Of the things we have learnt from the CHAT tradition:
* who we are as individuals is a product of activity,
* the "unit of analysis" needs to be "activity," rather than taking
the individual as unit of analysis and adding individuals together
to make social relations, etc.
* relations between "individuals" are only possible because
individuals are already material systems of activity, but if we
talk (as Anna does) about inter-subjective relations, i.e., direct
relations between two "psyches," then we can only be talking about
telepathy or some kind of mysticism, because one psyche can only
communicate with another by means of some kind of material
mediation;
* the CHAT tradition is well placed in terms of its basic
theoretical resources, to overcome objectivism, better placed than
any of the individualist currents found in the capitalist world.
There is an important difference between conceiving social relations,
psychology, learning etc., as relations between psyches which happens
to be influenced by activity, culture, history, etc., and concepts of
subjectivity which include individuals, culture and practical
interaction within a single unit of analysis.
The idea as the psyche as an independent entity with a reality of its
own is an illusion. To recognise this does not necessarily entail
flopping over into an objectivist position which marginalises the
agency of individuals.
Anna is right in identifying a problem of objectivism in the CHAT
tradition, but this same objectivism is sound in structuralism,
poststructuralism and other non-Soviet currents of theory. To abandon
what is distinctive about the Soviet tradition in favour of the same
individualist foundation that is used by for example the
poststructuralists will only mean jumping out of the frying pan into
the fire.
We do need to tackle the problem of the "death of the subject", but we
need to recognise that this phenomenon is not a product or exclusive
problem of CHAT theory. It has its root in social conditions, in
culture and history.
Andy
At 03:52 AM 1/11/2005 +0000, you wrote:
Andy,
I don't quite follow you, but I respect your thoughts. Would you
expand on this when you have a moment?
bb
> The problem is, IMHO, that once we define the relevant
structure as
> inter-individual and intra-individual, we have moved away
from the
> insights which have given the CHAT tradition its great
strength. This
> posing of the problem makes the individual the basic unit of
analysis
> and discounts the existence of mediation (i.e. the "CH" part
of CHAT)
> at a fundamental level. Personally, I think this is the
wrong way to
> go to find a solution to the objectivist tendencies in CHAT.
> Andy
Andy Blunden, on behalf of the Victorian Peace Network, Phone (+61)
03-9380 9435
Alexander Surmava's Tour - September/October 2006
[1]http://ethicalpolitics.org[2]/alexander-surmava/index.htm
References
1. http://ethicalpolitics.org/alexander-surmava/index.htm
2. http://ethicalpolitics.org/alexander-surmava/index.htm
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 01 2005 - 01:00:22 PST