A-men to invocation of Barker and synomorphs, bill (aka bb). The idea
got sort of a bad rap from Jean Lave who interpreted it in behaviorist
terms, which seemed to me a pity. Sort of like reading Russians accussing
Leontiev of being a behaviorist.
I was a little puzzled by the following:
In
Engestroms's CHAT the category of rules carries the routines, the "scripts"
in the Shank an Abelson sense, and, in part, the "synomorphs" in Barker's
sense, the contraints and affordances of Gibson (aka Norman) of how humans
access, move through, and exploit space and time.
why only rules? how could this not involve the division of labor, for
example?
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PDT