Re: [xmca] Applicability of CHAT to US society

[Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Without getting into mediated action + activity vs activity as unit of
analysis,
Peter, the way I interpreted your remarks re doing this kind of work in US
vs
Finland was this with respect to Yrjo's work.

Research on organizational change of the sort Yrjo does is usually done in
the US by management consultants who do it in a short period of time for a
lot of
money and come in as experts to tell people what to do.

Yrjo's group goes into situations for the longer (sometimes long) haul and
(ideally) provides a method by which those involved (many ambiguities about
workers vs managers etc of course need to be addressed and often are not to
my satisfaction) can analyze systematically their own situation and come up
with answers in at least a semi-systematic way without imposition of answers
from the outside.The method is iterative (ideally) and becomes a mode of
institutional reflective thought. This is VERY difficult to arrange for in
the US.
It can still be arranged for, sometimes in some places in Finland.

Many other issues in Yrjo's talk that are worth discussing. Unfortunately,
the man himself appears unable to participate.
mike

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:

> Steve, thanks for your kind comments. In response to your request about
> Engeström's keynote: Right now I have 2 articles I've been asked to review
> for journals, so I don't think I can do the paper justice right now.
> Following a brief skim of his talk, I would want to make clear that I don't
> find fault with activity theory, I just think that it's not what I do. I've
> always found Jim Wertsch's work to be highly relevant to what I'm
> interested
> in, and I think it's because of his focus on mind in society rather than on
> collective activity-in-the-setting itself as the foregrounded unit of
> analysis. So to me it's a matter of orienting yourself to the perspective
> that fits, rather than finding fault with those less proximal to your view.
>
>
> Peter Smagorinsky
> The University of Georgia
> 125 Aderhold Hall
> Athens, GA 30602
> smago@uga.edu/phone:706-542-4507
> http://www.coe.uga.edu/lle/faculty/smagorinsky/index.html
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Steve Gabosch
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 6:12 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Applicability of CHAT to US society
>
> Great review, Peter, a genuine delight to read and think about.  I found it
> both inspiring and inspired - full of ideas and points I want to add to,
> modify, critique, agree with, ponder, look into more deeply.  I have read
> some of the articles in the CCV, and now I want to study all of them.
>
> Among many topics you cover - (and I didn't find the review too long, I
> found it too short!) - your critical comments on activity theory of course
> are especially interesting, as Richard emphasizes.  I think you and Richard
> do have a valid point - activity theory does have the challenge of learning
> how to both theorize and apply itself to high- conflict, highly competitive
> situations, such as we seem to be increasingly finding across the US, and
> in
> truth, everywhere, including Finland.  Can cultural-historical activity
> theory meet this challenge?
>
> Yrjo deals with a number of questions about and criticisms of activity
> theory in the paper that he presented at ISCAR 2008, "THE FUTURE OF
> ACTIVITY
> THEORY: A ROUGH DRAFT", attached below.
>
> Would you be willing to provide some critical commentary on his thoughts?
>
> - Steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca