Activity Theory: Activity and Object Concepts
What is
an activity and the object of an activity?
Text by Marco Querol
mapquero@gmail.com
Activity
In everyday use, the term activity usually
refers to actions that we perform on a daily basis. In Activity Theory,
however, the concept has a specific meaning: it is the set of actions that a
collective conducts to transform an object into a determined result.
The object is another core concept of Cultural
Historical Activity Theory (CHAT). Initially, it can be said that the object is
that which has the capacity to satisfy or transform one or more human needs. It
represents, therefore, the motivation that guides and drives the actions of
individuals. It is not about any artifact, but about what motivates and is in
the process of being transformed into an expected result.
ATTENTION! object is, at the same time, the raw
material and the idealized result.
An example of the health care service. The physician's
object is at the same time the raw material, a patient with an illness, and the
expected result, a healthy patient.
An object is not extinguished when it is reached. For
example, the "house" does not cease to exist with the construction of
a house. The concept of home, linked to the human need for housing (among
others), does not disappear, but resurfaces whenever the need arises. The
object is constantly developing. What we mean by "house" today is
very different from the concept of a house 100, 200, or 1,000 years ago. Each
time the object is produced, knowledge is also produced, promoting the development
of both the object and the means of production.
Among human beings, activities are fundamentally
collective. The construction of a house, the provision of a health, insurance
or retirement service, the construction of a highway, the inspection of labor,
among other examples, are processes that can only occur collectively. They
depend on collaboration between contemporary people and also on the legacy left
by previous generations.
The
three levels in one activity?
Human activity has three levels: activity, action, and
operation.
An activity is oriented towards an object that has the
potential to satisfy one or more human needs. An activity is conducted by a
community. The activity is long-lasting and continues to exist even after the
object is produced.
An activity is made up of the actions of several
individuals. Each action is conducted by a person or a group and is directed to
a goal or objective that contributes to the realization of the activity.
For example, the activity of tomato production
involves several actions: soil preparation, planting, fertilization, pest and
weed control, harvesting, processing, distribution, sale and, finally,
consumption. The actions are conscious, and can be individual or group, and
always focused on specific objectives.
Stocks, in turn, are made up of operations. Operations are actions that, with repetition, have been automated and are now carried out relatively unconsciously. They can be performed by individuals or mechanized and performed by machines. Operations are determined by the concrete conditions of the environment. The relationship between these three levels — activity, action and operation — is represented in a systematic way.
An example of an operation in the tomato production
activity is soil turnover. When preparing the soil, the farmer turns the soil
with a hoe, performing specific movements, at a certain angle and holding the
tool in a particular way. Although it may seem simple, this operation is
complex and requires motor coordination and learning. For this farmer, there
was a time when this operation was conscious and challenging. Over time, it is
automated and becomes unconscious. This operation can be mechanized and conducted
by a tractor with a plow.
The relationship between the levels is dynamic. An
action can make operation. An operation can become action. An action can become
an activity. An operation initially appears as a conscious action, but with
time and repetition it tends to become automated, becoming an unconscious
operation. For example, on the day the farmer learned to move the soil for the
first time, he conducted conscious actions, repeating, repeating, until the
action was automated and turned into an operation. However, when an operation
fails—for example, when the farmer finds harder soil on which he cannot plow
with the hoe and the usual technique—it returns to the conscious level and
becomes an action. At this point, the farmer needs to adapt it to the new
conditions or modify it, if necessary.
An action can become an activity. With the social
division of labor, what we observe is that specific actions are being
transformed into activities. For example, in tomato production, farmers
specialized in the genetic improvement of tomato varieties, producers of seeds
and seedlings, in the production of fertilizer, in the provision of harvesting
services, in the sale of tools and inputs, in storage and sale and so on,
emerge, emerging new activities.
Object of an
activity
The
object of an activity is one of the most challenging concepts both from a
theoretical and pragmatic point of view. It is one of the most important
elements of the activity, and its motivating core is what guides the actions of
individuals. At the same time, it is also one of the most complex elements and
one that usually consumes the most time of the participants to analyze during
an intervention – and time is, today, one of the scarcest resources. Even when
there is a theoretical understanding of the concept, reaching a consensus on
what the object of a given activity is remains a major challenge.
The
very term "object" can generate misconceptions. In everyday life, one
tends to understand it as something separate, static and stable. However, when
applied as a concept to understand the motivation of a collective activity, it
is much more complex: it is disputed, contradictory and seems to be in constant
transformation.
Like
other concepts of CHAT, the object is a dialectical concept, which implies
three properties discussed in chapter 2 of the book: internal relations,
movement, and contradiction.
What is an object
of activity?
Traditionally,
the object is defined as the motivation, the purpose, that which satisfies a
human need (Leont'ev, 1978; Miettinen, 2005). It is
also the target of the actions of the subjects and that which is in the process
of transformation. This definition is useful, but when analyzing concrete and
collective situations, the difficulty in reaching a consensus on what the
object in question is, in fact, becomes evident.
From a dialectical view, an object can be understood as a unit formed by two elements: a raw material or problematic situation that needs to be transformed and an expected result that has the potential to satisfy it. Such unity is (Miettinen, 2005):
- ·
Fixed
and procedural,
- ·
Conceptual
and material,
- ·
Individual
and collective, and
- ·
Essentially
contradictory
Below
we will see each of these principles.
The essence of an
object
Fixed and Procedural
The
first principle is that an object is in motion. We usually identify the object
as something fixed, static, something that does not change. The object of an
activity seems repetitive, but it is procedural, that is, it is in
transformation during the execution of the activity and between cycles of
activities. With each action, the raw material changes, or a problem is
clarified and transformed. Not only the material aspect, but also the
conceptual aspect (as we understand it) is changing.
During
the performance of an activity, that is, within each cycle of an activity, the
process begins with the emergence of a human need (moment 1). This need
generates a state of dissatisfaction and anxiety. Needs can be both biological
and social.
As
pointed out by Leontiev (1978), it is not the need that motivates, but that
which has the capacity to satisfy it. It is when the subject is faced with the
object that the motivation is formed. When faced with the object, an idea or
concept visualized, individuals form an image or representation of the expected
results. By making the decision to achieve this visualized result, the object
acquires the motivating power (moment 2) capable of generating volition and
action.
Then, individuals begin to act to produce the expected results (moment 3). Actions can be individual or in groups. Each action and each operation contributes directly or indirectly to the construction of the object. The actions complement each other, contributing to transform the initial situation (raw material or problem) and a product or service.
Once the product or service is produced, it is consumed, fully or partially, permanently or temporarily satisfying the need (moment 4) that gave rise to it. Thus ends the cycle of activity.
The activity does not end with the production and consumption of the expected result. Activities are cyclical. They persist as long as the social need exists. The construction of houses will exist as long as there was a need for housing. Medical care will exist as long as there are sick people in need of treatment.
The
activities are cyclical, appearing to be relatively repetitive cycles. However,
changes exist, they can be small or large, but the object is always developing.
In modern society, with the model of mass production of standardized products
and services, it may appear that the object is fixed and repetitive. However,
each time the product or service is produced, new knowledge is produced and it
is transformed, both from a material and conceptual point of view.
For
example, if we compare a current house with a house from our grandparents'
time, we will notice several changes, both in material, size, energy
consumption, thermal insulation, waste treatment, among others. Contradictions
were identified and resolved and new elements emerged.
Material and conceptual
What we
see and feel with the senses are perceptions, interpretations made by our
brain, mediated by previous experiences and existing concepts. The object of an
activity, as well as all the reality that surrounds us, is conceptual and
material. Although they appear to be two separate things, the concept and the
material world it represents are one and the same. One does not exist without
the other. Of course, we can imagine things that do not exist or have not
occurred, create imaginary stories, but imagination makes use of pre-existing
experiences and concepts that in turn arose from interaction with the material
world. In the same way, the material world does not exist for us if we cannot
conceptualize it, or understand it, make sense of it.
A
concept is a generalization. It is the way we understand something. It involves
knowledge, but is not limited to it. A concept does not only exist inside the
heads of individuals, but is also shared through discursive, gestural, and
visual representations.
The
concept of the object, as well as other concepts, is constantly changing, and
can vary from person to person, and even for the same individual around time.
As pointed out by Engeström (2024), there are different types of concepts:
prototypes, classificatory, procedural, systemic, and germ cells, each with its
own function and potential use. As already mentioned above, both the material
and conceptual aspect of an object is constantly changing. When an activity is
repeated, the concept is transformed.
As
mentioned, the object can be a raw material that is transformed into a product,
but it can also be a service, or even knowledge. In our modern knowledge
society, epistemic objects, i.e., objects of research (molecules, social
problems) have become increasingly common and important in the world of work (Knorr-Cetina, 1997).
Rheinberger
makes a distinction between technical objects and epistemic objects (Rheinberger, 1997).
Technical objects are well-defined and "enclosed in black boxes" (Black
Boxed), being more or less permanent, while epistemic objects are oriented
to projections open to what does not yet exist, being generators of new
conceptions, solutions, innovation and reorientation in social practices (Miettinen & Virkkunen, 2005).
The
concept of the object can enhance or limit the results of human actions. There can be discrepancies between a concept,
i.e., the way we understand something, and the thing itself that this concept
aims to explain, i.e., between the conceptual and the material. Such
discrepancies between the two generate disturbances, that is, it can compromise
individuals to achieve the expected results.
Individual and collective
The
third dimension is related to the social essence of human activity. Human needs
are met through collective activities, that is, the collaboration of several
individuals. Through a division of labor, the actions of individuals and groups
contribute to the production of products and services.
Therefore,
one principle is that the objects of human activities have a contradictory
nature: they are, at the same time, individual and collective. The product of
an activity is always collective, the result of the sum and articulation of
actions carried out by different individuals. Even so, each person relates to
this object in a unique way, according to their own experiences, needs and
motivations.
In
Activity Theory, a differentiation is made between the social meaning and the
personal meaning that the object of an activity has for an individual (Leont'ev, 1978). This
differentiation is due to the social division of labor that occurs in our
modern society, where the individual does not consume the object of his work.
The societal meaning refers to the needs of the group of people who consume the
object, and is related to the usefulness of the object. The personal meaning is
related to the individual need that the object will satisfy in the specific
individual in which it is taken as a point of reference. From the division of
labor, the individual sells or exchanges the product, or else sells his labor
in exchange for a wage.
An
example here might be a farmer who produces a milk for sale. For this farmer,
the social meaning of milk is not to directly satisfy the food need of milk
(e.g., source of calcium, calories and proteins) because he does not consume it
directly, but through its sale, being directed to the satisfaction of another
need. The social meaning of milk is a
food. The personal sense for this farmer can use the money from the sale of
milk to build a house.
In
systems theory, a similar differentiation is also made between what is called
the finalistic system (purposive system in English) that it is an
imposed purpose that the system seeks to achieve; and the intentional system (purposeful
system which refers to a purpose that is articulated by the system itself
and that it itself wishes to achieve (Ison et al., 2000).
This
double condition makes the object simultaneously dependent on and independent
of individuals. Dependent because it needs the action of each participant to
exist in practice. Independent because the collective object transcends
individual intentions, constituting itself as something greater than the
isolated contribution of each subject. This double condition is a source of
contradictions in a system of activity.
As each
individual attributes different meanings to the object, there is not always
clarity or consensus about the social meaning. In addition, it is possible that
some do not fully know the object or are not motivated about it. This diversity
of conceptions can generate discoordination and deviations, compromising the
coherence of actions and often leading to undesirable results. Thus,
understanding the tension between the individual and collective character of
the object is fundamental to analyze and develop human activities.
References
Ison, R., High,
C., Blackmore, C., & Cerf, M. (2000). Theoretical frameworks for
learning-based approaches to change in industrialised-country agricultures. LEARN.
eds. Cow up a Tree. Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture. Case
Studies from Industrialised Countries. INRA (Institut National de la Recherche
Agronomique) Editions, Paris, 31–54.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1997). Sociality with objects:
Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, culture &
society, 14(4), 1–30.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness,
and personality. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs.
Miettinen, R. (2005). Object of activity and
individual motivation. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 52–69.
Miettinen, R., & Virkkunen, J. (2005). Epistemic
objects, artefacts and organizational change. Organization, 12(3),
437–456.
Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a History of
Epistemic Things:Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford
University Press.
https://www.sup.org/books/theory-and-philosophy/toward-history-epistemic-things
Comentários
Postar um comentário