a rate I find difficult to
keep track of.
So, our own sociocultural context sure has a role.
>From an chat point of view, this is linked to an perspective I defended in
the symposium at ISCAR organized by Anna Stetsenko, to whit, that AT or CHAT
or Vera's CH-AT is inherently an interdisciplinary enterprise with psychology
being only one of its potential positionings/perspectives.
I did not get any discussion of this argument, so I have no idea what others
think.
I think that "self in activity" is one important moment in the dynamic
transitions constantly occuring in activity, among other reasons because
it affirms our inescapable differences, at the level of individual organisms,
from each other. At the same time, the danger of narcisism is ever present
when activity is reduced to individual subjectivities.
Where might you want to take this thread?
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 01:00:11 PDT