RE: leont'ev: externalization/internalization etc

From: Nate Schmolze (nate_schmolze@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Nov 03 2000 - 04:00:37 PST


Peter,

I realize that - which is why I sought clarification. Partly also because I
think Leontev points to broader definition of "social" than ususually
carried by the word in everyday use. We tend to correlate verbal and social
and if one has limited verbal abilities we make a generalization onto the
social plane.

I was in no way assuming you held the deficit view far from it - but rather
to point out such things as chemical imbalances occur in specific activities
which in turn develop ones personality. If person A did not have medication
(and needed it) in a school or family activity it might very well be
responded to in a moralizing fashion. The child lacked self regulation,
overly agressive, and now even suspect to going on a shooting spree. Now it
seems to me activity (not as a seperation from the brain's chemical
processes) influences personality in central ways. What does seem to be
ocurring with the medication for children is many who receive medication do
not have chemical imbalances whereas many that do - do not receive the
medication. A pragmatic question would be how do we hash these differences
out and it seems to me a focus on activity would have some potential here.
One where is it not only the properties of the individual but also the
organization of work place, classroom etc. It seems to me the starting point
is important - if one takes the individual, biological, chemical as primary
a lot of factors are excluded and one ends up with kids (or adults) on
medication (or not) for a variety of reasons.

Nate

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Smagorinsky [mailto:smago@peachnet.campuscwix.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 5:23 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: leont'ev: externalization/internalization etc

My thoughts were never intended to imply that people with autism, etc. are
not engaged in social action. Rather, my intention was to say that the
belief that personality is entirely a function of activity overlooks the
ways in which a disposition can have origins in one's makeup. This does not
endorse a deficit view of people with atypical chemical makeups (several of
whom are very dear to me) but to recognize that their personalities are at
least in part a consequence of these makeups. Peter

At 04:27 PM 11/2/00 -0600, you wrote:

>Peter,
>
>Is it true a child with autism has limited social interaction? I would tend
>to see that very much as a stereotype in how we seem to equate the social
>with verbal. I too have dealt with many autistic children and while as a
>mediational means the verbal is limited - I don't think its accurate to
make
>the jump to social interaction.
>
>One example, computers have been very central in my experience with
autistic
>children. Is that interaction social? I would argue very much so. In
>addition in having worked with them one on one communicating physically
>through non-verbal actions, gestures, etc seem very important forms of
>social interaction.
>
>In regards to chemical imbalances do not we come to terms with those in
>Activity we are engaged in. We must not forget that the countless children
>with chemical imbalances (ADHD) rarely take their medication on the
weekend.
>And if they do or don't take their medication that is realized in concrete
>ways within activity. They may be moralized, normalized, and many other
>things in concrete ways in social activity that no doubt forms the
>personality. Is not it activity where the child would come to terms with
>this thing called chemical imbalances.
>
>For me the Activity category is useful in that it has the "potential" to
>move away from classical biological / social dichotomies. In short, it is
in
>social activity where we come to terms with things like autism, chemical
>imbalances etc. I mean the chemicals inside the head definately don't have
>agency or at least not on the level of human personality. Especially with
>chemical imbalances it seems they are more noticeable in some activities
>than others and this no doubt influences ones personality.
>
>Nate
>
>----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Smagorinsky [mailto:smago@peachnet.campuscwix.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 5:07 PM
>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Subject: RE: leont'ev: externalization/internalization etc
>
>
>I think I might have sent this directly to Helena by mistake. Here's our
>exchange:
>
>I regret that I haven't had time to read the Leont'ev text, though I've
>save it for future reference/reading. In response to Helena's post: I must
>wonder how radically we can attribute personality exclusively to social
>activity. I speak as someone who knows people with chemical imbalances
>whose personalities have changed dramatically through medical interventions
>(e.g., Risperdal for psychotic episodes; Paxil and related medications for
>high anxiety/depression; etc.). One could argue that these medications are
>socially produced and that taking them is part of practical activity, and
>that's true. But what of people who don't have access to the medications
>and therapy and so have personalities that are shaped by their chemical
>makeup? I also think of a couple of young kids I know who are autistic and
>who have very limited social interaction. Surely their biochemistry has a
>lot to do with their personalities.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 01:00:51 PST