Hi,
I like your question at the end of your posting: is it a 'material' product
(object/objective) or an 'ideal' product. I would just phrase it a bit
different - so that we don't focus again on the product (object): is it an
object production activity (labor in an industrial sense) or is it a
relationship production activity (where the goal is to create a certain
relationship with someone else)? And how can we know which one is when?
Ana
----------------------------------------
Ana Marjanovic-Shane
home: 1-215 - 843 - 2909
mobile:+267 -334-2905
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Rogers [mailto:fajimr@cc.usu.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 7:47 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: more re cognition and emotion (now its motivation)
Ana wrote:
It seems to me that one of the reasons we separate cognition form
emotion
and motivation, is that we constantly keep forgetting to look into other
relationships that are indicated by the Activity theory model developed
by
Yrjo Engestrom. We are still examining the relationships between the
individual, the semiotic tools (language and other cognitive tools) and
the
object (objective). The motivations and the emotions, I think, would be
more
prominent if we looked at the "division of labor" - i.e. the
relationships
among the participants in regard to their roles in the activity. The
triangles involving personal relationships between an individual, an
object
and another individual or a group of individuals, would probably be more
"saturated" with feelings and motivations.
Ana's response made me think of Leont'ev who also addresses the issue of
motivation (at least in my interpretation) in his discussion on motives/
goals and the historical consequence of division of labor:
"The activity of the participants of collective labor is induced by its
product, which initially met the needs of each participant directly.
However, the emergence of even the simplest technical division of labor
necessarily leads to isolation of the separate partial results, which
are achieved by the separate participants in the collective labor
activity, but do not in and of themselves satisfy their needs. Their
needs are not satisfied by the 'intermediate' results, but by the
portion of their aggregate activity that each participant receives on
the basis of the relations with each other during the labor process,
i.e. on the basis of social relations." ('concept of activity in soviet
psychology' version, 1981, p. 60)
a few points associated with this passage:
1) This harkens back to Gordon's recollection of a teacher telling her
students to choose a topic that they care about ... otherwise whose
motive it is??? (not a 'real' question)
2) Methodologically, how would we go about discriminating between a
motive or goal, especially if the motive is 'imposed' upon the student?
Is it related to point 1 above or could there be some other indicator
such as Gordon's suggestion that it was something that was 'fun' for the
children.
3) I struggle with the second part of the passage and was wondering if
anyone could provide some insights... (this 'is' a real question)
"Their needs are not satisfied by the 'intermediate' results, but by the
portion of their aggregate activity that each participant receives on
the basis of the relations with each other during the labor process"
Question: what exactly is meant by 'what each participant receives'?
-Does this refer to a 'material' product (e.g. since I made the spear
that was used to kill the deer, I get the biggest piece of meat)
or
-Does this refer to an internal satisfaction or understanding (an
'ideal' product?) that I get from contributing to the collective?
or something else???
back to my 'other' (goal directed) tasks
jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 01:00:08 PST