I much prefer the term "subject" to "self." Self has all sorts of
connotations that are troublesome to me. But *subject* refers to a position
in discourse, which is a position that speakers (writers, doers) can take w/
more or less responsibility, with various commitments, under various
constraints, with more or fewer resources at hand -- all of this seems of
direct relevance to the forging and maintenance of effective, progressive,
equitable systems of activity, which are realized by subjects in discourse.
I don't recall that the wording for this theme was specifically requested by
anyone, & we might want to discuss acceptable variants for those who are
considering proposals.
Judy
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul H.Dillon [mailto:illonph@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:06 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Self in activity
mike,
Noticing that more than 50% of the votes for the SIG theme are for "Self
in Activity" I am curious and would like to understand, the theoretical
frontiers/problems of Activity Theory or CHAT that motivate the importance
of this topic. The index of Cultural Psychology doesn't even have an entry
for "self:" but I don't think that is sufficient to make "self"
theoretically important any more than I think the absence of a goal keeper
makes baseball incomplete. It is my feeling that the importance assigned to
"self in activity" has nothing at all to do with AT and everything to do
with the cultural historical background/milieu of those casting their votes.
If I am wrong about this, I'd sure like someone to point me to the
central problems or the anomolies in Kuhnian terms in CHAT and AT theorizing
that elevate this specific topic to the importance that more than half of
the voting xmca-ites assign it.
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 01:00:11 PDT