hi mike, dianne;
i've been reading Leont'ev's "Activity, Consciousness, and Personality" and
just this morning ran across the following om Ch.4 (version on the MIA):
"Characteristic for our time is the intensive developemnt of
interdisciplinary research connecting psychology with nerophysiology, with
cybernetics, and logical-mathematical disciplines, and with sociology and
cultural history, this in itslef cannot lead to the resolution of the
fundamental, methodological problems of psychological science. Leaving them
unresolved only increases the tendency toward a dangerous physiological,
cybernaetic, logical, or sociological reductionism and threatens psychology
with a loss of its subject, its specificity. Neither is the circumnstance
that the conflict of various psychological trends has lost its former
sharpness evidence of theoretical progress; militant behaviorism has
yielded to comporomising neobehaviourism (or some authors say, 'subjective
behaviorism') , Gestaltism, neo-Gestaltism, Freudism, neo-Freudism, and
cultural anthropology. Although the term eclectic has assumed a meaning of
almost the highest praise among American authors, eclectic positions have
never yewt led to success. It is understood that synthesis of heterogeneous
combinations of psychological facts and generalizations that have been made
cannot be achieved by means of their simple combination and common
intertwining. It requires further development of the conceptual system of
psychology, the search for new scientific theories capable of drawing
together the loosened laces of psychological science."
I think that your point mike, about having a common object -- unit of
analysis if you like -- provides the framework that keeps the use of
multiple perspectives from being simply a big smorgasbord at which people
eat too much and get fat without thereby nourishing themselves.
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Cole <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 7:58 AM
Subject: faux paws
>
> Hi Diane--
>
> Thanks for the clarification of faux interdisciplinarity. It was a real
> question on my part. I have been involved in a number of efforts to
> actually create interdisciplinary departments (at Irvine in the, gulp,
> '60's and an inter-discipline (Communication) here at UCSD. I have
> seen a lot of the kind of faux institutional globules you talk about,
> where interdisciplinary means everyone can say and write what they
> want about whatever and there is no basis for criticism, comparison,
> or genuine dialogue.
>
> I think education is especially prone to this problem as an institutional
> form. Actually, I have never thought of it as a discipline, but as a
domain
> of social interest/concern.
>
> My own experience indicates that having a common objective with real
> world consequences helps people talk across the discourses we call
> disciplines. In my own department, the goal of creating an
inter-discipline
> is constantly eroded by a very strong tendency to do-your-own-thing-ism,
> which is one brand of faux interdicsiplinarity.
>
> I have sea breezes and am listening to the Beethoven symphonies this
weekend.
> And thinking about units of analysis! :-)
> mike
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:46 PDT