I'm adding a quote from Stetsenko and Arievitch in the article they
wrote for Jack Martin's edited book "The Sociocultural Turn in
Psychology The Contextual Emergence of Mind and Self"
The quote is from the section they title "Human Development as a
Collaborative Process of Transforming the World"
Therefore, human activity - material, practical, and always by
necessity social collaborative processes aimed at transforming the
world and people themselves - is taken in CHAT to be the basic form of
human life, by which is created everything that is human in humans,
including knowledge produced by them.
Andy, in Jack Martin's latest writings Stetsenko's perspective now
holds a place at center stage.
Anna also suggest Activity theory must re-engage with "agency" and
"subjectivity" as central aspects of our humannness that CHAT
currently under theorizes. That's for another thread.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Larry Purss <email@example.com
I stretch the patience of my xmca friends by rabbiting on about
projects because, if this is the case, actual research needs to be
done on collaboration and projects. We need to learn more about
collaboration, and what faciitates or undermines the formation of
long-term collaborations. Is there any more important question?
Andy, besides "courage" to change the world, patience is a virture
I suspect is alive and well among yur friends. My patience
struggling to grasp your perspective has been warmly rewarded many
The research question and methods that develop to answer the
question "about collaboration" as we ACT to "realize"
collaboration and what facilitates or undermines the formation of
long-term collaborations I would embrace as the BIG question worth
Andy, what may be CHAT's most significant perspective is the
realization that the process making collaborative acts "real"
& the process exploring, RE-searching developing the compass
[tool] to help us "understand" and interpret "about
collaboration" are the SAME SIMULTANEOUS process.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org
Although I do agree that collaborative projects are needed as
a response to the problems of modernity, my point is that
"collaborative project" is a *unit of analysis* for social
life, i.e., that everything we do is to be taken as part of
collaborative projects. I stretch the patience of my xmca
friends by rabbiting on about projects because, if this is the
case, actual research needs to be done on collaboration and
projects. We need to learn more about collaboration, and what
faciitates or undermines the formation of long-term
collaborations. Is there any more important question?
The other point you raise about duration and liquidity: given
that we cannot have recourse to any eternal abstractions,
human nature, etc., being able to theorise across duration is
important, and collaborative projects do this because of the
way individuals come and go, and are inducted along the way,
actually weaving and maintaining durable social fabric, even
as their identity changes. This gives a believable process for
ideas and patterns of action which outlive individual persons.
It responds to the observation about "liquidity" because
projects continuously *realise* their aims, that is, aims and
objectives (sources of motivation) are continuously revised in
the light of the experience of the project. Projects are
"iterative" as they say. Occupy?
Larry Purss wrote:
Hi Mike, and others discussing solidity/fluidity.
Andy is asking us to recognize the centrality for
collaborative projects to
be a meaningful response to the issues Bauman is
Andy, I agree that collaborative projects are the answer
question. The question then becomes "what particular
suggestion is that these projects must be able to give an
answer to the
limits and ambivalence of freedom and "self-expression". I
sense that the answers must also in*form structures of
some "duration" that
recognize not only who we "are" and who we are "becoming"
but also are
structures which recognize who we "were".
xmca mailing list