INTRODUCTION: "Perspectives on the Object of Activity"

This special issue presents a variety of contemporary perspectives on a key concept of activity theory, the object of activity. According to Leontiev (1978), the principle of object-orientedness (a.k.a. “object-relatedness”) is the cornerstone of the conceptual framework of activity theory. Accordingly, the concept of the object of activity has been regarded as one of the most fundamental notions of the approach as a whole. Currently, this concept is playing an increasingly important role in theoretical developments and practical applications of activity theory. Researchers and practitioners are rediscovering the concept as a powerful analytical tool that helps to reveal the fundamental aspects of social practice, and support structured, meaningful interpretations of empirical data. An example of the current wave of interest in the concept of the object of activity is a recent discussion on the XMCA mailing list (www.communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/ index.html), stimulated by an article by Kirsten Foot, entitled “Pursuing an Evolving Object: A Case Study of Object Formation and Identification” (Foot, 2002). The articles in this special issue are based on two symposia organized by the guest editors at the Second Nordic-Baltic Conference on Activity Theory and Cultural Research (Ronneby, Sweden; September, 2001) and the Fifth ISCRAT Congress (Amsterdam, The Netherlands; June, 2002). The articles in the issue represent a subset of revised papers submitted to the ISCRAT Congress. Most of the ideas described in this issue have come a long way from their initial presentation, thanks to the discussions between the contributors to this issue, as well as other participants in the symposia. Although contemporary attempts to employ the concept of the object of activity in concrete research have undoubtedly demonstrated its usefulness, it has also become clear that the concept needs to be developed further. In particular, the concept, as it was introduced by Leontiev (1978, 1959/1981), allows for both psychological and sociological interpretations. The relationship beMIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY, 12(1), 1–3 Copyright © 2005, Regents of the University of California on behalf of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition