>
> ----------
> From: Carl Ratner <cr2@humboldt1.com>
> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:13:25 -0800
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Cc: carl ratner <cr2@humboldt1.com>
> Subject: Re: Carl's paper
>
> I am grateful to the commentators on my paper "Agency & Culture." I'd like
> to respond to their questions and comments.
> Andy says that it's crucial for cultural psych. to explain individual
> differences. I disagree with this. I believe that the key task for
cultural
> psychologists is to understand mass-psychological phenomena such as the
fact
> that billions of people define themselves in terms of commodities they
own,
> billions of women are unsatisfied with their bodily appearance, millions
of
> American teenagers have poor communication with their parents, millions of
> American students have lost any interest in learning academic material in
> school, 50% of American marriages end in divorce, the vast majority of
> Westerners experience romantic love which has particular characteristics
> quite different from the love that Puritans experienced, Americans in
> general have higher levels of aggression than people in Sri Lanka,
> particular forms of mental illness are found in different countries, etc.
> etc. These mass-psychological phenomena are clearly shaped by shared
> features of a social system. Cultural concepts, or scripts, are clearly
> impt. in fostering these psychological phenomena, as Doris observes. But
the
> entire structure of social activities is crucial also. Understanding the
> relation between social systems that organize large numbers of people
> together in activities, and mass psych. phenomena is interesting
> scientifically and has enormous practical import. It should not be
> denigrated w. labels such as anthropologism, sociologism, etc. I don't see
> why Andy thinks that individual differences are more important or
> interesting than mass psych. issues which millions of people share.
>
> Since modern societies are complex, individuals who occupy different
> positions will have psych. differences. Beyond this, individuals in the
same
> position, and even the same family, also have psych. differences.
Explaining
> these is NOT the field of cultural psych.; it is clinical psych. I don't
> think cult. psych. should, or can, explain why among 2 brothers in a
family,
> they have different hobbies, one is more shy than the other, one marries a
> Caucasian blonde while the other marries a black woman, why 1 stays
married
> and 1 divorces, why 1 becomes homosexual and the other heterosexual.
What's
> relevant to cult. psych. are broader issues such as why 50% of marriages
end
> in divorce, why a small percentage of men become homosexual in America,
why
> the number of white men who marry black women is low, and why the
> personalities of immigrants systematically change over generations to
> conform to personality types of the adopted country. These are questions
> about psych. and culture. Of course, individuals with different
psychologies
> adopt different cultural concepts, however the point is to understand how
> these concepts organize psych., and why people in particular social
> positions adopt different concepts and develop different psychologies, not
> why a given person adopts one concept rather than another. The point of
> cultural psych. for me is to always see a psych. issue in relation to the
> broad culture, not to the unique experience of the individual. Personal
> experiences are impt. for the CULTURAL features they contain, not for the
> idiosyncratic features they contain. The cultural features are experienced
> by numerous individuals.
>
> Andy asks certain additional noteworthy questions. One concerns
> individualism and alienation. I say, following Marx, that individualism
> seems to be a form of freedom but in reality it is distance from society
> which prevents individuals from controlling society.Therefore,
> individualistic agency is alienated, impotent agency -- quite the opposite
> of freedom. Agency can only be fulfilled when individuals collectively
> control social forces. Thus, we don't yet have true agency. We need social
> change to develop it. And the chicken and egg question is how do we engage
> in social change if we're alienated? Who educates the educator? The answer
> is not as mysterious as it seems. Certain people occupy positions in
society
> which give them an understanding of alienation, possibilities for social
> change, and a motivation to do so. HOpefully, some of us XMCA folk are
among
> them. This is not elitism. It recognizes social differences in psychology
> which is cultural psych. par excellance. Social change is a spiraling
> process of gaining insights from a social position, communicating w.
others,
> making social changes which lead more people to develop more insight.
That's
> why we better start now accumulating this knowledge because when we need
it
> to deal w. emergencies -- as we soon will w. the Bush administration -- we
> can't just invent it.
> INdividualistic notions of agency naively believe that everyone is
already
> an agent by virtue of being a person, or engaging in narratives.
> Well, I'd be interested in what folks think about these comments.
> Carl
>
> --
> Carl Ratner, Ph.D.
> cr2@humboldt1.com
> http://www.humboldt1.com/~cr2
>
> P.O.B. 1294
> Trinidad, CA 95570
> USA
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2001 - 14:24:54 PST
The LCHC website last updated in 2022. The files now available herein are being maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes. The content of the site has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.