![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
The paper examines Engeström’s version of activity theory. It seeks to locate this within the socio‐economic and theoretical context in which notions of co‐configuration and knotworking are set. Although this theoretical approach offers radical possibilities it is limited by its neglect of the wider social context in which activity systems are located as well as by its failure to address issues of power and social antagonism. The recovery of these neglected areas has been recognized by those who have critically engaged with activity theory. Such an approach would serve to re‐centre the Marxist interest in social transformation and would minimize the tendency towards transformism integrally embedded in this particular version of activity theory.
Notes
1. The paper draws upon and develops work by Avis (Citation2007).
2. Gramsci’s conceptualization of transformism is helpful (Gramsci Citation1971). Johnson and Steinberg write,
Transformism does not, however, develop or “educate” these currents, does not “bring out the best of them”, as it were. It does not base itself within them. Rather it seeks to contain and control popular forces from outside. This may involve making real concessions, but always within the limits of existing social arrangements. At this more “structural” level, involving socio‐economic relations and whole ways of life, passive revolution is an attempt to solve structural problems within the terms of existing structures. An example today might be trying to solve environmental problems without curtailing the production of commodities or contesting the power of big corporations. (Citation2004, 13)