These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
For example, although Marx says "The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist" (1847) he always understood this to be a simplification. A steam-mill set up in a country without an industrial working class is just a pile of junk. The culturally inherited culture I think includes all of our bodies, fit for labour in the given system of social practices.
Likewise, a person living in an industrialized country only gets to be a person of that society by active participation.
Yes? Andy Mabel Encinas wrote:
Sorry, Andy, this email is for xmca again!_________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:11:10 +1100 From: ablunden@mira.net To: liliamabel@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [xmca] bodies and artifactsDid you mean this to go to me only, Mabel? You address Mike at the end. BTW, Mike already corrected me about Bateson.Andy Mabel Encinas wrote:Because I normaly take days to read through and write (I still have to answer to Haydi, Jay and Larry emails they wrote so long ago in the time of xmca, that maybe it has been forgotten what we were talking about). This time I am writing about this.I recently mentioned that it was Batson (as far as I know) the one that talked about the stick. I think, however, that this is not far of sociocultural and cultural historical understanding of artefacts.I do not see people as objects, neither as tools. When talking about body as artefact, I thought, Andy, that you were refering to the body in relation to the 'self', was that what you meant? I understood that you were talking about the way in which we use our body to act in the world. I do not think that people see babies as objects (or maybe some of them do), but it is a path that I would consider fruitful in view of our future.The thing her is if we become the humans we are in relation to the creation and use of artifacts and if it is what makes us human the artefacts themselves or the practices we engage when we use so artifacts (even the brain, in case it s an artefact). This might seem a very tiny semantic differences, but I think this can explain lots of things.Mike, thank you very much for the references. MabelDate: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 15:35:46 +1100 From: ablunden@mira.net To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu Subject: Re: [xmca] bodies and artifacts Thanks for the correction on the blind man's stick. It was W-M Rolf who first told it to me. :) Great scenario. If you already have the article in PDF, yes I'd love it. But I am busy with emotions at this second. On bodies: I would never say a *person*, even a new-born is an artefact; I refer to the *body*. Human bodies are natural products, products of phylogeny, products of human labour over millennia and products of the person's own labour and that of those that they associate with during their lifetime. But I don't wish to talk of a person in that way. Andy mike cole wrote: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 fixedposition.By my analysis (see lchc.ucsd.com <http://lchc.ucsd.com>) human beingsare hybrids so its hard for me to draw lines. At the same time,clearly,human newborns are cultural "objects" in that they emerge into acultural environment which interprets them and arranges theirfutures invarious 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 "thewest" thename 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-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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------------------------------------------------------------------------Keep your friends updated— even when you’re not signed in. <http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_5:092010>-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov $20 eaWindows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you. http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_3:092010_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list 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 http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca