sorry mike I realized I had originally only sent this to you- for some
reason some of your posts come as "reply to: Mike Cole" only
here is my original post for everyone
Mike et. al.,
I am glad people are talking about personality here as I have been
wondering about the relationship between personality and identity. In
the 'context' of this discussion ... could we say that idenity relates
to specific situations (thinking about the Bhatia and Ram article)/
contexts (Lara's discussion)/ and/or activity systems (Engestrom et.
al.)? I, personally, lean towards Nate's understanding- that we cannot
separate the situation/context/activity setting from the person although
some might want to in order to understand the circumstances in which we
exist. This would mean that we assume a specific identity according to
the situation/context/activity setting. Of course using the term
'assume' is troublesome as it doesn't really convey the singularity of
the context/sit/activity setting and person but I hope it conveys my
perspective. The totality of identities would then comprise our
personality. At least that is my (very crude) understanding of
personality- that is refers to the whole person. Of course the problem
here is that one could never really talk about someone's personality,
only their identity.
Or is personality simply interchangeable with identity?
my own tad to share...
jim
Mike Cole wrote:
>Odd what sparks discussion here.
>
>I have also been reading Valsiner and will go back to it through this lens.
>
>I found the following statement odd.
>The two [Stern-individualism and Vygosk] are brought together in
>Valsiner's theory, which highlights the sign-constructing and
>sign-using nature of all distinctively human psychological processes.
>Arguing that the individualistic and the cultural traditions differ
>largely in emphasis, Valsiner unites them by focusing on the intricate
>relations between personality and its social context, and their
>interplay in personality development.
>
>If the personality is the highest form of sociality, the unit of
>analysis for understanding the "whole person," what does it mean to
>talk about relationships BETWEEN the personality
>and its social context? Is context outside and personality inside? Really?
>
>mike
>
>
>
>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:38:27 +0100, George <researcher@safe-mail.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Dear Phil,
>>
>>I do not have Engeström's et al. book. Would you happen to have an
>>electronic copy of Davydov's article? or know a link - although I
>>searched an could not find anything?
>>
>>
>>On Feb 13, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Phil Chappell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Davydov's essay: Davydov, V.V. (1999) The content and unsolved
>>>problems of activity theory, in Engestrom, Y, Miettinen, R and
>>>Punamaki, R-L "Perspectives on Activity Theory" Cambridge University
>>>Press
>>>
>>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>George
>>(Hansjoerg von Brevern)
>>
>>-------------------------------------
>>
>>Research in e-Learning Objects, e-Learning meta data standards,
>>didactical activity, Systemic-Structural Activity Theory, and
>>Socio-cultural Theory
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--Jim Rogers Associate Professor Utah State University Logan, UT. 84322-0715 t: 435.797.3910 f: 435.797.4050
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST