My thoughts were never intended to imply that people with autism, etc. are
not engaged in social action. Rather, my intention was to say that the
belief that personality is entirely a function of activity overlooks the
ways in which a disposition can have origins in one's makeup. This does not
endorse a deficit view of people with atypical chemical makeups (several of
whom are very dear to me) but to recognize that their personalities are at
least in part a consequence of these makeups. Peter
At 04:27 PM 11/2/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Peter,
>
>Is it true a child with autism has limited social interaction? I would tend
>to see that very much as a stereotype in how we seem to equate the social
>with verbal. I too have dealt with many autistic children and while as a
>mediational means the verbal is limited - I don't think its accurate to make
>the jump to social interaction.
>
>One example, computers have been very central in my experience with autistic
>children. Is that interaction social? I would argue very much so. In
>addition in having worked with them one on one communicating physically
>through non-verbal actions, gestures, etc seem very important forms of
>social interaction.
>
>In regards to chemical imbalances do not we come to terms with those in
>Activity we are engaged in. We must not forget that the countless children
>with chemical imbalances (ADHD) rarely take their medication on the weekend.
>And if they do or don't take their medication that is realized in concrete
>ways within activity. They may be moralized, normalized, and many other
>things in concrete ways in social activity that no doubt forms the
>personality. Is not it activity where the child would come to terms with
>this thing called chemical imbalances.
>
>For me the Activity category is useful in that it has the "potential" to
>move away from classical biological / social dichotomies. In short, it is in
>social activity where we come to terms with things like autism, chemical
>imbalances etc. I mean the chemicals inside the head definately don't have
>agency or at least not on the level of human personality. Especially with
>chemical imbalances it seems they are more noticeable in some activities
>than others and this no doubt influences ones personality.
>
>Nate
>
>----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Smagorinsky [mailto:smago@peachnet.campuscwix.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 5:07 PM
>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Subject: RE: leont'ev: externalization/internalization etc
>
>
>I think I might have sent this directly to Helena by mistake. Here's our
>exchange:
>
>I regret that I haven't had time to read the Leont'ev text, though I've
>save it for future reference/reading. In response to Helena's post: I must
>wonder how radically we can attribute personality exclusively to social
>activity. I speak as someone who knows people with chemical imbalances
>whose personalities have changed dramatically through medical interventions
>(e.g., Risperdal for psychotic episodes; Paxil and related medications for
>high anxiety/depression; etc.). One could argue that these medications are
>socially produced and that taking them is part of practical activity, and
>that's true. But what of people who don't have access to the medications
>and therapy and so have personalities that are shaped by their chemical
>makeup? I also think of a couple of young kids I know who are autistic and
>who have very limited social interaction. Surely their biochemistry has a
>lot to do with their personalities.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 01:00:51 PST