Hi Diane you intelectina et al,,
In this month's discussion paper issued by Nate earlier I believe, you
might find some of the reasons why lsv and luria abandoned psychoanalysis
as a system for psychology after some initial enthusiasm (monism vs
dialectical...)
+
the connection with Adler's Indiv. psych (compensation principles for
dev.).. and eventually, their formulations for a cultural historical theory
....which are also described and extended, (which of course, we, who are
busy understanding, will eventually invent in various subdisciplines and
activity areas..etc
What struck me most was the parallel we could make between the special
ed/defectology work and the remediation often required in psychotherapy.
Read as such, one also sees lsv's pre-mainstreaming era arguement re. how
the social treatment of such groups often deter development much more than
the
("intra indiv.) disorders proper.
the problem with the historicized body of that lit in psych is, that since
the 1930's a lot was invented in that field that had no direct connection
with chat (except for Luria) but that does tap into the" social contexts
of a/p/b/"
For example Erikson, Sullivan (C. Bazerman presented a paper on the latter
on inter personal psy in A CHAT/ AERA session last year...)
Allport......Bowen
yet some of these advancements at times were very much CHAT in nature.
In a sense, the seclusion of CHAT for 1/2 a century
left a void that is only now being filled for this second psychology. in
the case of counseling, the void has been filled somewhat with other
paradigms in the clinical/psychotherapy areas. Some of the latter were
further away from chat than others (e.g., cog.beh vs. family systems theory...
The latter was/is more concerned with inter-relations of persons in
activity (situated in the family mainly).
Yet it seems to me that none of the above compare to CHAT as "system" for
the study of mind, particularly when we take into account how much is left
to be "invented" and it's associated post activity, -soc. construction.
It's interesting to note that while lsv's understanding led him to envision
or "invent" mainstreaming practices to limit the severe social constraints
of that time & advance potential zpd's etc, the actual practice came much
later and without much of a connection to chat
BTW any feedback on my draft is very much welcomed...
Pedro
...At 07:51 PM 5/6/00 -0600, you wrote:
>hi ho intellecter-inos!
>
>as some of you know, i am particularly concerned with the
>historicized body in institutional/social contexts of
>activity/practice/belonging -
>
>i am increasingly leaning towards psychoanalysis to help articulate
>the inter-relations of persons in activity - is anyone out there
>working with psychoanalytic theory in similar contexts?
>
>diane
>
> **********************************************************************
> :point where everything listens.
>and i slow down, learning how to
>enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.
>
>(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
>***********************************************************************
>
>diane celia hodges
>
> university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
>instruction
>==================== ==================== =======================
> university of colorado, denver, school of education
>
>Diane_Hodges@ceo.cudenver.edu
>
>
>
>
Pedro R. Portes, Ph.D
Professor of Educational
& Counseling Psychology
(502 852-0630/ fax 0629)
http://www.louisville.edu/~prport01
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 01:01:13 PDT