The Object of Activity: Making Sense of the Sense-Maker

TLDR

The object of activity is central to activity theory, yet its meaning and usage remain problematic. This article seeks to resolve key ambiguities surrounding the concept. The authors examine three sources of uncertainty—translation of Leontiev’s ideas, divergent interpretations by Leontiev and Engeström, and contextual inconsistencies—to clarify the concept. They conclude that Leontiev’s definition of the object as the true motive is flawed and recommend distinguishing the object from the motive, outlining the implications of this separation.

Abstract

The concept of "the object of activity" plays a key role in research based on activity theory. However, the usefulness of this concept is somewhat undermined by the fact that a number of problems related to its meaning and its contexts of use remain unsolved. This article is an attempt to address some of these problems. The article focuses on 3 potential sources of uncertainties and inconsistencies, which may be obstacles to a more fruitful application of the concept of the object of activity in both research and practice. The first source is difficulties related to translation of ideas, originally formulated by Leontiev (1959/1981) in Russian, into English. The second source is different interpretations of the concept of the object of activity within two contemporary approaches in activity theory, the one developed by Leontiev (1975/1978) and the one developed by Engestrom (1987). Finally, the article finds the original Leontiev (1975/1978) definition of the object of activity as "its true motive" problematic and calls for separating the object of activity from the motive of activity. The implications of that separation are discussed.