oppositional position

From: Phillip White (Phillip_White@ceo.cudenver.edu)
Date: Mon Jan 22 2001 - 05:45:11 PST


        i resonate with Judy's observation that Carl's positioning looks to be
situated in polarities - individual clinical psychology on one end and
cultural psychology on the other.

        i also think that the existence of Carl's paper is in itself an argument
against his main thesis - in particular his argument against Valsiner's
exploration of the individual and resistance of cultural pressures. yes,
it is possible that the woman who rebuffed the beggan was only acting
through culturally constructed beliefs and none of 'her own' - yet this
then seems to mean that Carl's paper is not _his_ thoughts, but that
rather he's some sort of conduit of cultural practices and beliefs with no
agentive intentionality of his own - his rebuffing of Bruner and
Valsiner is not _his_, but rather a replay of some cultural practice. so,
why would he sign his name to it?

        in fact, i don't believe this is the case - clearly Carl's paper is a
prime example of resistance exactly of the sort that Valsiner describes.

        as far as separating individual clinical psychology from cultural
psychology, i've alway thought that the reason for bringing in cultural
psychology was to better understand the individual - and perhaps this is
because as an elementary school teacher i am more interested in the
individual than the masses. and this is for the simple reason that just
as simple of a task as teaching a six or seven year old how to read means
that one has to have a deep understand of the multiple ways individual's
learn to read, and the myriad ways cultural beliefs and practices impinge
on the individual's choices/constraints; still, when it is all said and
done, each individual learns to read differently from any other individual
 - and this becomes most obvious when a child is experiencing difficulty
learning to read.

        i regret that Carl, if i've read him correctly, believes that Bruner and
Valsiner have erred and are wrong - for i've found their work, along with
Mead and Bourdieu and blah blah, to be valuable. perhaps i'm not
disciplined enough.

phillip
* * * * * * * *
* *

The English noun "identity" comes, ultimately, from the
Latin adverb "identidem", which means "repeatedly."
The Latin has exactly the same rhythm as the English,
buh-BUM-buh-BUM - a simple iamb, repeated; and
"identidem" is, in fact, nothing more than a
reduplication of the word "idem", "the same":
"idem(et)idem". "Same(and) same". The same,
repeated. It is a word that does exactly what
it means.

                          from "The Elusive Embrace" by Daniel
Mendelsohn.

phillip white
third grade teacher
doctoral student http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~hacms_lab/index.htm
scrambling a dissertation
denver, colorado
phillip_white@ceo.cudenver.edu



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2001 - 14:24:55 PST