I have the whole article if you or others are interested, Andy.
I am still trying to sort all this out and do not have a fixed position.
By my analysis (see lchc.ucsd.com <http://lchc.ucsd.com>) human beings
are hybrids so its hard for me to draw lines. At the same time, clearly,
human newborns are cultural "objects" in that they emerge into a
cultural environment which interprets them and arranges their futures in
various ways.
I REALLY recommend J.D. Peters' /Speaking into the air/ which we have
been reading along with various other texts in this class. And of
course, Raymond Williams is worth reading whether you agree or not all
the time.
mike
PS-- blind man and stick does not, so far as i know, stem from
activity theory. Merleau Ponty, Bateson (where i encountered it)
and probably lots of other places. Among psychologists in "the west" the
name James Gibson plays a role here --the "originator" (whatever that
means) of the idea of affordances, coped by so many others its hard to
count.
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
That's an interesting piece, Mike. Writing a text book on
communication, he wants to emphasize the distinction between a
technical device, technique and technology, in terms of distinctions
between things and the social practices and knowledge for using
them. From there the author extends these distinctions to the human
body. "Even as we insist on this qualitative change" of using things
outside the body, he feels it important to group the human body as a
"resource" (i.e., artefact) albeit an inherent one.
The context I came to the same view was (1) in trying to figure out
where to fit the human body in a reading of Hegel (for whom the
cultural origin of the human body is unknown), (2) understanding the
blind person's stick scenario used in Activity Theory (where to draw
a line between body and artefact), and (3) trying to understand what
the problem with intersubjective theories in the Frankfurt School
(readings of Mead or of Hegel).
In these latter cases, writers subsumed the human body into the
"subject" (as does ANL actually), and thus, the culturally shaped
and inherited nature of the human body, *used* in communication and
labour, is elided into the the subject itself, as if not historical
or culturally resourced, but autonomous.
How did you read this piece, Mike?
Andy
mike cole wrote:
I was unsure how to contribute to the discussion of bodies and
artifacts.
Reading an
article by Raymond Williams for class monday, I came across a
passage that
appears
relevant. Its from his edited book on Communication on the topic
of comm
technologies
and social institutions. I could only cut and past from the pdf
I had, so it
is attached. I
think the distinction he makes between "inherent physical
resources" and
"systems based
on the development and application of objects and forces outside
the human
body" may
be relevant. Or maybe not. Hard to move things from one
discussion to
another and have the meaning remain roughly the same.
But Williams is always interesting to think with. Even fragments.
mike
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
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