[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Solids and Liquids/Entities and dynamic flows
My apologies for not appending the reference. For some reason part of my
message disappeared, the ref included. Odd wanderings of fingers not under
proper control. I only have this book in hard copy. If anyone has it in a
pdf, please send to the group.
If nothing turns up in the next day or so I will scan the chapter and post
it. I do not love all that it has to say, but it seems worthwhile for those
interested in the issues.
Adams, G., & Markus, H.R., (2003). Toward a conception of culture suitable
for a social psychology of culture. In, M. Schaller, M., & C.S. Crandall
(Eds.). *The Psychological Foundations of Culture. Erlbaum. Mahwah, NJ. pp.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> Many thanks for this, Mike.
> I too would love to read this article. I am particularly interested in the
> way many cultures (some more than others) tend to nail down flows and
> processes by turning verbs into nouns. While there is a developmental model
> which emphasises flow and change there are others which aim to halt or dam
> the flow by identifying stages (like locks along a river?) which can be
> thought about more as things. And there are versions of social psychology
> which focus more on relationships, interactions and intersubjectivity.
> I think there is something about the necessary abstractness of concepts
> (which have to be sufficiently pulled out from specific contexts to allow
> them to be shared) that draws them towards reification, turning a flow into
> a thing (the river, the flow!). But in our lived experience the past runs
> into the present and the future also shapes the flow. I think the idea of
> perezhivanie catches this idea of a reciprocity between our past social
> experiences and the way we make sense of what flows our way.
> Sorry if this seems vague and fluid!
> All the best,
> On 6 Aug 2016 1:23 am, mike cole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I stumbled over an article on the "the psychological foundations of
> culture" with a summary/discussion article by Adams and Markus. (ref
> below). The authors contrast two prominent definitions/theories of culture
> prominent in the literature on the relationship between culture and human
> psychological processes. The characterization struck me forcefully as an
> example of Bauman's solid-liquid distinction in a different discourse
> stream, providing food for thought on the topic of mind, culture, and
> One approach is closely related to developmental approaches such as my own,
> Barbara Rogoff, Patricia Greenfield, Mike Tomasello). It traces its origins
> to ploughshares and agriculture, the process of making things grow,
> nurturing. a process transpiring over time. The other (Social Psychology)
> adopts "the customary beliefs, social forms, of a racial, religious, or
> social group."
> The first, developmental approach is said to view "culture as dynamic
> process or flowing medium" while the second, social psychology view is
> described as an "entity conception of culture." The entity conception
> "implies a conception of culture as a relatively 'fixed' system of
> "customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits." It also associates
> this system with readily identifiable 'racial, religious, or social group."
> The authors then list "several undesireable consequences" of adopting the
> entity point of view. I found these very interesting. I will just list
> them. If there is sufficient interest I can get a scan of the chapter made.
> There is, unfortunately, no similar list for the liquid, developmental,
> perspective. Liquids, Bauman remind us can spill and spoil the rug and need
> to be contained. They flow, to be sure, but that flow is constrained by a
> The authors adopt a view they call "culture as patterns."
> The juxtaposition of these readings and the ongoing discussion of the 11 ox
> paintings has induced me to think again about long standing ideas. Always
> enlightening. Thanks.
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for
> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it.
> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts
> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails
> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility
> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied
> by an official order form.
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch