Re: [xmca] Emotion at Work

From: Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth who-is-at>
Date: Fri Aug 10 2007 - 08:25:29 PDT

Hi Andy,
when people engage in activities (deyatel'nost', Tätigkeit), they
contribute to the collective control of life conditions and expand
their individual control over life conditions, even if they don't
farm, hunt, gather.... It is part of securing life. Holzkamp (1983)
writes something like: "THe achievement of goals in collectivity with
others have a certain associated levels of satisfaction (social
control needs), so that the anticipation of the collective success
also motivates individual engagement. Only by making such an
assumption can the evolution of the emotional readiness for action
to the depicted collective activities made possibly understandable on
logico- historical grounds, and thereby also the evolutionary coming
about of the collective activities themselves" (p. 171).

You see how he constructs a tight link between engagement in activity
for securing control over life conditions and emotion.



On 10-Aug-07, at 6:35 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:

> Michael, perhaps you could clear this up for me. I had the feeling
> from your paper that you thought that people acted so as to
> maximise emotional valence. Could you clear that up for me. That
> would be wrong, wouldn't it?
> Andy
> At 05:44 AM 10/08/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>> This categorical analysis was done by Klaus Holzkamp (Grundlegung der
>> Psychologie [Foundations of Psychology], 1983), I use his results to
>> interpret the data at hand. Also, look into Jonathan Turner's work, I
>> think he says pretty well the same thing. Holzkamp, if some have
>> forgotten, rigorously takes Leont'ev's work a step further, really
>> using the method outlined by Marx, the evolutionary / cultural-
>> historical, much more so than probably Yrjö has done--I am thinking
>> of the latter's presentation of the evolution of activity (Expansive
>> learning, 1987) and the earlier work by Klaus Holzkamp.
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>> On 10-Aug-07, at 12:24 AM, Steve Gabosch wrote:
>> Continuing the discussion on Michael's R's paper Emotion at Work ...
>> I have a problem with the claims the paper makes about the
>> relationship between emotional payoffs and valences, on one hand, and
>> motives, on the other. It seems to me that it is vital to
>> differentiate between the needs and motives generated objectively by
>> an activity, and the needs and motives that are generated
>> subjectively by a person engaged in an activity. Are the categories
>> and relationships suggested in this paper (emotions, payoffs,
>> valences, motivations, identity) helpful for distinguishing between
>> objective and subjective motives? Is it indeed vital to make this
>> kind of distinction?
>> - Steve

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list
Received on Fri Aug 10 08:27 PDT 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 08 2007 - 06:02:23 PDT