After Lubomir,
“The method is simultaneously prerequisite and product, the tool and the result of the study.” (Lev Vygotsky, Mind in Society, Harvard University Press, 1978, p. 65)
The mind is not just the brain. Thinking is an embodied state. Through our bodies the mind extends into and becoming part of the world, it both changes and is changed. (Note: the body occupies space and time (e.g. not space in time).)
I would argue that the term ‘mediation’ calls for re-visiting. Beyond its use in current theories, it would be important to reveal the nuances. In ritual, objects often mediate between the subjects involved and the experience. The graphic marks of the alphabet mediate between the reader and the message intended for communication by the author. Are these all the same? Hardly.
Attentively,
Lily
************************
Dr. Lily Diaz-Kommonen
Professor of New Media
Aalto University
School of Arts, Design and Architecture
Otakaari 1, Espoo 02150 Finland
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
https://sysrep.aalto.fi
On 21 Jul 2020, at 17.48, Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hello every one,
The way we approach the discussion on agency, we can go for ever. A major problem is that we discuss agency from different paradigmatic position. This is normal in science. But still, if we want to understand better a phenomenon, we need to explicate our foundational positions and assumptions, most often by declaring our paradigmatic affiliation.
From a historical materialist position, and Activity Theory in particular, only humans exercise agency. The non-human entities exert influences; impacts, effects, etc. The non-human entities mediates the relationship between the Subject and the Object of activity. If we talk about mediation, there is no agency (according to the models of human activity). Here I exclude the cases when the relationship between two people is mediated by a thirds person. But in this case we transcend the model of human activity and have to use a model of social activity. So, objects are mediators. Tools, instruments, etc. At some point of their evolution, we might start thinking differently and then Actor Network Theory (ANT) might be our approach of choice.
In ANT, the non-human objects are assigned agency and they are treated as actants (in ANT terms). If you wish to use ANT, use it. I personally believe it has a merit in the study of particular phenomena. ANT presupposes a relational ontology, even more, a multi dimensional rhizomatic ontology.
In Positivism we ascribe agency only to human/social entities. And we can do this within a relational ontology if we use a systems approach. Historic Materialists claim that systems thinking has emerged in mid 19th century and refer to some of their intellectual ancestors. Some people go back to Antiquity.
I don't see a problem using ANT and will recommend it for working on particular problems, but using it as a cure-all doesn't make sense.
Even when computers evolve to do "take" more work tasks from the humans, they are still non-human entities, mediators. They are mediators because someone has programmed them in a particular way, based on particular models of reality. So, you understand that computer behavior depends on models of reality and these models can have significant shortcomings or inadequacies. Terry and I will make very different models of reality, and in particular when we model social reality. Our computers/robots will behave differently. I conceptualize these machines as tools and will treat them as mediating objects in the process of human or social activity.
So, no need to argue if the non-human entities have agency. You can use ANT and assign them agency, then you make your methodological design or research design, do your study and field research, and present your you we disseminate your findings among ANT people or among positivists. Trust me. I have such problems.
Positivists have an adage: Give a little boy a hammer and he will hammer everything. They use it in limited situations, mostly when someone applies the same research design and statistical methods to all problem. But I see this adage applicable to many approaches and paradigmatic environments. So, we don't need to worry if the airplane has agency. We can ascribe agency, if we need for our method of work.
Will the others accept our paper -- this is the real question. I have had ridiculous paper reviews by reviewers who didn't understand anything, but more important, who didn't understand that they do not understand. If I don't understand a paper, a return it back to the editor. I don't impose my methodology on other people. Let's have diversity in thinking. But also, let's use our diverse methods wisely. Let's learn more about meta issues, meta problems, and meta situations. More philosophy of science will help.
Thank you for attention,
Lubomir
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
