I have read back through the personality chapter by ANL and the commentaries.
I got lost in the commentaries, but could connect with Andy's original
note ok.
I probably got lost in the chapter also. One thing that came through is
the extent to which the Russian CHAT theorists, while using the word,
culture, are talking right past me. Its partly that they are working
off of culture and personality theory and ethnography (e.g., concrete
sensual human activity!) is not an empirical object of study. So we can
get sentence such as the following (p. 103):
Culture, although it does exist in its personification, is a subject for
history and sociology, but not for psychology.
I was, on the contrary, pleasantly surprised at the invidividual versus
personality discussion and the general position that while there may be
phylogenetic individual differences, these do not constitute pesonality, but
rather, are constituents of the "ensemble of social relations" out of which
personality emerges.
I am motivated, if every I get the time(!) to go back and read the Bozhovich
articles translated in Soviet Psychology on growth of personality in
ontogeny.
-----
Where to next? Phil Capper, who visited from Kiwi land a few weeks ago, has
a very ambitious project he and colleagues are about to embark on and he
indicated interest in getting feedback on some writing from XMCA, but has
not sent in anything as yet.
Phil?
Others who have texts they would like to have feedback on?
Over the next 1 1/2 months things are likely to be a little flakey. Our
Finnish colleagues have warned us that they will be heavily preoccupied
with making sure that all the reindeer are in good shape for Christmas
and that Santa Claus/Ded Moroz's tasks get fulfilled. It appears that
(or is this just a rumour) that they have opened a change lab project
"up there" to see that the material products of Santa's labour are more
effectively and equitably distributed this millenium. :-)
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 01:01:07 PST