The Life as Activity Approach (2025)

Last updated on 05 Sep 2025

An introduction to a series of activity-centered knowledge frameworks

by Oliver Ding

I began studying Activity Theory around 2015. In 2020, I worked on the Activity U project, which resulted in two book drafts and the initial development of the Project Engagement approach. From 2021 to 2022, I created the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework and applied it to explore life strategy. In 2023, I designed the Activity Analysis & Intervention (AAI) Program. In 2024, I revisited and refined the Project Engagement approach, developing version 3.1.

The journey has led to many creations, including book drafts, knowledge frameworks, diagrams, digital boards, and more. On December 4, 2024, I used “World of Activity” to name my activity-centered creations as a theoretical toolkit, marking the end of a creative journey of theoretical exploration. However, in June 2025, I developed "World of Activity" as an independent concept for further growth, resulting in the World of Activity approach, which connects several theoretical frameworks I am working on – some of which are based on my activity-centered creations.

In September 2025, I decided to reuse "Life as Activity" to name my activity-centered creations. This idea dates back to 2020, when, during the Activity U project, I developed version 0.3 of the Life as Activity framework.

Since my primary interest lies in individual development and creative life, I use Life as Activity to highlight my direction of exploration in the field of activity-centered social theories.

We can understand both our daily life and life as a whole as forms of activity. In fact, the founder of Activity Theory once considered calling his framework Life Theory. According to Kaptelinin and Nardi (2006):

Leontiev’s ambition was to translate this general statement into a concrete description of how the first phenomena that can be called 'psyche' emerged in history, and how they developed into the current variety of mental phenomena. To accomplish this goal Leontiev needed a special kind of analytical tool, a concept more general than the psyche, that would make it possible to define the context in which the psyche emerges and develops. An obvious candidate for such a concept is ‘Life’ since ultimately this is what undergoes evolutionary change. However, this concept is too general and too vague. ‘Activity,’ as we will see below, was chosen by Leontiev as a concept that can provide a more concrete insight into what ‘Life’ is. (pp.51–52)

In my own work, I treat Life as encompassing both individual life and social life. While I emphasize individual creative agency, many of my frameworks also address the structural dimensions of social life, since understanding these complexities is essential for identifying potential opportunities for action.

A Knowledge Map

The diagram below presents a landscape of the Life as Activity approach. It includes eight knowledge frameworks, eleven book drafts, and one tool.

The first two frameworks provide an ontological-level explanation that frames the entire approach.

The Activity as Project Engagement model offers a theoretical integration that connects Andy Blunden’s approach with Yrjö Engeström’s Activity System Model.
The Life-History Topology model proposes a way to understand social life, serving as the foundation for individual life development.

The other six frameworks function as an epistemological-level toolkit, each approaching a different unit of analysis with a distinct model:

Individual subject perspective: World of Activity model
Intersubjective perspective: Activity Circle model
Project level: Developmental Project model
Environmental level: SET Framework
System level: Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) Framework
Platform level: Platform Ecology model

The eleven featured possible books are drafts rather than published works. They represent the outcomes of my exploration of these frameworks over the past several years.

The one featured tool is the House of Project Engagement—a map, based on the Project Engagement approach (v3.1), developed to support life narrative activity.

Activity as Project Engagement

The concept of Project Engagement was first introduced in my 2021 book titled Project-oriented Activity Theory (draft).

The book is inspired by Andy Blunden's approach to the interdisciplinary Theory of Activity. To establish the notion of “Project as a Unit of Activity” as a theoretical foundation of the new interdisciplinary theory of Activity, Blunden adopts Hegel’s logic and Vygotsky’s theories on “Unit of Analysis” and “Concept” as key theoretical resources. The process is documented in four books: An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity (2010), Concepts: A Critical Approach (2012), Collaborative Projects: An Interdisciplinary Study (2014), and Hegel for Social Movements (2019).

In my book, I introduced the model below to integrate Andy Blunden's approach and Yrjö Engeström's Activity System Model.

More details can be found in the Project Engagement Toolkit (v1, 2022).

While the concept of "Project Engagement" aligns with Andy Blunden' notion of "Project as a Unit of Activity," I also developed the idea of "Engagement as Projection" in 2022. This notion refers to refer to "Projectivity - Projecting - Projection."

In April 2022, I used a “Challenge—Solution” framework as a deep structure to reflect on the historical development of Activity Theory. Activity Theorists often describe an initial challenge using a dual structure, then introduce a new concept to expand it into a triadic structure.

For example, Lev Vygotsky addressed the “Stimulus-Response” dualism inherent in behaviorism. His solution was to introduce the third element, Mediation, transforming the dualism into the triadic structure S-X-R. For Vygotsky, the mediating action integrates Stimulus, Mediation, and Response, establishing a new approach to psychological science: Cultural-historical psychology.

Using this analogy, I see Andy Blunden’s challenge as the dual structure of “Practice—Sign,” with the solution being Concept, which embodies the idea of “Activity as the Formation of Concept.”

Reflecting on this framework, I applied it to my work on Project Engagement. I recognized that my approach to Activity Theory should be described as Activity as Project Engagement. The challenge I address is the “Outside—inside” dualism of social spaces.

The principle of Engagement as Projection echoes the Internalization—Externalization principle of Activity Theory. Additionally, this principle provides a framework to resolve the “Outside—Inside” dualism of social spaces, emphasizing the mutual shaping of individuals and the projects they engage with.

More details can be found in The Genidentity of Activity Theory.

The Life-History Topology

This model was inspired by the Project Engagement approach and the Themes of Practice approach. The pair of concepts “Event – Project” belongs to the Project Engagement approach, while the pair “Life Themes – Cultural Themes” comes from the Themes of Practice framework.

Andy Blunden notes that a project-oriented approach belongs to both psychology and sociology:

A project is a focus for an individual’s motivation, the indispensable vehicle for the exercise of their will and thus the key determinant of their psychology and the process which produces and reproduces the social fabric. Projects, therefore, give direct expression to the identity of the sciences of the mind and the social sciences. Projects belong to both; a project is a concept of both psychology and sociology. (2014, p.15)

In this light, the concept of Life can be understood as both Collective Life and Individual Life. The concept of Project provides a way to make sense of both. A person’s real life is a set of concrete actions, and the notion of Project offers a way to curate and integrate these actions. Likewise, Collective Life can also be curated through projects.

Life can be seen as the diachronic unfolding of a chain of projects, just as history can be seen as the diachronic unfolding of a chain of events.

While Life is a chain of projects, it can also be understood as a journey of moving between various thematic spaces. Each project has its primary themes as well as secondary ones. By joining and leaving projects, we enact our significant Life Themes. In this sense, projects can also be understood as Thematic Spaces.

Life = Projects = Thematic Spaces = Events = History

In this way, the Life as Activity approach echoes Andy Blunden’s idea that “a project is a concept of both psychology and sociology” (2014, p. 15). Here, the notion of Engagement takes on a new meaning: it refers to moving between Thematic Spaces.

More details can be found in Project Engagement (v2): Life, History, and Multiverse.

The "World of Activity" Model

Individual Subject Perspective

The World of Activity approach provides a comprehensive toolkit with multiple analytical modules for examining human experience and development from the individual subject perspective.

In this approach, the Individual Subject Perspective encompasses both an individual’s actions and the experiences and reflections that arise within those actions.

Its central model, the "World of Activity" Model (v1, 2025), is structured around the “Flow — Focus — Center — Circle” schema.

More details can be found in World.

The Activity Circle Model

Intersubjective Perspective

The Project Engagement approach (v3.1) is grounded in an activity-based perspective, where I emphasize activity, practice, context, and situation as crucial elements for discussing topics and issues. The “Activity Circle” model exemplifies this approach.

My approach to improving communication and enhancing understanding centers around two key concepts: Activity and Relevance.

Activity: What are people doing? What tools are they using?
Relevance: What is the relationship between these people? What are their motivations and abilities?

Activity Theory introduces the important concept of Mediation, which involves both psychological and technical tools. In the Activity Circle model, I refer to this concept as “Thing,” representing both types of tools.

The Activity Circle model emphasizes the relationships between Self, Other, Thing, and Think, making it ideal for discussing objects with dual properties — both material and mental. This idea is inspired by cultural-historical psychologist Lev Vygotsky’s distinction between two types of mediating tools: technological and psychological.

More details can be found in The Activity Circle (Oliver Ding, 2017).

The Developmental Project Model

Project level

The Developmental Project Model is a core component of the Project Engagement approach. The diagram below illustrates the standard Developmental Project Model, which outlines eight elements that describe a developmental project:

Purpose: Why do you want to initiate or join the project?
Position: What is the social structure of the project?
Program: Does the project follow formal organizational processes?
Social: How do you connect with others through your participation?
Content: What new information and knowledge do you acquire by joining the project?
Action: What concrete actions do you take in the project?
Theme: Do you discover new and interesting themes for your life development?
Identity: How does your perception of your identity change before and after joining the project?

“Theme” and “Identity” are two key elements of the Developmental Project Model. Between 2021 and 2024, I developed several knowledge frameworks focused on themes, identity, and related concepts.

Your identity is shaped by how others view “what you do” and “who you are,” but it’s also a part of your self-knowledge. From the perspective of the Project Engagement approach, identity is a core element of the Developmental Project Model and is deeply interconnected with the other elements.

Every time you join or leave a project, your identity evolves. This ongoing evolution is what I refer to as the Microdynamics of Identity.

Life is a chain of projects, it is also a projection of social life. By adopting the Developmental Project Model, we gain a structured way to reflect on the development of both personal and social life, allowing us to connect psychology, sociology, and other disciplines in a single unit of analysis.

More details can be found in the Developmental Project Model and World of Activity #4: The Thematic Identity Curation Framework.

The SET Framework

Environmental level

The SET Framework was initially called the Ecological-Activity Hybrid Approach and was developed between 2017 and 2020 during my work on various projects centered around a new type of social action platform.

Traditionally, Activity Theory uses the “Subject — Mediation — Object” model as the fundamental unit of analysis. This was later expanded in the Activity System model to include “Subject — Mediation — Object — Rules — Community — Division of Labor.” However, I noticed a gap between Activity Theory and the design of intersubjective social systems.

For example, from 2017 to 2018, I worked on a one-to-one video talk product, followed by other projects that utilized Structured Engagement as a design pattern. These projects had several common characteristics:

Host: A distinct type of actor responsible for hosting the overall activity.
Structured Engagement: Human-to-human interactions following a clearly defined, structured process.
Environment: The environment plays an integral role in shaping the design and execution of the activity.

Through these projects, I realized that the Activity System model, widely used in Activity Theory, was not ideal for capturing the dynamics of intersubjective social actions. In 2019, I developed the Ecological-Activity Hybrid Approach by integrating concepts from Activity Theory and Ecological Psychology. In 2020, I renamed this approach SET, which stands for Structured Engagement Theory.

More details can be found in The SET Framework [Hybrid Approach].

The Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) Framework

System level

The Developmental Project Model is about the "Project" level. At the higher level of multiple projects, we can use different models to explain the complexity, such as Chain, Network, System, etc.

The Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework is inspired by Activity Theory, Anticipatory System theory, Relevance theory, and other theoretical resources. The framework models a specific structure: “Self, Other, Present, Future.”

An Anticipatory Activity System is composed of two parts: First-order Activity and Second-order Activity.

At a lower level, both First-order Activity and Second-order Activity can be understood as Projects. In this way, the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework integrates with the Project Engagement approach as a hierarchical system.

On September 29, 2020, I published an article titled Activity U (VI): The Hierarchy of Human Activity and Social Practice. The article is part of the Activity U project. A side product of the article is a universal hierarchy of activity and practice.

Human activity and social practice are extremely complex, the hierarchy serves as a useful thinking tool for understanding them. Based on perspectives from activity theorists and other researchers, I found an eight-level hierarchy of activity and practice. The six middle levels are adapted from activity theorists, the top level is adopted from anthropologist Morris Opler (1945), and the low level is adopted from ecological psychologist James J. Gibson (1979).

This hierarchy places the Activity System model at Level 5 and the Activity Network at Level 6.

The Project Engagement approach’s Developmental Project Model fits into Level 4. In fact, it aligns with the Activity System Model at the same level, as seen in the Project Engagement toolkit. Therefore, we should merge Level 4 and Level 5.

The “Project Network” Model belongs to Level 6.

Where should the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework be placed?

It should also be placed in Level 6 because its sub-level consists of Projects.

In other words, both the “Project Network” Model and the AAS Framework operate at a higher level and can be used to organize multiple projects.

The "Platform Ecology" Model

Platform level

On December 13, 2020, I published the Platform-for-Development (P4D) framework (v1.0). Later, I renamed it Developmental Project and developed v2.0 of the Platform-for-Development. An outcome of this work was a supportive approach to adult development grounded in an ecological mindset.

The v2.0 framework drew on Project-oriented Activity Theory and the Ecological Practice approach as theoretical resources. To connect theory and practice, I developed several intermediate concepts and frameworks, culminating in a book draft titled Platform for Development: The Ecology of Adult Development in the 21st Century.

The basic model of the Platform Ecology approach is illustrated below, showing how Projects are nested within a multiple-layer structure of Platform Ecology.

The approach also provides a simple tool called the Supportive Cycle model, which considers four types of entities and four corresponding movements of their interactions.

More details can be found in The Supportive Cycle (v1.0).

Want to Stay Updated?

Don’t miss the latest updates from the World of Activity series and other insightful articles. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed!

v1.0: 2704 words - September 5, 2025