This article examines Engeström’s version of activity theory, one rooted in Marxism. It is argued that whilst this approach holds progressive possibilities, its radicalism is undermined by a restricted conceptualisation of transformation and the marginalisation of a politicised notion of social antagonism. As a consequence, this approach to activity theory can easily fold over into a conservative praxis that undermines its potential radicalism, becoming instead technicised and a form of transformism.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
James Avis (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: