“The Historical-Cultural Activity Theory and its contributions to Education, Health and Communication: interview with Yrjö Engeström”: Mónica Lemos, Marco Antonio Pereira-Querol e Ildeberto Muniz de Almeida
In the last week of September 2012, Yrjö Engeström, of the Center for Research on Activity, Development and Learning (CRADLE4), at the Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland, received us for discussions that had previously been organized by the small group of Brazilians working at CRADLE. Over the course of ninety minutes of interview and discussion, Professor Engeström talked about the training and activities developed at CRADLE, and its members’ understanding of the main concepts of the theoretical focus adopted, which is the “Cultural-Historical Activity Theory”. In addition, with contributions from other Brazilian colleagues, theoretical questions of greater density were also explored, such as the concepts of “agency”, “runaway objects” and “objects in complex real lives” (“objects in the wild”)5.
Professor Engeström is recognized internationally for applying and developing the cultural-historical activity theory as a theoretical approach in studies on the process of transformation and learning in work-related activities in organizations. He is best known for the theory of expansive learning and the interventionist methodology of developmental work research. One of his most recent studies is From teams to knots: activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work6. Currently, he coordinates CRADLE’s activities in Helsinki, which was the discussion subject in this interview.
“Il Capitale come Feticcio Automatico e come Soggetto, e la sua costituzione: sulla (dis)continuità Marx-Hegel”: Riccardo Bellofiore
Abstract: This article will deal in two steps with the Marx–Hegel (dis)connection in Capital. First, I’ll present a survey of what I take to be the most relevant positions about the role of dialectics in Marx. Second, after reviewing Marx’s criticisms of Hegel, I’ll consider the debate within the International Symposium on Marxian Theory. Third, I will argue that it is exactly Hegel’s idealism which made the Stuttgart philosopher crucial for the understanding of the capital relation. Here, I will refer to the ‘Hegelian’ Colletti of the late 1960s-early 1970s, to Backhaus’ dialectic of the form of value, and to Rubin’s interpretation of abstract labour as a process. At this point, I will provide my reading of Marx’s movement from commodity to money, and then to capital, in the first 5 chapters of Capital. Marx is moving on following a dual path. The first path reconstructs the ‘circularity’ of Capital as Subject, as an Automatic Fetish: it is here that Hegel’s idealistic method of ‘positing the presupposition’ served Marx well. The second path leads him to dig into the ‘constitution’ of the capital-relation, and therefore into the ‘linear’ exploitation of workers and class-struggle in production. Here we meet Marx’s radical break from Hegel, and understand the materialist foundation of the critique of political economy.
In questo articolo mi interrogherò sul rapporto di continuità/discontinuità tra Marx e Hegel. Inizierò con una rassegna personale idiosincratica delle posizioni più importanti che hanno influenzato la mia posizione. A seguire, prima ricorderò le critiche principali di Marx a Hegel, poi alcuni momenti del vivace dibattito all’interno dell’International Symposium on Marxian Theory (ISMT). Sosterrò quindi che è proprio l’idealismo assoluto di Hegel che ha reso il filosofo di Stoccarda così importante per la comprensione del ‘rapporto di capitale’. Lo farò ricordando la lettura, a suo modo hegeliana, che Colletti dà del valore di Marx a cavallo tra anni Sessanta e Settanta. Userò pure il rimando a Backhaus e alla sua dialettica della forma di valore, e a Rubin e alla sua interpretazione del lavoro astratto, autori che aiutano ad approfondire il discorso di Colletti in una prospettiva a mio parere convergente.