Scholarship in the context of a historic socioeconomic and political turmoil: Reassessing and taking stock of CHAT. Commentary on Y. Engeström and A. Sannino “from mediated actions to heterogenous coalitions: four generations of activity-theoretical studies of work and learning”

Abstract

Writing a commentary on the paper by Yrjö Engeström and Annalisa Sannino is an important chance to invite these authors to a dialogue, and, quite critically, invite others to this dialogue and to a muchneeded broader conversation about this work and CHAT, in general, including its history, current status, and prospects for the future. This is important, I believe, not only because the paper presents influential works by these authors, takes stock of their trajectory and new advancements, and posits a transition into exciting new territories (and even into the next, as the authors call it, fourth generation of activity theory), but also because there has been a dearth of conversations cutting across and reaching beyond several rather independent, or at least sparsely connected, directions and research orientations within CHAT. One more reason, and the most critical one to me, is the rapidly changing, dramatic sociopolitical and economic dynamics we are currently witnessing. These dynamics did not start just now – they are unfolding with unprecedented force since at least the world economic crisis of 2008, and, of course, there had been dramatic changes before, albeit perhaps more hidden, at least from the view of the global North and its privileged populations including those in academia. As Cornel West wrote in 1991 (West, 1991, p. 1), “America is in the midst of a massive social breakdown. Never before in U.S. history has national decline and cultural decay so thoroughly shaken people’s confidence in their capacity to respond to present-day problems” (cf. earlier statements, e.g., W.E.B. Du Bois, 1961; Anzaldúa & Moraga, 1983; and powerful voices of resistance such as James Baldwin and Angela Davis, among many others). Now, however, the pandemic and the resurgence of political movements and resistance exposing systemic injustices, especially racial ones, have added important extra layers to the global crisis. We are currently in an acute crisis, if not an apocalyptic catastrophe, witnessing turmoil of a drastic, monumental, and farreaching nature and proportions. This crisis cannot be ignored in discussing CHAT, our scholarship, the fate of academia, and the very prospects of our future lives and survival. CHAT was born of the dramatic cataclysms of the early 20 century and their climax in the Russian revolution, coming to embody many formative features and constituents of this revolution’s ethos, even if these were lost or subdued in the following decades and into the present (as Vygotsky became “domesticated”, just like Paulo Freire too, see Stetsenko & Arievitch, 2004a). Now that we find ourselves in a situation with similar contours, predicaments, and challenges, we might want – or, rather, we are powerfully compelled and called upon – to radically and unequivocally reconsider, reevaluate, and refashion many of our received notions and approaches. I believe we are also compelled to take a stand and be clear as to which political causes and commitments we champion, while clarifying positions we occupy in the political struggles of today as they rapidly gain momentum. Moreover, if our views, emotions, theories, commitments, and