Ricardo, I agree with you that the macro, or sociological, level is
essential in any social-scientific study, even in psychology.
That's what makes us "socioculturalists" (in my terms).
But we haven't convinced everyone; there are still many die-hard
methodological individualists out there, including most of mainstream
psychology, but also a significant minority in the discipline of
sociology (and of course pretty much all of contemporary
economics). That's why I have been exploring emergence theories--as
a way of providing a better argument for the necessity of a collective
level of analysis, a better argument against the methodological
individualists.
At 10:42 PM 4/17/02 -0300, you wrote:
Yes, I'd like to
have permission for acessing it - the article.
Your thinking emerged much more clear
to me after your clarifying explanation below. But I think, personally,
that it would be something absolutelly unthinkable one to dischage the
macro levels as conditions that contingence the construction of mind and
subject. The subject, in my oppinion, is something elaborated,
constructed over the individual. The individual seems to me our animal,
strictly biological frame. So, the subject would be something built over
it - our typically human nature raised over given biological
condictions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 08 2002 - 12:53:46 PDT