I agree with Pedro about Freud's 'hydraulic' account of the self. If you
look at the developmental framework then the social 'context' doesn't really
impact on the self until the Oedipal crisis, when it appears as a limit on
the expression of the egotistical drives. In Lacanian and post-Lacanian (esp
French) psycho-analysis the same is true of language: rather than liberating
the self to use the mediating tools of culture, it limits the possibility of
expression, and self-realisation, to what is socially recognised and
sanctioned (in language qua system).
The Lacanian version is interesting, though, from a CHAT perspective in
replacing the nuclear family of the Oedipal triangle with a more generic
social triangle of self, (m)other and a third term, possibly the Law
(language as system). I like to contrast this limiting third term with the
enabling third term in Jakobson's model of speaking (subject, object and
mediating system - though it's more complicated in the original!) which
starts to look familiar.
>I disagree Diane, I think it was more biological, based on a hydraulic sort
of model with the id, ego and sup ego (internalized social voices?) going
at it, in other word, it was not social enough when contrasted, for example
with Adler, his colleague....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 01:01:19 PDT