[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Arne Raeithel's "genealogy"

Dear all,

I would be especially interested if someone could say something
(anything) about the influence/role of Habermas in the picture. I am
working nowadyas with (urban) planning theorists, to whom Habermas is
a very central, although contested figure. Most of my colleagues have
never heard of Activity Theory, and the one's who have, regard present
day Activity Theorists as 'Habermasian' - I am not sure if this is
quite the way to put it, or at least I never thought Habermas to be
very central in e.g. Engestöm's theory - does anyone have any comments
on this?

best, Jonna



2009/11/9 Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>:
> I've been thinking ... What these diagrams lack is any information about why
> a writer is included and what they contributed to CHAT. Would anyone on the
> list like to put their hand up to write a paragraph (max 100 words probably)
> on a writer on the diagram explaining their contribution to CHAT and their
> sources? I would be happy to collate them and fix the essays to hyperlinks
> on the names of each writer? ... if others do most of the writing ... then
> the diagram might be genuinely useful.
>
> Andy
>
> Andy Blunden wrote:
>>
>> Mmmmm. I didn't sign up for an intellecual map of the universe here! The
>> French Revolution produced a mass of political theory of course, but also,
>> it is widely regarded as the inspiration for Classical German Philosophy,
>> which is one of our sources.
>>
>> World War One?  I don't know, but I have thought in the past that what
>> Vygotsky called "The Crisis in Psychology", viz., the myriad of conflicting
>> currents in psychology suddenly contesting each other after WW1, was some
>> kind of reaction to WW1 and the Russian Revolution.
>>
>> The Reformation and the Industrial Revolution deserve mention somewhere
>> too, in the atlas of ideas. ...
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> mike cole wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmmmmm, like the French revolution or world war I for example?
>>> :-)
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    Both Arne's and mine are listed on
>>>    http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/index.html and both are in that
>>>    directory. I too would be interested in seeing some other versions.
>>>    Something might emerge out of the crowd.
>>>
>>>    It is interesting isn't that it is a quite small number of ... what
>>>    do you say? ... millieux? events? movements? which produced the main
>>>    ideas, via a whole mass of individual writers.
>>>
>>>    Andy
>>>
>>>    mike cole wrote:
>>>
>>>        I think your pictured genealogy is interesting, Andy. I thought
>>>        Arne's was too, and I a sure others can make interesting
>>>        modifications. If anyone could do this in three D it could get
>>>        really fascinating.
>>>
>>>        Part of what makes for the partiality of any such attempt is the
>>>        position of the creator. Arne was a radical cultural historical
>>>        cognitive scientist of the
>>>        70's-90's (roughly), an importatant odd hybrid and unusually
>>>        nice guy.
>>>        Maturana, who is on his list, with Varela, were central figures
>>>        on bringing
>>>        dynamic systems into the discussion but you do not know about
>>>        him just
>>>        as many of us do not know some of the figures you name, and the
>>>        connections such as Dilthey-Wundt or Mead-Dilthey-American
>>>        pragmatism are poorly known altogether, but fascinating (to me!)
>>>        in their implications.
>>>
>>>        And, of course, the historical events that various of us might
>>>        highlight as
>>>        most relevant are going to vary as well.
>>>
>>>        Thanks for the new tool to think with. I'll try to get Arne's
>>>        genealogy put
>>>        up where yours is and perhaps others will contribute from their
>>>        perspectives.
>>>        mike
>>>
>>>        On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>>        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>           Well, here's my shot at it:
>>>             http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Genealogy-CHAT.pdf
>>>           I have tried to deal with your very valid point, Martin, that
>>>        it is
>>>           more the milieux than individuals, but I have also just omitted
>>> a
>>>           billion possible arrows so it is readable. It needs more than
>>> one
>>>           person to do this.
>>>
>>>           Andy
>>>           Martin Packer wrote:
>>>
>>>               My question about the map is what the links represent.
>>> After
>>>               all, one scientist or philosopher may accept the ideas or
>>>               another, or react against them, or modify them, or
>>>        misunderstand
>>>               them. Seems to me each of these is a different link. Also,
>>> a
>>>               family tree indicates two parents for every progeny, where
>>>               Arne's genealogy seemingly shows spontaneous generation -
>>> one
>>>               figure alone can produce another. And wouldn't we want to
>>>        have a
>>>               way to map the milieus within which people were working?
>>>        Perhaps
>>>               something along the lines of the social fields that
>>>        Bourdieu was
>>>               fond of sketching, but with an added historical dimension.
>>>
>>>               Martin
>>>
>>>               On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:44 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>
>>>                   To tell the truth Louise, there are a couple of names I
>>>                   don't know and half a dozen I know so little about I
>>>        don't
>>>                   know why they're included ... or not. Two of the three
>>>                   "outcomes" are people who think humans are a type of
>>>                   computer, so I am not surpised that this genealogy is
>>>        odd to
>>>                   me. But there is sooooo much out there. So much to
>>>        read. :(
>>>
>>>                   Up till a few weeks ago I thought that starting with
>>>                   Descartes was not justified, but I take that back
>>>        now. But
>>>                   somehow, Rene's nemesis, Aristotle, needs to be
>>>        included as
>>>                   well.
>>>
>>>                   I don't know anything about Vico, but I find Locke,
>>>        Berkeley
>>>                   and Leibniz to be rather peripheral to *our* story.
>>>
>>>                   Kant certainly deserves an important place, but I
>>>        think his
>>>                   nemesis, Goethe, may be more important for us.
>>>
>>>                   Fichte is actually the inventor of Activity as a
>>>                   philosophical concept (I just learnt that Hegel asked
>>>        to be
>>>                   buried next to Fichte; like Goethe, very under
>>>        recognized in
>>>                   the Anglophone world).
>>>
>>>                   Hegel is the inventor of Cultural Psychology, so
>>>        agreed there.
>>>
>>>                   I think Stirner and Mach are total diversions from our
>>>                   tradition. But maybe someone can explain to me their
>>>        role.
>>>
>>>                   Wundt and Dilthey are important, though I don't know
>>>        them well.
>>>
>>>                   Feuerbach is a bit of a footnote, but if you're going
>>> to
>>>                   have Feuerbach, you've gotta have Moses Hess, author of
>>>                   "Philosophy of the Deed", and inspiration for "Theses
>>> on
>>>                   Feuerbach". Of course if you think Frege, Russell and
>>>        Turing
>>>                   are important to the genealogy of CHAT, then you
>>> wouldn't
>>>                   want Hess.
>>>
>>>                   MARX, obviously, in CAPS.
>>>
>>>                   And I would have lines from a whole bunch of people
>>>        going to
>>>                   Dewey, as well as Peirce and Mead, but even though
>>> Peirce
>>>                   was the elder, I don't think you can give him such
>>>        priority.
>>>                   Dewey surely was the leader. Arguable.
>>>
>>>                   And where are the Gestaltists? Again, not for computer
>>>                   cognition, but there needs to be lines between Goethe
>>> and
>>>                   Kant and then to von Ehrenfels, and on to Koehler and
>>> Co.
>>>
>>>                   Russian linguists like Potebnya, but I don't know
>>>        where they
>>>                   came from.
>>>
>>>                   And these threads are all tied together with LS
>>>        Vygotsky, yes?
>>>
>>>                   Freud has to be mentioned (I forget his sources), with
>>>                   arrows to Luria. And after Vygotsky and Luria you
>>>        have ANL
>>>                   and thus to present day people,
>>>
>>>                   I guess, you can't leave out Piaget, and I don't know
>>>                   Piaget's sources.
>>>
>>>                   I know some people rate Merleau-Ponty, but if you're
>>>        going
>>>                   to give Merleau-Pony a seat, you have to put in
>>>        Lukacs and
>>>                   Horkheimer. I guess Habermas for discourse ethics, etc.
>>>
>>>                   I have no idea why Husserl and Heidegger get a
>>>        mention. I my
>>>                   humble opinion, as clever as they might be, their
>>>        impact on
>>>                   Activity Theory has only been negative.
>>>
>>>                   I have no idea why Bergson is mentioned: was he a
>>>        source for
>>>                   Piaget? Don't know why Nietzsche is there.
>>>        Interesting guy,
>>>                   but so are many others. Why von Uexhill?
>>>
>>>                   I agree that Wittgenstein rates a mention, though I
>>> don't
>>>                   know how much of a source he has been for us. He is
>>> some
>>>                   kind of version of Activity Theory.
>>>
>>>                   Frege, Russell and Turing are nothing to do with
>>>        CHAT. What
>>>                   about anthropologists??
>>>
>>>                   Never heard of Maturana.
>>>
>>>                   That's my reaction,
>>>
>>>                   Andy
>>>
>>>                   Louise Hawkins wrote:
>>>
>>>                       Andy,
>>>                       I remember seeing this diagram a number of years
>>> ago,
>>>                       and I found it useful as a big picture diagram to
>>>        get my
>>>                       head around the significant theorist.
>>>                       Regards
>>>                       Louise Hawkins
>>>                       Lecturer - School of Management & Information
>>> Systems
>>>                       Faculty Business & Informatics
>>>                       Building 19/Room 3.38
>>>                       Rockhampton Campus
>>>                       CQUniversity
>>>                       Ph: +617 4923 2768
>>>                       Fax: +617 4930 9729
>>>                        -----Original Message-----
>>>                       From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>>                       <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>] Sent: Wednesday, 4 November
>>>                       2009 01:05 PM
>>>                       To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>                       Subject: [xmca] Arne Raeithel's "genealogy"
>>>
>>>  http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Theoretical%20connections.jpg
>>>                       I never found this map very useful to be honest.
>>>                       Andy
>>>                       mike cole wrote:
>>>
>>>                           Have you found Arne Raeithel's "genealogy" of
>>>                           cultural-historical, activity theory thinkers
>>>        from
>>>                           several years back. I am sure it is somewhere
>>> at
>>>                           lchc.ucsd.edu <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>
>>>        <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>
>>>                           <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>. Perhaps you (and Andy,
>>>                           and.....) could update it with
>>>                           more detail. Hegel generated so much that has
>>>        been
>>>                           "laundered" by subsequent "original" thinkers
>>> its
>>>                           totally amazing, and ditto Mead (whose writings
>>> i
>>>                           know far better, although very inadequately).
>>>
>>>                       _______________________________________________
>>>                       xmca mailing list
>>>                       xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>
>>>                       http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>                       _______________________________________________
>>>                       xmca mailing list
>>>                       xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>
>>>                       http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>>                   --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>                   Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>                   Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev,
>>>        Meshcheryakov,
>>>                   Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>
>>>                   _______________________________________________
>>>                   xmca mailing list
>>>                   xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>
>>>                   http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>           --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>           Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>           Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>>           Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>
>>>           _______________________________________________
>>>           xmca mailing list
>>>           xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>
>>>           http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>    Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>    Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>>    Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov $20 ea
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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