RE: reading critically

From: Eugene Matusov (ematusov@UDel.Edu)
Date: Fri Dec 19 2003 - 13:33:34 PST


Dear Mike and everybody-

Mike wrote,
> PS- Eugene-- I only saw your note via phil. American Anth is deeply
divided
> over the use of human sciences methods versus scientific ones (so called).
> I doubt if there is an uncontentious position to occupy.

Thanks for the comment, Mike. I'm aware about the split in American
Anthropology and I wish that a similar split was in American Psychology. Of
course, there is descent in AP as well (that involves writings of such
psychologists as Mike, Jerome Bruner, Jaan Valsiner, and so on) but it is
very weak and very peripheral for the field (and unexplored). In AA the
split is the center of the field while in AP the split is in (far) periphery
in my view.

I just read a book on spilt in AA that I want to recommend:
Hinchman, L. P., & Hinchman, S. (1997). Memory, identity, community: The
idea of narrative in the human sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

Also, Jim Clifford wrote a lot on this topic.

Take care,

Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:02 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: reading critically
>
> well, phil, look into Vietnamese and Chinese, where there are very
> likely to be translations.
>
> I some cases, like yours, there are "chain" translations. Russian-->
> English-->?? I have seen this as well Luria's works.
>
> My own view is that the completed works translations are generally
> of high quality, and, so far as I know, faithful to the texts from
> which they were derived. But in many cases, those texts have a history
> of selective deletion, addition, etc in Russia itself, so the issue of
> originals should always be taken in "".
>
> Yes, the invocation of literature in psychology is certainly a national
> difference, but the current interest in many fields in narrativity may
> help.
>
> mike
>
> PS- Eugene-- I only saw your note via phil. American Anth is deeply
divided
> over the use of human sciences methods versus scientific ones (so called).
> I doubt if there is an uncontentious position to occupy.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:09 PST