RE: [xmca] Subject: Verb, Object

From: Andy Blunden <ablunden who-is-at>
Date: Sat Dec 29 2007 - 18:10:11 PST

A great review of my paper Helena.
Thank you.
Just to emphasise, in what I say about the various founding figures of CHAT
and their key ideas, it is not my intention to say that someone was wrong
or needs correction, but rather just to try to pick up an essential thread
and connect it with some other currents and problems of theory, outside the
home territory of CHAT.
At 07:37 PM 29/12/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>Hello --
>I want to join in with some thoughts on Andy's paper. I've actually read
>it about 3 times and came away with such different thoughts each time that
>I kept losing confidence that I understood what he was getting at.
>I really need some empirical content in a paper like this. When a paper is
>entirely theoretical, I am always asking what a real-life example of
>something would be. This slows me down and distracts me and I'm always
>having to correct myself.
>But here is what I see, on the third try:
>The actual problem is the postmodern condition, which Andy describes (p.
>262) as "There is no identification of the person with the state, or with
>society as a whole or even a class...The endpoint of development is an
>anomic individual who does not see in any institution a representation of
>their own identity and aspiration."
>This is a description of a "subject" (in the sense of an individual) that
>is locked out of culture and society. Locked out whether he is a free
>agent acting on society or a totally determined product of society. This
>is the problem where the paper begins.
>To liberate this "anomic individual", Andy goes back to the foundations of
>CHAT and finds three trichotomies: The CHAT trichotomy (the
>individual/collective subject, culture and society); Hegel's trichotomy of
>the Individual, Particular and Universal, and Vygotsky's individual
>person, element of culture, and activity or material practice.
>Then he proposes a new trichotomy as the unit of analysis: this one is the
>individual, culture and society, all of which is the subject. Andy says
>that the unit of analysis is "the activity of individual human beings
>utilizing artifacts as a means of collaborating with (or fighting with)
>one another (p. 256 in MCA). I'm not sure how this differs from the unit
>of analysis that Jim Wertsch talks about in Vygotsky and the Social
>Formation of Mind, quoting Leont'ev (p. 203 -- "the nonadditive, molar
>unit of life....the unit of life that is mediated by mental reflection")
>or Zinchenko ("tool mediated action" - Wertsch p.205). I don't see these
>as inconsistent with each other. This doesn't bother me -- they enrich
>each other.
>But two other pieces of Andy's paper catch my eye. One is the suggestion
>that the commodification of parts of the trichotomy is a way to understand
>the paralysis (anomie?) of the individual in postmodern society. This
>makes sense to me. Think of how the price of access to cultural artifacts
>determines who can use them. I pay $110 per month for my
>cellphone/internet package in Illinois -- how many people can afford that?
>But that's a key artifact with which I engage with my family and my social
>world. This is like the price of accessing myself. Within the subject, as
>Andy proposes it, commodification has intervened to set prices and manage
>exchanges. Kids in rich schools do business plans in math class; kids in
>poor schools get farmed out to "work" trade shows as "interns" -- I'm not
>kidding. I can think of more examples of ways that the essential mediating
>artifacts of culture shape people's activity through their commodification.
>The second is about the view through the scope of Andy's trichotomic unit
>of analysis, individual-culture-society. When all three lenses are lined
>up so that there is one sightline from the individual through what culture
>is available to him (or can be created by him) into the landscape of
>society where he is engaged, it sounds like an adequate description of or
>account of consciousness. We are also shown how sharply different the
>possibilities are for different people and how stark are the differences
>between what is supposed to be out there and what is actually experienced.
>These are both important aspects of consciousness. This seems like
>something we could come back to.
>But I don't accept Andy's view of the world today as adequately described
>by the capitalist postmodern condition. I would say that some -- possibly
>many -- experience their lives that way. I have in my files a handwritten
>10-page autobiography of a young black man who was a death row prisoner in
>Texas, whose story is "I was in the wrong car with the wrong person at the
>wrong time." He died of AIDS before his execution date. Looking out (via
>his autobiography) through the three lenses of Andy's trichotomic unit of
>analysis, you'd have to say he saw nowhere "in any institution a
>representation of [his] own identity and aspiration."
>But just as Andy re-enacts the Battle of Hastings every time he chooses an
>Anglo-Saxon or Latin word in speaking English, every time someone clocks
>in at work or cashes a paycheck (or accepts cash under the table), he
>re-enacts the transition from feudalism to capitalism (or the French
>revolution, or the Flint sit-down, take your pick). It's not surrender,
>it's re-enactment. If you keep in mind that resistance, criticism and
>struggle are also engagement, identity and aspiration, then you don't need
>to unseat postmodernity as the framing context. We can still use the three
>lenses of individual-culture-society as the subject as a unit of analysis
>that enables us to approach consciousness.
>Helena Worthen, Clinical Associate Professor
>Labor Education Program, Institute of Labor & Industrial Relations
>University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
>504 E. Armory, Room 227
>Champaign, IL 61821
>Phone: 217-244-4095
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On
>Behalf Of Mike Cole
>Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 4:02 PM
>To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>Subject: Re: [xmca] Subject: Verb, Object
>Leontiev, you mean, Peg. And in the book that David K was reading last time
>(My spelling is attributable to the use of the "whole word" method of
>reading instruction and perhaps
>to the fact that I am left handed. Glad it also pushes at the
>skill/knowledge issue as a bonus.
>I picked on the same phrase Peg did, but mostly the firs part where you ask
>the question of whether
>the object of activity can be defined in advance. This sparked two different
>lines of thought. First,
>that Yrjo speaks of the object of activity always being over the horizon.
>Which is related to a line from
>Tennyson's Ulysees quoted by Dewey:
>Yet all experience is an arch wherethro'
>Gleams that untravell'd world, whose margin fades
>For ever and for ever when I move.I take this metaphor to include listening
>to what other's say and seeing where it leads,
>and to point to a process in time (a developmental process?) by which a
>merely understandable
>motive (having been imagined by others who describe it to you) and a "really
>effective" motive,
>e.g., one that now guides your action and its (future) direction.
>It also fits with an understanding of the ideal and material aspects of
>objects being wildly interwoven.
>On Dec 29, 2007 8:05 AM, Peg Griffin <> wrote:
> > Interesting work, Andy, thanks for what you have done and pointing to what
> > is yet to be done!
> > I am particularly moved to reply to a little point at the end with a
> > question. When discussing immanent critique, you write "But I think we
> > can't
> > define the "object" of activity in advance. To start with, we have to take
> > it as a whole. We have to listen to what subjects say and accept to a
> > certain extent what they say the object is, and see where it leads."
> >
> > Here is my question: Do you see here any connection with Leonie's
> > distinction and relation between "really effective" and "merely
> > understood"
> > motives?
> >
> > PG
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [] On
> > Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 6:14 PM
> > To:; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Subject: Verb, Object
> >
> > That remark is really to signal that I don't as yet have a worked-out
> > response to the issues David has been raising in relation to ANL's concept
> > of "activity" only some criticisms of my own. But at the moment, I believe
> > that "immanent critique" holds the key. Here is how I understand the idea
> > of "immanent critique".
> >
> > "Immanent critique" was first developed by Hegel in his Phenomenology.
> >
> > See
> >
> > where Hegel explains it. The Phenomenology is the canonical example of
> > "immanent critique". Hegel does not back sit back and look at the various
> > forms of consciousness which have succeeded one another in history, and
> > "criticise" tehm from his own superior point of view, but "enters into"
> > them, adopts and follows their logic and asks questions of a way of
> > thinking from its own standpoint. That is, he follows the path of its own
> > critique, until the "ideology" itself leads to an impasse. Subsequently,
> > sometimes after an interval, sometimes directly arising from the
> > self-scepticism, a new way of thinking arises, which is able to cope with
> > or avoid the contradictions into which the previous one fell. And so the
> > process goes on. Americans will recognise shades of Thomas Kuhn here, and
> > we should all recognise Marx's obsession with political economy. (For
> > example, if you look at how capital worked up until 1883, i.e. before
> > Taylor's experiments in scientific management, you will see that Marx's
> > concept of value was just how capitalists worked. Taylor made a critique
> > of
> > this business of lengthening the working day and keeping wages down. Marx
> > was following capital's own critique, but he died in 1883 and his
> > followers
> > didn't know what to do next)
> >
> > So "immanent critique" means critiquing an object by following its own
> > logic:
> >
> > "So my friend you say that ..., so doesn't that mean that ... and
> > didn't you say you were against that?"
> >
> > What does it mean to say that social psychology should adopt "immanent
> > critique" as an approach to defining the subject-object relation and its
> > concept of "activity"? Well, as I said, this is work in progress, OK? But
> > we have to see a subject (its opinions, its strengths, its psychoses, its
> > "standpoint", its identity, etc.) as one of many or several possible
> > subjects which are part and parcel of a certain way of life. The activity
> > which a subject is involved in is defined *by the subject* (and to a
> > certain extent vice versa) and becomes something else as a result of the
> > working out of that system of activity (and the subject's own critique of
> > it).
> >
> > So for example, the subject might say "I am a tradesperson. Everyone will
> > always need a plumber. I don't have to beg for my money. These
> > paper-pushers could disappear tomorrow and we wouldn't miss them ...etc
> > etc" - the collected prejudices of a randomly chosen figure in our
> > society.
> > He is involved in the practice of a trade which guarantees her a
> > respectable living standard. The question is, how do contradictions arise
> > in *that* way of thinking as the trade become more and more one of
> > plugging
> > in integrated components, work that can be done by a kid, but work control
> > requires the use of all sorts of computers, etc., etc., and altogether all
> > the assumptions his or her way of life is predicated on change. ...
> >
> > I am only guessing with the above. But I think we can't define the
> > "object"
> > of activity in advance. To start with, we have to take it as a whole. We
> > have to listen to what subjects say and accept to a certain extent what
> > they say the object is, and see where it leads.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > At 10:09 AM 28/12/2007 -0800, you wrote:
> > >I follow you right up to the last paragraph in this note, Andy, where you
> > >write:
> > >
> > >I want to go back to Hegel methodologically and work on the claim that an
> > >*immanent* critique of the categories of activity is the only viable
> > >approach. Otherwise, we are just pulling pre-determined categories out of
> > >our own heads. The latter is the usual approach in my view.
> > >
> > >Probably this means that I need to go back and read your article more
> > >carefully.
> > >What is an *immanent" critique?
> > >
> > >mike
> > >
> > >On Dec 27, 2007 2:35 PM, Andy Blunden <> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Re Leontyev's concept of "activity'. I wanted to leave this to a kind
> > of
> > > > "stage two" but since I want to use a category of activity too I have
> > to
> > > > get to it.
> > > >
> > > > So far as I can see, for ANL, "activity" is paradigmatically but not
> > > > exclusively the "external" activity, of an individual organism. So it
> > is
> > > > the same category of "activity" as Fichte used in his critique of
> > Kant,
> > > > which Hegel picks up on. And for ANL it is "instrumental" to use
> > Mike's
> > > > word (instrumental allows the object to be another subject, treated as
> > an
> > > > object though), or "purposive", though I think inclusive of unintended
> > or
> > > > non-conscious components of the actions. So it must be very similar to
> > the
> > > > category of "practice" insofar as theory and practice are
> > differentiated.
> > > >
> > > > The problem comes for me when you have to get "stuck into" this
> > category
> > > > and work out the appropriate way of elaborating the various *forms* of
> > > > activity. With some good reason, ANL I think moves to a Marxist
> > paradigm
> > > > of
> > > > "mode of production", practice-as-labour, in order to mobilise a
> > series
> > of
> > > > categories through which activity can be grasped. This leads to the
> > > > problem
> > > > that David identified, namely, that the dichotomy between labour and
> > > > communication is a false one. In fact this dichotomy has caused havoc
> > in
> > > > the whole stream of Cultural Psychology over the past 200 years, from
> > > > Hegel
> > > > to Marx to CHAT to contemporary contintental philosophy. Hegel dropped
> > the
> > > > paradigm of labour in favour of a paradigm of critique around 1805, at
> > the
> > > > same time as he adopted a monological concept of Spirit. Marx returned
> > to
> > > > a
> > > > paradigm of labour in 1844. Then in the anti-Marxist tide of the
> > post-WW2
> > > > period everyone from French philosophers to critical theorists
> > abandoned
> > > > labour for communication as the paradigm. Some also turn to aesthetic
> > > > acitivity as the paradigm (subject-object, subject-other or
> > subject-self
> > > > are the three possible relations here).
> > > >
> > > > It seemed to me that the position of LSV which I so valued was that
> > LSV
> > > > held that it was the WHOLE of social practice (not just labour), and
> > the
> > > > WHOLE of culture (not just means of production) which were the
> > operative
> > > > concepts for psychology.
> > > >
> > > > The problem remains though, if we are not to simply adopt and take
> > over
>xmca mailing list

  Andy Blunden : tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
mobile 0409 358 651

xmca mailing list
Received on Sat Dec 29 18:11 PST 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 07 2008 - 10:13:50 PST