Elina, thanks to the conversation here, I am revising my understanding of
the linguistically-influenced meanings of subject. I think Kevin may be
right, that the senes of "being subject to" derives from political theory,
and Jay's message suggests to me that., since the grammatical subject is
associated with some predication, it connotes some agentivity (my word --
propensity to agency??)
let me quit now, before more jabberwocking -
Judy
[Judith Vera Diamondstone]
-----Original Message-----
From: Elina Lampert-Shepel [mailto:ellampert@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:34 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: request for some clarification
Sophie and Judy,
Your e-mails indirectly convinced me to definitely include some explanation
into introduction on the issue of subjectivity and agentivity. Judy,I agree
the connotations of the word are multiple in various disciplines , but it
seems to me that it is important to have some agreed frames of reference
within activity theory. I agree that the distinction
between the subject who is subjected to some linguistic/social formation and
the authorial (agentive) subject who (re)shapes what is possible should be
made. TAs far as I understand it, the classical Leontiev, Repkin, Davydov
and Co. notion of learning activity referes to the meaning of subject
capable of the transformation of the given on many different levels as well
as the qualitative transformation of her own self.
Thanks again,
Elina
Judith Vera Diamondstone <JDiamondstone@Clarku.edu> wrote:
Hi, Elina & all --
Another view: Subject connotes a semiotic entity, and in semiotics, the term
"subject" carries baggage from linguistics, rather than experimental
psychology. The subject is a position in language; the speaking subject is
one who takes up the "I" position in language. The distinction to be made is
between the subject who is subjected to some linguistic/social formation and
the authorial (agentive) subject who (re)shapes what is possible....
That doesn't answer your questions about the subject of activity, and where
to locate agency from an AT perspective; Yrjo locates agency in the activity
system. This question seems to me open to exploration & reformulation...
Judy
-----Original Message-----
From: Sophie Alcock [mailto:Sophie.Alcock@vuw.ac.nz]
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 2:10 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: request for some clarification
The question of agent versus subject of or in activity does raise
interesting other questions. The term, subject, does have some unfortunate
historical baggage, associated with the idea of "subjects" being
experimented on and "participants" sometimes sounds like a trite
alternative. In looking for the Boesch article, I did see one by Ratner
called "Agency and Culture" in the XMCA paper archives. It may be useful,
seems to reinforce the individualistic conception of agency though. The
Boesch one is fascinating; music being a refreshing change from words; the
subject-participant and object violin one in sound. One can't attribute
agency to the violin, I think, but...
Sophie
I have on my table a violin string. It is free. I twist one end of
it and it responds. It is free. But it is not free to do what a
violin string is supposed ! to do - to produce music. So I take it,
fix it in my violin and tighten it until it is taut. Only then it
is free to be a violin string.
Sir Rabindranath Tagore.
_____
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC
<http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://rd.yahoo.com/evt=1207/*http://promo.yahoo.com/s
bc/> Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PDT