CULTURAL HISTORICAL ACTIVITY THEORY (CHAT)

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMING AND

Figure 2.1: First generation CHAT- Vygotsky Source: Engeström and Engeström, (1984: 17)

Fundamentally, the CHAT developed by Yjrö Engeström in 1987, built on the first generation of cultural historical activity theory developed by Vygotsky and his colleagues as mentioned and shown above in Figure 2.1 (Engeström, 1999a). Engeström (2006) suggests four epistemic threads as a guiding framework for presenting and examining formative interventions using the CHAT: (1) unit of analysis, (2) causality and agency, (3) change and development, and (4) generalization.

Engeström (2001) posits that, we can discern three generations in the evolution of the prime unit of analysis within cultural-historical activity theory. The first generation, based on Vygotsky’s work, centred around mediated action as unit of analysis (Zinchenko, 1985, see Figure 2.1 above).

The second generation, based on Leont’ev’s (1978, 1981) work, took the collective activity system as its molar unit of analysis (see Figure 2.5). Lastly, the third-generation unit of analysis focuses on interactions among two or more activity systems which have a partially shared object (Figure 2. 2).

Figure 2.2. Third generation activity theory Source: Engeström (2006: 8)

As pointed out by Engeström (2006), the mediated action in the 1st generation may be recognized as the tip of the iceberg in the 2nd and 3rd generation models. Hence, the unit of analysis may require multiple levels of analysis (Leont’ev, 1978). In other words, the unit of analysis can only gain explanatory power if visible transitions and boundaries between the activity system and the actions it generates on the one hand, and between the activity system and the field of interconnected activity systems in which it is located are made on the other hand. Furthermore, the activity theory sees the object as the crucial factor that gives durable direction, purpose and identity to an activity and once an activity-system has become fragmented by the inner contradictions, the object of activity tends to get blurred or lost. Hence, the formative interventionist methodology becomes effective in rediscovering and expansive reforming of the object of activity (Engeström, 2006). The first-generation unit introduces the concepts of subject, object and mediating artefact as constituents of action. The second-generation model proposes an anatomy of collective activity, adding the concepts of community, rules, and division of labour, as well as the sub-processes of production, distribution, exchange, and consumption (ibid, 2006). Lastly, the third-generation

model goes beyond the interplay between action and activity to encompass the concepts of multi- activity field or terrain and boundary zone, which are aimed at capturing crucial features of units in which two or more activity systems are connected by a partially shared object (ibid, 2006).

Recently the fourth generation of CHAT was developed. Like other precedent CHAT projects, the fourth generation CHAT acknowledges mediaton work action as in the first-generation unit of analysis (Engeström & Engeström, 1984: 17), builts on finding contradictions and expansive possibilities in systems of activity as in second generation (Engeström, Haavisto & Pihlaja, 1992:

154), utilise the expansive spearheads in the zone of proximal development to foward understanding and generating collective resolutions (Haavisto, 2002: 298) lastly, enegages in negotiated knotworking among multiple activity systems as is in the third generation CHAT.

Spinuzzi (2019) argues that the kind of work in the fourth generation CHAT is “unstable, fluid and poorly bounded arrangements, an interventionist approach of third generation activity theory may not succeed to unite different stakeholders or even to identify and stabilize one set of stakeholders.”

Engeström, and Sannino (2017) argues that a fourth generation activity theory is more ideal where there is ”radical and fateful transformation in the objects of human activity in the anthropocene on critical societal challenges of equity, sustainability and common good.” However, Engeström, and Sannino (2017) urge that,

a unit of analysis appropriate for the fourth generation cannot be constructed simply by adding more activity systems to the third generation unit. The unit needs to be built around fateful objects that affect lives across boundaries; we also need to move from an emphasis on structural relations to an emphasis on interrelated processes of expansive learning and generation of transformative agency.

Figure 2.3: A Fourth-Generation Unit of Analysis: Coalescing Cycles of Expansive Learning Source: Sannino (2017)

As shown in Figure 2.3 above, fourth-generation CHAT builds on ideas and instruments developed by the preceding generations (first, second and third generations of CHAT). Added to, the fourth generation has intertwined learning cycles that are intimately connected to the third generation interacting activity systems, and the analyst needs to move between the two. However, my study was guided and limited to the third generation CHAT because of the partially shared objects in Nyanyadzi irrigation scheme and context.

2.1.1 The concept of activity systems as used in CHAT.

It is of great importance to understand the key concepts as used in the CHAT, namely activity, action, subject and object. According to Leont’ev as cited in Kaptelinin and Nardi, (2006: 31) an activity is a “purposeful and developing interaction of the subject with the world, a process in which mutual transformations between the poles of “subject-object” are accomplished.” Object- oriented activity is also referred to as practice (Miettinen, 2005). Following Leont’ev (1978/2009)’s perspective, human activities and actions differ in that human activities are constituted by basic components that realise them, in this case the actions. Action is a process which obeys a conscious goal. Essentially, action is the process by which the results of goals are achieved. A better way to understand “is from the correlative manner of the concept of motive and the concept of activity, so as the concept of goal is correlative with that of action” (ibid., 2009: 6).

Borrowing from Leont’ev’s words, the above-described relationship between activities and actions can be illustrated from a person’s food procurement activity:

Let us assume that a person’s activity is stimulated by food, this is its motive. However, in order to satisfy the need for food he must perform actions that are not directly aimed at obtaining food. For example, one of his goals may be the making of trapping gear. Whether he himself will later use the gear he makes or pass it on to other participants in the hunt and receive part of the common catch or kill, in either case his motive and goal do not directly coincide, except in particular cases. (Leont’ev, 1978/2009: 7)

The object of an activity becomes the prime reason for individuals and/or groups of people partake in the activity. In essence, the object of an activity system holds together the other elements, and has a complex and contradictory nature (Kaptelinin, 2005; Hyysalo, 2005; Miettinen, 2005).

According, to Leont’ev (1978: 62) “the object of an activity is its true motive” rather than the organic needs of an individual as traditionally conceptualised in psychology. Mediating artefacts are the material tools and cognitive instruments, or signs and these include “social others and artefacts that can act as resources for the subject in the activity” (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010: 2). Lastly,

‘artefact’ (or artefacts) are objects shaped by human workmanship, typically those with historical or archaeological interest. In this study, the terms ‘artifact’ and ‘artefact’ were used interchangeably as the spellings occur in these two variations in the literature. Using activity theory, an activity

system, such as Nyanyadzi irrigation farming activity, becomes the unit of analysis in studying human mediated activity among a community of irrigation farmers or actors who have a common object of activity (crop production and marketing).

2.1.2. The concept of Mediation as used in CHAT.

Wertsch (2007), agreed with Vygotsky that the centrality of mediation in human activity leads to human consciousness. Such mediation is linked to “psychological tools” or “signs” which could be used to direct the mind and behaviour. An understanding that our contact with the world is indirect or mediated by signs emerged and we do not normally act in a direct and unmediated way in the social and physical world. This understanding meant that, “the emergence and definition of higher mental processes must be grounded in the notion of mediation” (Ibid., 2007: 178). This way Wertsch foregrounded mediation in the learning processes such that, co-construction of knowledge in social interactions lead to appropriation and internalisation of the cultural tools required for performing a new or more advanced task in a new activity. Wertsch (2007) also made a distinction between explicit (overt and intentional stimulation) and implicit mediation. In the latter, mediating signs are understood as part of pre-existing, independent stream of communicative action that has become integrated with other forms of goal-directed behaviour (ibid., 2007).

Therefore, in a real setup like Nyanyadzi irrigation scheme, the mediating role can be performed by each of the interacting subjects during their activity, and that it can also be expanded by formative interaction with more knowledgeable peers (insider-formative interventionist Researcher, Extension officers among others). This also means mediation can also be planned as expansive learning interactions, on one hand, and can also be catalytic along emergent, everyday expansive learning cycles. These two forms of mediation (implicit and explicit) can also co-exist and intersect in expansive learning (Pesanayi, 2018). In the case of Nyanyadzi irrigation’s learning context, the concept and processes of mediation were applied to the interaction among irrigation farmers and other participants as co-mediators in the change laboratory workshops and out of these settings. In the process, the cultural contexts in the irrigation farmers’ historicised practices were treated as the reference point, while all the other neighbouring activity systems were considered important.

In support to the use of mediation, John-Steiner and Mahn (1996: 191), argued that sociocultural approaches are “...based on the concept that human activities take place in cultural contexts, are mediated by language and other symbol systems, and can best be understood when they are investigated in their historical development.” In addition, Daniels (2015: 9), also found out that,

the concept of mediation makes it possible for humans to transform their world with external cultural tools as they act upon or are acted on by socio-cultural and historical factors, rather than being subjugated by or within cultural systems.

Similarly, Elkonin (2014: 2058) argued that mediated activity thus involves “the valuation of your own behaviour through cultural forms or signs” whereby “the social and the individual mutually shape each other” (Daniels, 2015: 34). Therefore, CHAT is relevant and useful to my study where irrigation farming can be viewed as a mediated activity, where farmers constantly transform their world with cultural tools as they act upon or are being acted upon by socio-cultural and historical factors. In other words, the farmers as human agents can master themselves through external symbolic, cultural systems rather than being subjugated by and in them (Vygotsky, 1981 as cited in Daniels, 2008: 9). Meaning that an individual (farmer) has the agentic power to transform his/her surrounding environment, for his/her self-development (Elhammoum, 2002: 96). It is this agentic power Elhammoum, (2002) talks about that is of great importance to Nyanyadzi irrigation scheme where complexities have halted the progress of the scheme and food insecurity is feared.