Re: [xmca] Streamed Discussion of Development in CHAT Theory

From: Andy Blunden <ablunden who-is-at>
Date: Thu Nov 22 2007 - 16:08:31 PST

At 03:47 PM 22/11/2007 -0800, David Kellogg wrote: ...
> Andy, I think that LSV is RIGHT to avoid the use of "identity" and to
> prefer "personality" (which I think to him is a holistic, socially
> grounded notion of "personhood" rather than some kind set of individual
> personal traits). Take Adam's example of two sisters playing at being
> "sisters". There is no "identity" in the resulting personhood, because,
> as LSV explains, they play at being sisters by doing the OPPOSITE of what
> they do in real life.

David, "personality" is a word which is open to different meanings. 1.
Being a person or "personness" (consciousness of freedom I think) or 2.
(more often) character. Study of and interest in "personal character" is I
think something that has *always* been of interest to psychologists. Even
Aristotle, who saw no reason to think that what went on in his head was any
different to what went on in anyone else's head, was interested in the
formation of character and wrote a lot about it. Yet he knew nothing of
"identity". We can have a "personality" without being aware of what it is,
... like my cat Charlie.

I think Adam is closer to "identity" in pointing to how children learn
about the available roles, what is expected of a role, how to perform a
role, and thinking about choosing a role, but isn't "identity" one step
further on from that? I think people learn that the world is a drama and
they can play a part in that drama. But only in our times (it seems) do
people think that they must be both the performer and the author of the
drama. ??


xmca mailing list
Received on Thu Nov 22 16:09 PST 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:18:41 PST