[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Lewin and unification of the social sciences
So then looking back to Lewin's time, we might say that there is an upside
to neo-liberalism - despite how much academics love to poo-poo it? (sounds
like what Marx might have been arguing about capitalism - but everyone
forgets the positive aspects of capitalism that Marx points to!).
Some balance is needed then?
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Glassman, Michael <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
> Hi Andy and Phillip,
> It is my reading the Putnam and the Lewin of 1947 actually disagree more
> than agree. Putnam seemed to long for an earlier time when higher levels
> of social capital and social cohesion exists because people did things
> together and formed communities big and small based on the things that they
> did - today people have become too distributed. He worried we were losing
> this cohesion which he put in the context of social capital. Lewin, who
> actually lived through this time, seemed much less sanguine about social
> capital as social capital, cohesion as cohesion. Just because a community
> was cohesive did not mean it was healthy.
> I think of the community the L.J. Hannifan who coined the term social
> capital was describing in the mountains of West Virginia. The qualities he
> described were really interesting, but as is so often the case it was what
> he left out which was really important. What would happen if some
> oppressed group moved into their tightly knit group? Or how trapped were
> women in their roles? I think one of the goals of Lewin and his colleagues
> was to point out that often social capital and group cohesion could be a
> devil's bargain that can easily descend into tribalism. It could also be
> used as an excuse, claiming if you lost it communities would fall apart.
> The development of well functioning group communities is always an ongoing
> Anyway, my readings of the two scholars.
> From: email@example.com [firstname.lastname@example.org] on behalf
> of White, Phillip [Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:18 AM
> To: email@example.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Lewin and unification of the social sciences
> thanks, Andy - Putnam i know and have, and can reread him.
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [email@example.com] On Behalf
> Of Andy Blunden [firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 7:11 AM
> To: White, Phillip
> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Lewin and unification of the social sciences
> Apologies (I had returned the book to the library and it was a long time
> The term is "long civic generation," and it is proposed in "Bowling
> Alone" by Robert Putnam.
> If you do a google search for "long civic generation" you will find what
> you need.
> White, Phillip wrote:
> > Andy, you wrote:
> > snip
> > Greg, people in the social cohesion business record that from the
> > mid-1930s till the late 1950s (in the US) there was what they call "the
> > long communitarian generation", after which life descended into
> > liberalism, with signs of recovery only in the past couple of decades.
> > snip
> > in my ignorance of this period of american history i had no recognition
> of what you're describing here - so i googled "the long communitarian
> generation" and nothing really came up that i could attach meaning to. so,
> who are the "they" that you are referring to? references to names would be
> a help for me here.
> > thanks,
> > phillip
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602