Eric wrote on July 2nd, in response to Nate's of the same day kind
elucidation of my questions concerning the use of the term
"objective" in the Luria quote context:
>>My sense is that it is a relation (subjective / objective), but I think
>>your use of person external or person independent may be a little too
>>strong. Now, if we were going to understand the soul of a factory worker
>> we would have to take the objective forms of social life seriously
>>(factory etc). But then this does not mean objective social life is
>>external or independent of the factory worker.
>>
>Once again we have found ourselves discussing the paradox inherent
>in psychological study. Having corresponded with XMCA individuals
>for over a year now I still have yet to discover any evidence that
>the individual can be ignored when discussing sociocultural
>pscyology and yet much of what is written about concerning cultural
>historical activity theory places social events as some all
>encompassing enigma that influences everything we do. I can only
>speak for myself but I do feel obligated to attend to my work and to
>be polite as I go about my day but there is no external force
>drawing me into these endeavors it is my choice that I perform in
>the arenas that I do.
>[..]
>What is my point? The field of sociocultural psychology can
>continue to bicker about the individual/social paradox until the
>cows come home meanwhile the human race will still be experiencing
>the paradox; IN some societies the opression of the social
>overcomes the will of the individual and in others the will of the
>individual is allowed flexibility (?).
If this a fair, if pointed, description of the state of affairs --
and I am inclined to feel so, supported by Eric's own sort of
"bickering" in the reverse direction: "it is my choice that I perform
in the arenas" -- I would not describe this as a paradox, Eric. For
there is no contradiction between the primacy of the social and the
primacy of the individual: Society is nothing without individuals and
individuals are not human without their societies or cultures.
Years ago, if I remember correctly, I have tried to point out that to
claim primacy for the social is just reversing the claim for primacy
of the individual and that both claims are equally misguided. Insofar
the latter is typical of the West, the former of the East, we are
defintiely in need of third perspective.
If we really want to understand the human condition we have to accept
that individuals would be completely different without their
cultures. Most of our heads are filled and most of our mental
ongoings is with stuff coming from and going to to human productions.
Indeed, without culture we were not really humans, but simply members
of the biological species homo (sapiens or not). Absurd that the
Western people have gotten used, after the demise of understanding
themselves as God's children, to defining themselves biologically. It
appears that a coalition of class logic apparently unavoidable in
making law and dispensing justice and the erroneous notion of the
idea of a biological species being a clear-cut concept suitable for
class logic. Being human is adding to, or rather expanding the
biotic: culturality.
And if we want to understand culturality we have to conceive of it as
an open process of evolutive nature in the sense that all structure
formation and maintenance is based on the interaction of preexisting
structures or rather transaction of preexisting structure generating
new or modifying, actualizing, demising existing structures. And that
is individuals who generate innovations and other individuals who
repeat and proceed with such innovations. It is, like in
bioevolution, a case of variation/innvoation and
selection/evaluation. But it does not run in exactly the same way as
bioevolution. Cultural evolution has its propers ways of proceeding.
So, as soon as you stop following the ideal of conceiving the world
in its being and switch to conceive of its becoming, the question of
primacy is a silly question, like the hen-egg primacy question. Yet
in contrast culturality follows a divergent (innovation) / convergent
(evaluation, selection) pattern rather and a linear series. In an
evolutive perspective primacy is not question. It proceeds
dialogically in phases in the function circle. If seen from any one
individuals' point of view: one step out into the environment by
action; another step out there, involving all sorts of forces, yet,
in particular, actions of other people; another stept from the
environment into our individual; and a fourth step withing that
individual because it is so complex a structure. And on into the next
cycle.
I suggest, cultural-historical thinking should go beyond that
fixation and bickering.
Alfred
Sorry for answering late. Too much mail to read and other things to do.
--Alfred Lang, Psychology, Univ. Bern, Switzerland --- alfred.lang@psy.unibe.ch Website: http://www.psy.unibe.ch/ukp/langpapers/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 01:00:10 PDT