Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Culture & Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Toomela, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Other

Activity Theory Is a Dead End for Cultural-Historical Psychology

Aaro Toomela

University of Tartu, Estonia

In this article, activity theory is analysed. Specific examples for the analysis are taken from Ratner’s (2000) article on emotions. It is concluded that activity theory in general and Ratner’s approach in particular are deficient at three different levels of analysis: from a general theoretical approach to the study of mind to specific details of how particular mental phenomena and their development are studied. Reasons are proposed for why activity theory in principle cannot solve those deficiencies. It is proposed that Vygotsky’s cultural-historical psychology may be more suitable for understanding the human mind and its genesis.

Key Words: activity theory • cultural-historical psychology • dialectical method • emotions • functional systems • sign meaning • unit of analysis

Culture & Psychology, Vol. 6, No. 3, 353-364 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/1354067X0063005
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Culture PsychologyHome page
M. Cubero, M. de la Mata, and R. Cubero
Activity Settings, Discourse Modes and Ways of Understanding: On the Heterogeneity of Verbal Thinking
Culture Psychology, December 1, 2008; 14(4): 403 - 430.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Culture PsychologyHome page
A. Toomela
Commentary: Activity Theory is a Dead End for Methodological Thinking in Cultural Psychology Too
Culture Psychology, September 1, 2008; 14(3): 289 - 303.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Culture PsychologyHome page
A. Toomela
Commentary: Vygotskian Cultural-Historical and Sociocultural Approaches Represent Two Levels of Analysis: Complementarity Instead of Opposition
Culture Psychology, March 1, 2008; 14(1): 57 - 69.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Culture PsychologyHome page
A. Toomela
How Should Culture be Studied?
Culture Psychology, March 1, 2003; 9(1): 35 - 45.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Culture PsychologyHome page
J. Valsiner
The First Six Years: Culture's Adventures in Psychology
Culture Psychology, March 1, 2001; 7(1): 5 - 48.
[Abstract] [PDF]