At 12:38 PM +0800 3/29/01, sbaumer@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:
>2. The second problem deals with the nature of the
>relations between the levels. The nested system by its
>nature (inclusive categories) suggests hierarchic
>relations, implying that upper levels shape the lower
>ones in which case I would suggest we loose the
>incredible diversity and heterogeneity of activity
>systems. I am aware that probably most people take the
>notion of the nested system in a rather flexible way,
>but perhaps we need to have another analytic
>categories which would enable us to talk about
different relations between contexts.
With Yrjö's nested systems I do not get the sense that the nesting of systems imposes causality in either direction. I worried about the apparent hierarchy at one time, but I do not think a hierarchy is intended. Rather the meaning I make of it to flexibly move between units of analysis that span physical and social structures of different scale. Yrjö can best speak to what he wrote, of course.
IMHO there are some significant differences between Yrjö's nested systems and that of Bronfenbrenner's, and it would be good to bring these to light -- perhaps in the LBE reading. UB's work with the ecology of families might be a good candidate for contrast.
And this reminds me that my own work needs to be reckoned with UB's work with intersystems/mesosystems. Too much to do in too little time.
-- Bill Barowy, Associate Professor Lesley University 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790 Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169 http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html _______________________ "One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful." [Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 01 2001 - 01:01:24 PST