These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
mike cole wrote:
Perhaps I am agreeing with Andy about the linkages between institutions and concepts, which is also a linkage between activities and concepts.
Mike, I would like to mention the following semantic connections which I think CHAT needs to pay attention to if we are to talk to the numerous other currents who share our domain of enquiry.
Institution = Discourse (Foucault)
= Practico-intert (Sartre)
= Object (Hegel)
= Activity (ANL, def. by object)
= Genre (Bakhtin)
= Frame (Goffman)
= Tradition (Gadamer)
= Figured world (D Holland)
= Activity System (Engestrom?)
= Social formation (Marx)
= Field (Bourdieu)
which is a dead or solidified ...?
Project for Schmit
for Hegelians like Pinkard and Andy
for Existentialists (Sartre, Heidegger?)
Gestalt des consciousness for Hegel
momentary = context
= situation
Projects & Institutions have as Units ... ?
= Concept
= Action (ANL)
= Text?
obviously none of the = are really =, because they involve
different conceptual frames. Which is my point, I guess.
Andy _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca