briefly, in response to your quote, Paul, I probably should mention that i
don't actually believe in psychology, and I have my doubts about the
relations between science and human activity,
which is not to say that i don't see uses of neurology, and other brain
sciences,
or endocrinology, brain chemistry, human kinetics, and other biological
sciences,
but i'm afraid i hold this nutty belief that psychology is pretty much a
fictive discourse,
and trying to make human activity - the observable behaviours, a strict
science, strikes me as ludicrous. buuuuut that's me. the one who sez that
social-science is an oxymoron.
but thanks for the quote - i'm sure lots of folks out there will find it
useful.
diane (Chester)
Mistah Dillon writes:
hi mike
>, dianne;
>
>i've been reading Leont'ev's "Activity, Consciousness, and Personality"
>and
>just this morning ran across the following om Ch.4 (version on the MIA):
>
>"Characteristic for our time is the intensive developemnt of
>interdisciplinary research connecting psychology with nerophysiology, with
>cybernetics, and logical-mathematical disciplines, and with sociology and
>cultural history, this in itslef cannot lead to the resolution of the
>fundamental, methodological problems of psychological science. Leaving
>them
>unresolved only increases the tendency toward a dangerous physiological,
>cybernaetic, logical, or sociological reductionism and threatens
>psychology
>with a loss of its subject, its specificity. Neither is the circumnstance
>that the conflict of various psychological trends has lost its former
>sharpness evidence of theoretical progress; militant behaviorism has
>yielded to comporomising neobehaviourism (or some authors say, 'subjective
>behaviorism') , Gestaltism, neo-Gestaltism, Freudism, neo-Freudism, and
>cultural anthropology. Although the term eclectic has assumed a meaning
>of
>almost the highest praise among American authors, eclectic positions have
>never yewt led to success. It is understood that synthesis of
>heterogeneous
>combinations of psychological facts and generalizations that have been
>made
>cannot be achieved by means of their simple combination and common
>intertwining. It requires further development of the conceptual system of
>psychology, the search for new scientific theories capable of drawing
>together the loosened laces of psychological science."
>
>I think that your point mike, about having a common object -- unit of
>analysis if you like -- provides the framework that keeps the use of
>multiple perspectives from being simply a big smorgasbord at which people
>eat too much and get fat without thereby nourishing themselves.
>
>Paul H. Dillon
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Mike Cole <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>
>To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 7:58 AM
>Subject: faux paws
>
>
>>
>> Hi Diane--
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification of faux interdisciplinarity. It was a real
>> question on my part. I have been involved in a number of efforts to
>> actually create interdisciplinary departments (at Irvine in the, gulp,
>> '60's and an inter-discipline (Communication) here at UCSD. I have
>> seen a lot of the kind of faux institutional globules you talk about,
>> where interdisciplinary means everyone can say and write what they
>> want about whatever and there is no basis for criticism, comparison,
>> or genuine dialogue.
>>
>> I think education is especially prone to this problem as an
>institutional
>> form. Actually, I have never thought of it as a discipline, but as a
>domain
>> of social interest/concern.
>>
>> My own experience indicates that having a common objective with real
>> world consequences helps people talk across the discourses we call
>> disciplines. In my own department, the goal of creating an
>inter-discipline
>> is constantly eroded by a very strong tendency to do-your-own-thing-ism,
>> which is one brand of faux interdicsiplinarity.
>>
>> I have sea breezes and am listening to the Beethoven symphonies this
>weekend.
>> And thinking about units of analysis! :-)
>> mike
>>
>
>
>
>
> *
*********************************************************************
:point where everything listens.
and i slow down, learning how to
enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.
(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
***********************************************************************
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction
==================== ==================== =======================
university of colorado, denver, school of education
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:47 PDT