I think the point about using words like 'relational' 'mutual',
'reciprocal', 'entwined', and 'interwoven' is simply that they are
"motherhood" words. *All* social psychologists will claim that they see
things this way and can pepper their writing with these words without any
cost. The point is: what concepts actually give us a real ability to grasp
things as "'relational' 'mutual', 'reciprocal', 'entwined', and 'interwoven'"?
Andy
At 03:54 PM 13/10/2006 +0000, bb wrote:
>.... But what is important about this sentence is the need for us to
>share a better understanding of 'relational' 'mutual',
>'reciprocal', 'entwined', and 'interwoven'. I, personally, do not view
>these as jargon, ethereal and fleeting, but rather specifying particular
>kinds of relations, projected by particular theoretical orientations. For
>example, I cannot claim to know a lot about Mike Cole's deep assumptions,
>although I've met him at least once, and I've read his his most recent
>book in which he does use the term "interwoven". I think Mike can best
>speak to what this means. ...
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 01:00:14 PST