Family microcultures
Elsa de Mattos (emattos who-is-at magiclink.com.br)
Fri, 12 Mar 1999 02:28:40 -0300
Thank you for all of you that gave me clues about the functionalist
pesrspective. As a psychologist I tended to considered functionalism from=
my
own backgroung and prior readings in the psychological field (Wundt works
were examples of functionalism to me). I highly appreciated the commentar=
ies
from sociological/philosophical perspectives.
I want to here some comentary from you on an issue I was recently discuss=
ing
in a teacher professional develpment workshop in which i was facilitator
assistant.
People tend to strongly rely on genetic/inherited or sterotyped aspects
when considering personality, I mean, they rely on personality traits and
other static aspects. But, in my opinion, we have to consider more deeply
the dynamic aspects. In the discussion with teachers, they were referring=
to
the relationship between culture and personality in classroom practices.
They were considering personality in a very superficial/static way, talki=
ng
about how student's personality frame learning styles (a concept that I
don't like very much). I started to think and I want to bring them to thi=
nk
together with me in a more dynamic way. I asked them to reflect on the
question: isn't that family microcultures that frame personality ?
What do you think about this question ? What could be a good development =
to
it ?
Hope someone can help me on this.
Elsa
-----Mensagem original-----
De: Timothy Koschmann <tkoschmann who-is-at acm.org>
Para: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Data: Quinta-feira, 11 de Mar=E7o de 1999 18:05
Assunto: Re: Functionalist Dilemma
>> What is the meaning of "functionalist" in this case ? Elsa
>
>Elsa,
>Several people have responded describing the functionalist in sociology =
and
>I don't really have anything to add to that.
>
>Your question, however, brought to mind a discussion that I had with one=
of
>my colleagues recently. We were reading a chapter by Bill Clancey on
>situated cognition. Clancey makes reference to the "functional hypothes=
is"
>as discussed by Newell and Simon and also to "functional psychology" as =
a
>school usually associated with Dewey. I raised the question as to wheth=
er
>or not the two terms were related.
>
>My first position was that the terminological convergence was coincident=
al,
>but I'm not so sure anymore. The argument hinges on what you consider t=
o
>be scope of functional psychology. If, (as has been argued by people li=
ke
>Eric Bredo) you consider functional psychology to be a "once and future
>discipline" (to appropriate a phrase from Mike), then there is no
>connection between the "functional hypothesis" and "functional psycholog=
y".
>On the other hand, if you accept the use of "functional psychology" as a
>term that can be broadly applied to virtually all research in psychology=
in
>this country since Dewey (the way the term is used in later editions of
>Hilgard and Bower's "Theories of Learning"), they are (at least weakly)
>related since today's cognitive psychology can be seen as Dewey's
>functionalism in yet another incarnation.
>---Tim
>
>
>