Jim-- I am reading backward through the mail and perhaps
I am missing a step. When you write :
I, personally, lean towards Nate's understanding- that we cannot
separate the situation/context/activity setting from the person
although some might want to in order to understand the circumstances
in which we exist " you are characterizing not only Nates position,
but that of many people. Tony was saying something like this in his
discussion of Derrida and the problems of separating
"text" from "con-text." Barbara Rogoff explicitly takes this position
in her writing. Valsiner argues for a slightly different position
using some sort of phrase as "separate inclusiveness" (that is
certainly not the exact phrasing, but my "sense" of it). Etc.
I have discussions of the context/activity/situation/event
interrelations in the writings of various theorists in Cultural
Psychology and more extensively, in an volume edited by Goodnow et al
on cultural practices (ref not to hand).
I am not particularly knowledgeable about the discourses about
identity-- others on this list are certainly more so. But it is not
uncommon to link identity and text, often through
narrative, in which case, the Whitson/Derrida position seems a
possible way to think about it.
Peter mentioned Valsiner's Guided Mind. Perhaps you could start there.
There is a Rogoff -Valsiner exchange on these issues in Human
Development a few years back.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:22:39 -0700, Jim Rogers <email@example.com> wrote:
> >If the personality is the highest form of sociality, the unit of
> >analysis for understanding the "whole person," what does it mean to
> >talk about relationships BETWEEN the personality
> >and its social context? Is context outside and personality inside? Really?
> Mike et. al.,
> I am glad people are talking about personality here as I have been
> wondering about the relationship between personality and identity. In
> the 'context' of this discussion ... could we say that idenity relates
> to specific situations (thinking about the Bhatia and Ram article)/
> contexts (Lara's discussion)/ and/or activity systems (Engestrom et.
> al.)? I, personally, lean towards Nate's understanding- that we cannot
> separate the situation/context/activity setting from the person although
> some might want to in order to understand the circumstances in which we
> exist. This would mean that we assume a specific identity according to
> the situation/context/activity setting. Of course using the term
> 'assume' is troublesome as it doesn't really convey the singularity of
> the context/sit/activity setting and person but I hope it conveys my
> perspective. The totality of identities would then comprise our
> personality. At least that is my (very crude) understanding of
> personality- that is refers to the whole person. Of course the problem
> here is that one could never really talk about someone's personality,
> only their identity.
> Or is personality simply interchangeable with identity?
> my own tad to share...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST