Re: [xmca] Historical Development

From: Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon who-is-at>
Date: Thu Feb 21 2008 - 22:53:56 PST

If what you say holds ( and I feel it to be compelling) then we would have
to split CH from AT., because of two different Units of Analysis. Where does
that leave us?

On 20/02/2008, David Kellogg <> wrote:
> I do prefer "personal" to "individual", and I prefer "personality" to
> "individuality". Here's why.
> One of the chief crimes of dualism is the assumption that the self is a
> kind of ghost, a replication of the human body made out of spiritual,
> psychological, or even sociological substances. Hence it is divided from
> other selves. And just as human bodies turn into large and unwieldy lumps of
> meat and bone when we cut them up, this ghostly substance cannot be divided
> without transforming it into something else. Hence, it is individual.
> Both of these problems seem (to me) to disappear when we use "personal"
> and "personality" instead. The self is not a ghostly replication of a human
> body but a porous interface between one member of the herd and the rest of
> the herd. The self does have structure; just as a novel has various voices
> which are organized by a single authorial voice, the self consists of
> various functions such as memory, attention, logic, etc. which are organized
> by volition, by the principle of deliberate and free choice. A self can
> choose to be conscious of itself as a whole, but for most practical purposes
> this is really not necessary. For most practical purposes, a self is every
> bit as "dividual" as its various functions.
> Fortunately for us, because it is the variability of the RELATIONSHIP
> between these functions that really brings about development. And here is
> where I think I really DO side with Bakhurst. The reason why we need to
> study the history of the self is to explain how the relationship between the
> various functions of the self varies and by varying produces free will and
> volition.
> For me, it is impossible to talk about free will and volition without
> talking about concrete choices (that's what the bit about "recognition of
> necessity" means to me). That is why I was arguing that role play represents
> an increase in free will over rote activities: in rote activities, free will
> is all or nothing, repeating or not repeating. But in role play there is
> repetition and variation within the role.
> For example, Mina can say "no" or she can say "no" and give a reason. Mina
> can decide that she is younger than Minsu and has a crush on a boy in her
> class and that is why she doesn't want to wear a coat, or when Minsu decides
> that he is older than Mina and rather conservative in his views on what a
> well dressed younger sister looks like.
> When the emerging principle of variation is applied to the roles
> themselves, we have variation of variation, variation squared. This yields
> abstract rules, for example in role-switching and turn-taking. But rules too
> can be varied, and this is what gives rise to dialogism and negotiability,
> which for me is the true source of word meaning.
> I do not accept that word meanings are fundamentally a set of routines, or
> discourse roles, or abstract rules, although all of these play a part in
> learning them. I think that words like "I" and "you", words like "apple" and
> "table" and words like "growth" and "acceleration" all represent something
> very like what Marx describes with use value and exchange value, namely a
> shift in the balance between referential meaning on the one hand and
> signifying meaning on the other.
> That's why I think Bakhurst's right; the whole method comes from Marx. But
> we can only really clearly see this when we discard "activity" as the
> fundamental unit of analysis and go back to LSV and word meanings. Word
> meanings always involve the interface between persons; they are what make up
> personality.
> "Personality" is one kind of interface, but "individual" is a very
> different one. At least to me!
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list

Visiting Researcher,
Wits School of Education
6 Andover Road
Johannesburg 2092
011 673 9265  082 562 1050
xmca mailing list
Received on Thu Feb 21 22:55 PST 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 06 2008 - 10:37:02 PST