Carl,
If I understood Andy, I guess I have a similar concern. Mainly in how you
appear to draw this line between cultural psychology and other
psychology. You have written at length on AT elsewhere, so a question I
have is do you see it more or less being limited to mass psychological
phenomena or is Cultural Psychology one avenue AT can proceed.
One example, a recent article I read on ADHD mentioned now 5% of the worlds
population is on ritilin, but over 80% of its consumption is in the United
States. We Americans seem to consume 80% of everything so maybe theres not
much to it. For argument sake, lets say there are real psychological
differences in American children which "justify" the drug that do not exist
to such an extent in other cultures.
On one hand I could see your development on cultural psychology being
really useful here - what is it about how our institutions are organized,
schools are run, families are supported, consumption broadcasted etc that
forms certain psychological dispositions in American children that are
absent in other children. (These are of course normally seen as properties
of the individual where culture is left unexamined).
But, on the other hand you seem (am I misunderstanding) to create this
division between mass psychological content of cultural psychology and the
more family oriented clinical psychologists. ADHD is of course dealt with
most often by clinical psychologists but may very much have a lot to do
with the realm of cultural psychology.
It seems to me from my readings on AT - including your stuff - is that it
offers a possibility to break down some of the barriers. It can examine
cultural psychological features like you have drawn out, various forms of
historical activity such as work, school, and play, and enlighten
disciplines such as clinical psychology - I am reminded of Gerald Coles
work here.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to the earlier questions, I found it
helpful.
Nate
At 04:27 PM 1/20/01 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> > ----------
> > From: Carl Ratner <cr2@humboldt1.com>
> > Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:13:25 -0800
> > To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Cc: carl ratner <cr2@humboldt1.com>
> > Subject: Re: Carl's paper
> >
> > I am grateful to the commentators on my paper "Agency & Culture." I'd like
> > to respond to their questions and comments.
> > Andy says that it's crucial for cultural psych. to explain individual
> > differences. I disagree with this. I believe that the key task for
>cultural
> > psychologists is to understand mass-psychological phenomena such as the
>fact
> > that billions of people define themselves in terms of commodities they
>own,
> > billions of women are unsatisfied with their bodily appearance, millions
>of
> > American teenagers have poor communication with their parents, millions of
> > American students have lost any interest in learning academic material in
> > school, 50% of American marriages end in divorce, the vast majority of
> > Westerners experience romantic love which has particular characteristics
> > quite different from the love that Puritans experienced, Americans in
> > general have higher levels of aggression than people in Sri Lanka,
> > particular forms of mental illness are found in different countries, etc.
> > etc. These mass-psychological phenomena are clearly shaped by shared
> > features of a social system. Cultural concepts, or scripts, are clearly
> > impt. in fostering these psychological phenomena, as Doris observes. But
>the
> > entire structure of social activities is crucial also. Understanding the
> > relation between social systems that organize large numbers of people
> > together in activities, and mass psych. phenomena is interesting
> > scientifically and has enormous practical import. It should not be
> > denigrated w. labels such as anthropologism, sociologism, etc. I don't see
> > why Andy thinks that individual differences are more important or
> > interesting than mass psych. issues which millions of people share.
> >
> > Since modern societies are complex, individuals who occupy different
> > positions will have psych. differences. Beyond this, individuals in the
>same
> > position, and even the same family, also have psych. differences.
>Explaining
> > these is NOT the field of cultural psych.; it is clinical psych. I don't
> > think cult. psych. should, or can, explain why among 2 brothers in a
>family,
> > they have different hobbies, one is more shy than the other, one marries a
> > Caucasian blonde while the other marries a black woman, why 1 stays
>married
> > and 1 divorces, why 1 becomes homosexual and the other heterosexual.
>What's
> > relevant to cult. psych. are broader issues such as why 50% of marriages
>end
> > in divorce, why a small percentage of men become homosexual in America,
>why
> > the number of white men who marry black women is low, and why the
> > personalities of immigrants systematically change over generations to
> > conform to personality types of the adopted country. These are questions
> > about psych. and culture. Of course, individuals with different
>psychologies
> > adopt different cultural concepts, however the point is to understand how
> > these concepts organize psych., and why people in particular social
> > positions adopt different concepts and develop different psychologies, not
> > why a given person adopts one concept rather than another. The point of
> > cultural psych. for me is to always see a psych. issue in relation to the
> > broad culture, not to the unique experience of the individual. Personal
> > experiences are impt. for the CULTURAL features they contain, not for the
> > idiosyncratic features they contain. The cultural features are experienced
> > by numerous individuals.
> >
> > Andy asks certain additional noteworthy questions. One concerns
> > individualism and alienation. I say, following Marx, that individualism
> > seems to be a form of freedom but in reality it is distance from society
> > which prevents individuals from controlling society.Therefore,
> > individualistic agency is alienated, impotent agency -- quite the opposite
> > of freedom. Agency can only be fulfilled when individuals collectively
> > control social forces. Thus, we don't yet have true agency. We need social
> > change to develop it. And the chicken and egg question is how do we engage
> > in social change if we're alienated? Who educates the educator? The answer
> > is not as mysterious as it seems. Certain people occupy positions in
>society
> > which give them an understanding of alienation, possibilities for social
> > change, and a motivation to do so. HOpefully, some of us XMCA folk are
>among
> > them. This is not elitism. It recognizes social differences in psychology
> > which is cultural psych. par excellance. Social change is a spiraling
> > process of gaining insights from a social position, communicating w.
>others,
> > making social changes which lead more people to develop more insight.
>That's
> > why we better start now accumulating this knowledge because when we need
>it
> > to deal w. emergencies -- as we soon will w. the Bush administration -- we
> > can't just invent it.
> > INdividualistic notions of agency naively believe that everyone is
>already
> > an agent by virtue of being a person, or engaging in narratives.
> > Well, I'd be interested in what folks think about these comments.
> > Carl
> >
> > --
> > Carl Ratner, Ph.D.
> > cr2@humboldt1.com
> > http://www.humboldt1.com/~cr2
> >
> > P.O.B. 1294
> > Trinidad, CA 95570
> > USA
> >
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2001 - 14:24:54 PST