Thank you for expanding our horizons by checking into the references
in the B&R article, Ini. I am still somewhat unclear about the idea of
"inclusive separation" which I encountered in the debate between
Rogoff and Valsiner in Human Development a while
back. This passage I found particularly helpful with its pointers
toward next places to look:
The I-positions are continuously created within the sociocultural
constraints of the situation. The description of I-positions is in
that case just a
tool of the observer. The I-positions are not different parts that organize and
reorganize inside the head. And that just what they according to B&R –
following Valsiner - are: "…. that some forms of negotiations with the different
parts of the self are less demanding and lead us forward toward a more 'stable'
development, although other forms of negotiations are more paralyzing, severe
and show 'instability'." (p 238) So B&R might want to present a really
dynamic conception of identity, but I think Valsiner's intrapsychological
organization and reorganization still forms the background..
Seems like we need to check on some key Valsiner texts. Not that Jaan
also speaks of "personal culture" as that part of the cultural tool
kit (is a tool kit also a process? hmmm)
that has been internalized by the individual, or is known to the
individual, etc. Part of the
inclusive separation issue I believe.
mike
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:13:19 +0100, I.Haket@ppsw.rug.nl
<I.Haket@ppsw.rug.nl> wrote:
> Your e-mails fed my thinking about the dialogical self en social situatedness. I
> looked at the article again with your remarks in mind.
>
> Let me first repeat that I think the position of B & R interesting and a very good
> alternative for Berry's approach. My problem was with the conceptual
> framework. To say that identity is dynamic and socially situated is not the same
> as offering a theory that shows, how identity is dynamic and socially situated.
>
> Maybe I 'd better sketch the background of my question. I 'm working on a
> dynamic conception of culture/cognition. At the moment I'm studying Rogoff's
> theory. So identity is not really my subject, but it interest me nonetheless,
> because I think we need a general framework for understanding development as
> dynamic and socially situated.
>
> Looking through the article again the thought crossed my mind, that maybe I
> didn't aim my comment at the right authors. Who should provide the theoretical
> framework? B&R cite Valsiner en Hermans. Valsiner interprets the relation
> individual – world as inclusive separation. As I understand this, the term is
> presented as an alternative to dualism, but is also meant to convey the
> independent status of (in this case) I-positions inside the human head. After
> reading the B & R article I read one of Hermans' articles. My impression was,
> that I-positions in his theory are rather static. (Although he claims them to be
> dynamic?) Hermans conceives of self as a dynamic construction on the base of
> I-positions like a father or a worker. When I 'm looking for social situatedness I
> want to understand, how I-positions are really dynamic. Let me explain this by
> using as an analogy abstract cognitive skills. These used to be interpreted as
> abstract competences in the head. I think abstractions as such are just in the
> head of the researcher. In the same way I can conceive of I-positions as
> dynamic. The I-positions are continuously created within the sociocultural
> constraints of the situation. The description of I-positions is in that case just a
> tool of the observer. The I-positions are not different parts that organize and
> reorganize inside the head. And that just what they according to B&R –
> following Valsiner - are: "…. that some forms of negotiations with the different
> parts of the self are less demanding and lead us forward toward a more 'stable'
> development, although other forms of negotiations are more paralyzing, severe
> and show 'instability'." (p 238) So B&R might want to present a really
> dynamic conception of identity, but I think Valsiner's intrapsychological
> organization and reorganization still forms the background.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST