[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Project
Martin, I think your concern is genuine, i.e. that project are not
isolated instances of activity and should relate to what you call "the
social fabric".
I don't have much time to write up an eloquent reply so I try my best to
be concise.
What Andy emphasis in his ITA book is the confusion in AT between its
substance of analysis, its unit of analysis, and its "products" of
analysis. The unit of analysis is that simple phenomenon which develops
the complex substance in a concrete way. Expressed in a formula, what Andy
proposes is quite simple:
Substance of analysis = human (artifact-mediated) activity, a fuzzy whole
Unit of analysis = collaborative project, an abstraction
Products of analysis = practices, actions, activities, "system of
activity", division of labor, etc. etc., a concrete whole
E.g. in my research
Substance of analysis = "workers' struggle", a fuzzy whole
Unit of analysis = "strike", an abstraction
Products of analysis = strike's "neoformations": organizations (strike
committee, trade union, parties, etc.); forms of collective consciousness
and memory; leadership; "democracy from below"; "bureacuracy"; etc. etc, a
concrete whole
E.g. Capital
Substance of analysis = capital relation, a fuzzy whole
Unit of analysis = commodity relation, an abstraction
Products of analysis = fetishism; exploitation; labor theory of value;
primitive accumulation; etc etc., a concrete whole
So the problem with forcing the entire social fabric or "context" into
project is that it creates yet another "system" instead of a unit of
analysis. Of course projects do not exist in isolation, but I think in
Andy's text and especially in ITA this is dealt with relations between
projects, which then constitute new wholes, i.e. new projects.
Talking in Marx's terms, the search for a suitable unit of analysis (here
project as UoA for activity) represents the movement towards the abstract,
looking for the "cell-form" or the simplest determination of the
phenomenon, while "bringing in the social fabric" is part of the movement
of the abstract to the concrete, exploring the many determinations of the
subject-matter.
I think Vygotsky also solved the problem of "context" in a brilliant way
by his concept of social situation of development, which brings in "the
social fabric" from the *perspective* of the object of analysis.
Best,
Brecht
Quoting Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>:
I read it, Andy, several times. I've copied below the final section
in its entirety. Much of that final section seems to be discussing
problems with the definitions of "activity" in Activity Theory, and
it's a bit hard to fish out the positive statements about
"project." Here are some excerpts with my responses:
At the end of the previous section you write:
"?Project? functions to theorise the connection between human
actions and the societal context in which individual actions are
meaningful."
My problem in a nutshell is that I cannot see how the concept of
project accomplishes this.
"In Activity Theory there is nothing in an activity other than
human actions." I think you're disagreeing with this, no?
"The harmonization of the contradiction between societal and
individual needs is resolved by the development of a social division
of labor and a societal system for the circulation and distribution
of the products of labor. "
I think you're disagreeing with this too. If you're not, and this
is a statements about "project," then "project" has become so big
that it includes "a societal system," which seems to defeat its
purpose.
Here's, then, what seems to be key to the definition of "project,"
as distinct from "activity":
"What the notion of Project is intended to do is to bring the
concept of an activity back to a simple concept which can also
mobilise everyday meanings, and at the same time to give greater
emphasis to the dynamic nature of activities and a vision of the
social fabric in which the unlimited agency of individual human
beings is manifest".
Again, this sounds great. But let's see how the "social fabric" shows up.
"To this end two important concepts of Hegel have been brought to
bear, namely the concept of immanence and Hegel?s mediation of the
molar/molecular relation in a logical concept."
Okay, two key ingredients! That's what I like to see in a definition:
1. "The objective of a project is immanent within the project
itself. The project arises in response to some contradiction or
problem within some social situation, but the object cannot simply
be conceived of as ?to solve problem X.? The problem stimulates
efforts to find a solution but it is not in itself sufficient to
form a concept."
Yes, I get this. The object(ive) is not external to the project.
2. The relation between an action and the project which gives to
the action its ?rational meaning? is the same as the relation
between any individual discursive act and the concept which it
instantiates, and the same as the relation between any individual
thing and the category under which the thing is subsumed.
I find the hegelese a bit hard to follow here. But let's assume
that what is "the same" in each case can be spelled out (because it
certainly is not spelled out), then we still have here something
that is *internal* to the activity.
In short, we have defined a project in terms of the actions that
it involves, the object(ive) of these actions, and the relations
between each action and the whole project. But this definition makes
no reference to the societal context. As I wrote in a previous
message, there seems to be no market, not legislation, no social
classes.
My sense, then, is that an analysis that builds on the concept of
project still has to look elsewhere for its understanding of the
"societal context," the "social fabric."
But I'm sure this is just my sloppy reading or thinking.
Martin
============
The Concept of Project
A ?project? is an activity, that is, a unit of activity, and as
such is the basic concept of Activity Theory. To say ?collaborative
project? is simply to emphasise that ?project? represents the basic
relation between people brought together, not by some contingent
attribute, but by commitment to a common aim.
Activity Theory has its roots in Classical German philosophy
especially that of Hegel, in particular as appropriated by Marx,
especially Capitaland Theses on Feuerbach. The proximate source of
Activity Theory was the Cultural Psychology of Lev Vygotsky. On
these foundations, A. N. Leontyev first set out a framework for
Activity Theory, elaborated, for example, in The Development of Mind
(2009) and Activity, Consciousness and Personality (1978). These
foundations were further developed by a number of Soviet writers, by
Yrjö Engeström with hisLearning by Expanding (1987) followed by
numerous journal articles and book chapters, and separately by a
number of researchers in Europe.
An activity or project is an aggregate of actions, so the
conception of a project rests on the conception of an action. In
Activity Theory actions are both subjective and objective ? behavior
is not abstracted from consciousness. Consequently, an aggregate of
actions is also equally objective and subjective. Implicit in the
concept of ?action? is that actions are artifact-mediated; that is,
all actions are effected by means of tools or symbols meaningful in
the wider culture. Consequently, activities are also inclusive of
the material conditions they create and presuppose.
Activity Theory with Project as the concept of ?an activity? is
continuous with all the research conducted in the above scientific
tradition and incorporates its insights. Briefly, the concept of an
activity which was first formulated by A. N. Leontyev, can be
defined as follows:
?'An activity? is a molar unit of the human psyche and the life of
a subject; it is social in nature and is the rational meaning of
that to which the subject?s activity is directed.? (Leonytev 2009,
p. 197)
?Molar? means a large mass of material of some quality, in
contrast to ?molecular? which means the smallest unit of material of
some quality. The concept of a molar unit originated in German
Romanticism and is reflected in almost every action and thought of a
human being ? which is not directed towards its immediate object and
result but by a relatively distant whole. Nonetheless, ?molar unit?
is a concept with which modern social science has a great deal of
trouble. In Activity Theory there is nothing in an activity other
than human actions, and this is a thesis with which contemporary
interactionist theories would be in agreement, eschewing recourse to
biological determinism, religious or structural fatalism or any
other force outside of human action as determinants of human life.
But because there is nothing other than human actions to be found in
an activity this does not mean that an activity is simply the
additive sum of actions. In fact, the activity generally pre-exists
any of the component actions which instantiate it: when we act we do
not create an activity, we join it. So Activity Theory recognizes
that there are aggregates of actions which have a unity of their own
for which, as the saying goes, the whole is greater than the sum of
the parts. The question then is what is it that gives an activity
its unity?
An activity is defined by the universal, societally produced
concept of its object. Individual participants may be aware of the
motive of the activity in which they are participating, but its
meaning for them, and their motive for participation in the
activity, is individual. The harmonization of the contradiction
between societal and individual needs is resolved by the development
of a social division of labor and a societal system for the
circulation and distribution of the products of labor. Each
individual action is motivated by a goal which may not be the same
as the motive of the activity which it realizes. An individual
action which serves an individual?s goal, such as ?Go to point A,?
realizes the motive of the activity of a large number of individuals
thanks to a social division of labor and a socially produced means
of the supervision of labor.
The above outline has a number of problems chief among which is
that its context was a planned economy such as was known to the
Soviet writers, and it does not extend well to life in the
capitalist world, or for that matter, to a really existing ?planned
economy?.
Yrjö Engeström freed Activity Theory from the shortcomings of this
first model and introduced his ?expanding model? of activity. Here
the elements mediating subject and object are introduced at the
?ground floor?, so to speak, of analysing an activity. The subject
and its object are mediated by instruments and the community. In
turn the relation between the subject and the community is mediated
by norms and rules, and the relation between the community and the
object of the activity is mediated by a division of labor. Engeström
thus introduced into the concept of an activity, explicit
consideration of the culturally produced artifacts used in the
activity, the community engaged in the activity, and the norms and
division of labor. Engeström describes this model as ?expanding?
because each mediation arises in response to contradictions and an
iterative process of new mediations and new problems bring about an
expansion of the activity system and changes in the object.
What the notion of Project is intended to do is to bring the
concept of an activity back to a simple concept which can also
mobilise everyday meanings, and at the same time to give greater
emphasis to the dynamic nature of activities and a vision of the
social fabric in which the unlimited agency of individual human
beings is manifest. To this end two important concepts of Hegel have
been brought to bear, namely the concept of immanence and Hegel?s
mediation of the molar/molecular relation in a logical concept.
How is the relation between a project and its object to be
understood? If we take the object to have an independent, objective
existence, then we are left with a number of problems. Is the object
to be determined by the Central Committee or does it suffice to say
that it arises from human activity in the past? An aim or ?human
need? cannot be added to an activity otherwise lacking in motive, or
an activity added to a pre-existing need. The objective of a project
is immanent within the project itself. The project arises in
response to some contradiction or problem within some social
situation, but the object cannot simply be conceived of as ?to solve
problem X.? The problem stimulates efforts to find a solution but it
is not in itself sufficient to form a concept. (Vygotsky, 1934/1987,
p. 126) The formation of a project with a concept of the problem is
an original and creative social act. From that time forward the
project and its aim continues to develop according to its own logic,
so to speak. Where a project may ?end up? cannot be determined in
advance. The plot unfolds according to its own dynamic and through
interaction with the wider community. This is what is meant by
immanence.
How can we understand the relation between the actions and
ambitions of individual participants on one hand, and on the other
hand, the immanent objective of the project which forms the unifying
principle of the project uniting all the disparate individual
actions into a single activity? Hegel resolved this problem in his
solution to the problem of the subsumption of any number of
individual actions under a concept, but there is no criteria other
than the concept itself determining this subsumption. The relation
between an action and the project which gives to the action its
?rational meaning? is the same as the relation between any
individual discursive act and the concept which it instantiates, and
the same as the relation between any individual thing and the
category under which the thing is subsumed. The relation between the
individual and the universal is mediated by the particular, and is
not to be conflated with the subjective-objective relation which is
a quite distinct relation. The universal has no separate existence,
but exists only in and through its particularization in individuals.
It is the failure to grasp this conception which has meant that
interactionist discourses fail to see the forest in their
fascination with trees. Attempts to replace the individual/universal
relation with the categorization of individuals according to
contingent attributes leads away from activity theory and projects
to the theorization of society in terms of social groups made up of
like individuals ? a truly postmodern, fragmented view of the world.
Activity Theory with Project as a unit of activity can, on the
contrary, grasp the real participation of the individual in the
universal and the universal in the individual.
On Apr 2, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
I humbly ask you to take the time to read my considered explanation, Martin.
Andy
Martin Packer wrote: > I looked and looked for the actual
definition, Andy, but I couldn't find it. Could you post it here?
Martin
On Apr 2, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
Martin, you found that 10,000 word article from which you noted
that Heidegger "did not neglect either history or the social
world", but not apparently note the exhaustive definition of the
concept of project.
http://www.academia.edu/2365533/Collaborative_Project_as_a_Concept_for_Interdisciplinary_Human_Science_Research
After a comprehensive review of the history and context of
idea of "project", a concrete definition is given on pp. 15ff.
Andy
Martin Packer wrote:
Michael,
Thanks, but I am looking for the way that Andy has
defined "project" as the fundamental unit of analysis of human
activity.
Martin
On Apr 2, 2013, at 11:33 AM, "Glassman, Michael"
<glassman.13@osu.edu> wrote:
Hi Martin,
How about this,
To project (the verb),
The ability to extend human activity into a larger human
arena where it can be joined or experienced by more minds.
When I speak louder I project my voice so more can hear
and consider what I say.
When I write on the Internet I project the workings of
my mind so more can consider what I am thinking.
When I use a can I project out my own senses so I can
have a better understanding of the world around me, gaining new
perspectives of nature.
Project (the noun)
To engage in an aim directed activity that has some
intrinsic good (circa Dewey 1916) that involves multiple
minds/perspectives of nature. The project is realized when the
aim is achieved, but then it is possible to "project" you
achieved aim outwards.
Michael
________________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
[xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin Packer
[packer@duq.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:22 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Polls are closed: Manfred
Holodynsk's article is choice
No one can provide me with the definition of "project"?
Brecht, let me return to the material you copied from
your doctoral thesis. Let's take the opening sentences:
On Apr 1, 2013, at 2:47 AM, Brecht De Smet
<Brechttie.DeSmet@UGent.be> wrote:
"The historical process of capital accumulation and proletarianization
on a world scale has created forms of wage labor and
exploitation that
constructed the modern working class as a passive
Object of history.
Persons who can freely dispose of their labor power,
but who do not
possess their own (sufficient) means of production are
forced into the
activity-system of modern wage labor.[1][1] Their
activity of wage labor
is born out of necessity, and oriented towards the
goal of reproducing
their natural and social life.
What we find here is your explication of a "historical
process" that has constructed (I'd say 'constituted,' but let
that pass), a class of persons. Not simply a crowd (I recall
your previous critique!), but a class, which I presume you
would agree is not simply an aggregate of individuals. As a
result, you suggest, the actions of individuals who find
themselves to be members of that class (I presume they didn't
choose to be working class?) are constrained - people are
"forced" to sell their capabilities in order to obtain a wage
in order to eat in order to live. Their goal - "reproducing
their natural and social life" - is not intrinsic to their
activity - "wage labor" - because, as you say, the goal exists
prior to the activity, and to a great degree the activity
undercuts the goal - for many it's hard to eat and live under
the conditions of exploited labor.
All of this is, IMHO, a great analysis! You take into
account the social world in which people act, and how it
constrains their activity, you take into account the history of
this world, you take into account the necessity of
reproduction. I just don't see that any of this is built on
"project" as a unit of analysis!
But probably I'm confused...
Martin
__________________________________________
_____
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
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.eduhttp://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca