Principles of Activity Theory

Activity Theory is of Soviet origin and a proposition to unite the theoretical frailties of western psychologies. In Vygotsky (2002), it criticized prominent theories of its time including Piaget and Gestalt, and proposed a common framework that cuts across multiple layers of analysis. From the small chapter in Kaptelinin and Nardi (2006), we can see the wide ranging impact of Activity Theory, which implications range from education, psychology, biology, culture, sociology, and design. However, such a widely implicated theory always falls into the weakness of being overly abstracted. Its abstraction being that all activities are based on a set of basic principles including: unity of consciousness and activity, social nature of the mind, object-orientedness, hierarchical structure of activity, internalization-externalization, interpsychological understanding in society, meditation, and development. As such, Activity Theory is not ‘a’ theory per say, but a framework where we can understand our society. A question thus arises, Is Activity Theory necessary?

Why Theory?

To answer the above question, we have to first ask: What do society do with theory? An easy but misleading answer comes from the physical science – to predict the future. Yet a possibly more correct answer comes from the origin of theory. Greek called it Theoria, which is speculation and paying exclusive attention and state of being with an object. Such interpretation then bring humans into being with the theory itself. Thus, rather than claiming to objectively judge a phenomena such as a distance or speed of an object, it's a speculation that theory emphasized. The human speculator is key to any theory.

In fact, theories need not be sanctioned by the scientific community. There was no such community in Socrates’ time. In fact, it was not there until the very recent centuries. Yet, humans have been speculating about phenomena. For example, humans believe that the world is flat for a long period of time. And the fact is that it helps us plan. We do not expect our house to be built on rounded surfaces. It's a good theory until we are able to build transport that brings us far enough to ‘the end of the world.’ All of the sudden, the theory is out of time.

Thus, theory is, as Activity Theory pointed out, equivalent to a tool for our higher consciousness. A tool to help us think. The critical consideration here is to what extend should a theory remain coherent to the whole framework of knowledge shared within a society? In HCI, there are many alternative to Activity Theory: two of which are Ethnomethodology, and ecological interface design. But none of which is complete as Activity Theory.

Ethnomethodology, which we will read in Suchman (2000), laid a psychological framework for anthropologists investigating a site. However, its resistant to theorizing. Ecological interface design described a 5 hierarchies framework for investigating a human-machine system. The highest is the purpose and lowest the physical components. Its similar to Activity Theory’s hierarchies and object-orientedness. Thus its still an enclosed system with few discussions on interpsychological functions, developmental components, and culture. Nonetheless, all these theories played a major role in HCI research.

Ethnomethodology serves the anthropologists well, of which some of the most important job lies in understanding the natives’ point of view in a system. They have to begin investigation without preconceptions. They often have to select a site for convenience, and analyze discourses to find clues to natives thoughts structure. Ecological interface design serves process controls industry for the hierarchical framework naturally dissects complex systems into analyzable components. By understanding the functional purpose of a system, its easier to discuss about its functionalities and physical parts, making design manageable.

Thus, theories do not seem to have superiority over each other outside context. Each theory plays its part within the activity of the actors.

Importance of Unity of Theory to the Society

So far, we have analyze theories within scope of its use. Now, we are trying to argue if such grand theory as Activity Theory necessary?

Imagine that one day, Lucy Suchman and Rasmussen (founder of ecological interface design) comes together to work on the project on the culture of petroleum companies, how would they work together? Not only do they have no common language, in fact Suchman may not have much to say to Rasmussen. Rasmussen would prefer t o investigate the purpose of each component of each companies, but Suchman would prefer to be non judgmental and classify this as purpose and that as action. She might ask Rasmussen, “Who’s purpose is this? The machine or operator?” Truly no one’s view of the company can be considered objective, yet Rasmunsen’s approach exactly from system engineering’s point of view, which make is such a success in informing process control companies. If I am not wrong, they would ultimately break up the work and do it independently, and arrive that two different papers published in wholly different terminologies. Such is the state of science today, especially that of psychology and sociology.

However, historically, we have not seen one society being built on two disparing theories. Greek and Roman empires were built on Socrates. Han and Tang dynasty were built on Taoism and Confucianism on which the latter were built on the former. And subsequently a Confucianist influenced Buddhism known as Chan came to China in Tang dynasty. Importance of theories on society thus goes beyond that of mental activity, but also shared understanding, and foundations for progress and development.

I would like to argue that the reason for the relatively weak impact of western psychology and sociology lies herein. There is no common foundation, no unity, and every twenty years or so, a new paradigm appears. These are such as eras of Gestalt, Freud, Maslow, and recently biopsychological movements. Not to mention the many competing schools even within each era. What Activity Theory has offered is a complete hierarchy of human work and consciousness, and within it the bridges where consciousness traverse between psycho-physical planes. It does not reject theorizing nor constrain by it. Its goal is to bring psychology, science, and society into unity.

===========
References
Kaptelinin (1996). Activity Theory: Implications for Human Computer Interaction. In Nardi, Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Suchman (2000). Embodied Practices of Engineering Work. Mind, Culture, and Activity 7: 4-18.

Vygotsky L (2002). Thought and Language. MA: MIT Press.

Jan 2008