Advertisement

Activity, Activity Theory, and the Marxian Legacy

  • Peter E. Jones
Chapter
  • 329 Downloads
Part of the Marxism and Education book series (MAED)

Abstract

How should Marxists approach the analysis, critique, and transformation of social practices and institutions (including education) within capitalist societies today? What theoretical tools do we need for this task and what should be our starting point? It is these fundamental theoretical and methodological issues that are the subject of this chapter.

Keywords

Activity Theory Adult Education Labor Process Capitalist Production Capitalist Society 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Avis, J. (2007) Engeström’s Version of Activity Theory: A Conservative Praxis? Journal of Education and Work, 20 (3): 161–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakhurst, D. (2009) Reflections on Activity Theory. Educational Review, 61 (2): 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davydov, V.V. (1990) Types of Generalization in Instruction (Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics).Google Scholar
  4. Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research (Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit).Google Scholar
  5. Engeström, Y. (1990) Learning, Working and Imagining: Twelve Studies in Activity Theory (Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit).Google Scholar
  6. Engeström, Y. (1991) Non Scolae Sed Vitae Discimus: Toward Overcoming the Encapsulation of School Learning. Learning and Instruction (1): 243–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (eds.) (1999) Perspectives on Activity Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  8. Engeström, Y. and Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R.-L. Punamäki (eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ilyenkov, E. V. (1982). The Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marx’s “Capital” (Moscow: Progress).Google Scholar
  10. Jones, P. E. (2009) Breaking Away from “Capital”? Theorising Activity in the Shadow of Marx. Outlines, 1: 45–58.Google Scholar
  11. Jones, P.E. (in press, 2011) Issues of Life and Death in Education. Commentary on Julian Williams. Mind, Culture and Activity.Google Scholar
  12. Leont’ev, A.N. (1978) Activity, Consciousness, and Personality (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall).Google Scholar
  13. Marx, K. (1909). Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Volume Three (Chicago, IL: Charles H Kerr & Co).Google Scholar
  14. Marx, K. (1973) Grundrisse (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books).Google Scholar
  15. Marx, K. (1976a). Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Volume One. (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books).Google Scholar
  16. Marx, K. (1976b). Value: Studies by Marx (London: New Park Publications).Google Scholar
  17. Mészáros, I. (1970). Marx’s Theory of Alienation (London: Merlin Press).Google Scholar
  18. Miettinen, R. (2000). Ascending from the Abstract to the Concrete and Constructing a Working Hypothesis for New Practices. In V. Oittinen (ed.) Evald Ilyenkov’s Philosophy Revisited, 111–29 (Helsinki: Kikimora Publications).Google Scholar
  19. Pilling, G. (1980) Marx‘s “Capital”: Philosophy and Political Economy (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
  20. Sayer, D. (1987) The Violence of Abstraction: The Analytic Foundations of Historical Materialism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
  21. Smith, C. (1999) Marx at the Millennium (London: Pluto Press).Google Scholar
  22. Smith, T. (1990) The Logic of Marx’s Capital (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).Google Scholar
  23. Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as Object-Related: Resolving the Dichotomy of Individual and Collective Planes of Activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12 (1): 70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Toiviainen, H. and Y. Engeström. (2009) Expansive Learning in and for Work. In H. Daniels, H. Lauder, and J. Porter (eds.) Knowledge, Values and Educational Policy: A Critical Perspective, 95–109 (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  25. Tuomi-Gröhn, T., and Y. Engeström. (2003) Conceptualizing Transfer: From Standard Notions to Developmental Perspectives. In Tuomi-Gröhn, T. and Y. Engeström (eds.) Between School and Work: New Perspectives on Transfer and Boundary Crossing, 19–38 (Amsterdam: Pergamon).Google Scholar
  26. Warmington, P. (2008). From “Activity” to “Labour”: Commodification, Labour Power and Contradiction in Engeström’s Activity Theory. Critical Social Studies—Outlines, 2: 4–19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Peter E. Jones 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter E. Jones

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations