----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Ratner <cr2@humboldt1.com>
To: Paul H.Dillon <illonph@pacbell.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: question
> Dear commentators,
> When I talk about mass psychological phenomena that are shared by many
> people, that certainly includes individuals. Thus, there is no schism
> between the individual person's psychology and mass psychology: the mass
is
> composed of individuals. Of course, the mass does not originate in
> individual processes, as Durkheim & others have pointed out. And as
Vygotsky
> said, individual psychology is the result of social processes. Thus,
> cultural psych. should study the social activities in which psych.
phenomena
> are formed. Nate's point is well taken. What therapists assume to be a
> purely indiv. problem like ADD, is really a social problem w. social
origins
> in widespread activities and cultural concepts. That's the contribution
that
> cultural psych. makes to correcting individually oriented mainstream
psych.
> In this vein, many indiv. differences are variations in social
psych.
> As I pointed out in my paper, millions of American adolescents have unique
> sets of parents and friends -- therefore idiosyncratic experiences --
> however there is an absolutely undeniable, uncanny, and shocking
uniformity
> in their behavior.
> In addition, there are unique experiences which seem outside the
influence
> of socially organized activities. I have a friend who's mother was
suicidal
> and periodically slit her wrists in front of him, saying "See what you've
> made me do." My friend has serious psych. problems as a result. I don't
> believe that his mother's behavior is a variation of normal parenting in
the
> US. Therefore, it seems to me that activity theory/cultural psych. cannot
> explain the mother's behavior. It seems that her behavior is largely a
> function of her own unique background. That's why I say it's a problem of
> clinical psych. I don't think that every single aspect of everyone's
psych.
> has a basis in social activities. Those aspects that do not, need to be
> explained in other terms. If someone can show how unusual acts such as my
> friend's mother's are rooted in cultural processes I would love to see
this.
> I'm all for extending the explanatory power of cultural psych.
> Judy asks about the role of negotiation in forming psych. phenomena. In
> my paper I reacted to Bruner's notion that ALL psych. phenomena are
> negotiated by the individual. That seems naive to me. As Paul says, it has
> the aura that social life is inherently democratic and that every indiv.
has
> lots of choice over his/her own psych. All this choice and control over
> one's life smacks of individualism. Clearly social life is not now
> democratic. A tremendous amount of behavior is coerced. Yet it is still
> collective. Lots of collective behavior is coerced/constrained. A worker
who
> occupies a spot on an assembly line is engaging in collective behavior,
yet
> he has little choice/negotiation over the work he does. And much
psychology
> in these situations is also constrained, not negotiated or chosen.
Certainly
> psych. functions are formed through guidance by caretakers w. little
> negotiation/choice by the infant. The infant does not negotiate the
language
> she learns, or whether she sleeps in a separate bed & room, or whether she
> learns to eat w. a fork or chopsticks, whether her mother speaks to her in
> motherese or doesn't speak to her at all until she is several years old.
> Negotiation is humanistic notion that has been slipped in to psych. to
exalt
> the powers of the individual. It's ultimate effect is to undermine
> consideration of social processes. I believe Bruner falls into this
pattern.
> He exalts the power of the indiv. imagination, negotiation, thinking and
he
> minimizes the coercive power of social institutions. It's one thing to say
> that individuals actively participate in forming psych. processes, but
> that's different from saying that individuals choose the processes. Active
> participation can be actively appropriating socially organized functions
as
> Mead denotes in the phrase "taking the standpoint of the other," or Cooley
> denotes in his "looking glass self." Perhaps someday in a democratic
> society, the notion of negotiating psych. processes will make more sense.
> I'd be happy to hear corrections on my views that readers have.
> Regards, Carl
> --
> Carl Ratner, Ph.D.
> cr2@humboldt1.com
> http://www.humboldt1.com/~cr2
>
> P.O.B. 1294
> Trinidad, CA 95570
> USA
>
> > From: "Paul H.Dillon" <illonph@pacbell.net>
> > Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:51:59 -0800
> > To: Carl Ratner <cr2@humboldt1.com>
> > Subject: Fw: question
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Judy Diamondstone <diamonju@rci.rutgers.edu>
> > To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 4:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: question
> >
> >
> >> I was responding in part to the discussion of Carl's paper and in part
to
> > a
> >> discussion elsewhere and in part an email exchange -- too many
audiences
> >> and none well addressed.
> >>
> >> let me clarify my puzzlement re: Carl's paper -- Mike, Andy and Nate
have
> >> addressed the apparent schism between cultural/individual.... I'm
> >> interested in Carl's reply. I was also responding to Carl's comments on
> >> Bruner, which seemed to be overstated, just as Bruner's assertions re:
> >> individual 'freedom' seem overstated. In other words, there is material
> > for
> >> polarizing values in the complex mix that is sociocultural practice. So
I
> >> wondered if Carl was objecting to "negotiation" and "dialog" as Bruner
> > used
> >> the terms in a particular discussion or to "negotiation" and "dialog"
in
> >> general as resources for collective action. Perhaps I am inserting
polar
> >> terms where none were intended.
> >>
> >> Carl, sorry if I've oversimplified the issues as you see them.
> >>
> >> And sorry for the previous ambiguous message.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Here's some evidence of all that I don't understand --- Im interested
in
> >>> how participants on this list evaluate the following statement, which,
> >>> speaking for myself, makes eminent sense:
> >>>
> >>> Cognition has its genesis in object-oriented, productive activity.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you.
> >>>
> >>> Judith
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2001 - 14:24:55 PST