Posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 21:57:37
In reply to Re: Lost - for Alex and anyone else interested » Tamar, posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 18:55:18
> >Don't factors like environment, genetics, and experiences have roles to play in constructing the Self?
>
> Yes. But I would go further. I would say that those things: social / physical environment + genes actually *determine* or *cause* the self.That makes sense, though I'm not sure how causing the self is different from constructing the self. I suppose I'd say that the self, having been constructed, can be deconstructed and reconfigured as social and physical environments change. But that possibility would also arise from your way of describing it, as far as I can tell.
> >I know what you mean about a functional essence, but it seems to me that if such a thing exists it is fragile and prone to fragmentation. And that fragility seems to problematize the idea that it is essential (it seems to me). I suppose one could argue that the functional essence is inherently fragile, but I would come back and say that's because it's a construct...
>
> Ah. Here is a (attempted) functional definition of the self: The self is a function from beliefs, desires, perceptions, goals, memories etc to behaviour.
>
> That means that the strength of those things and their causal connections determines what people will do. Thats what I think the self is.And, I suppose, there's the influence of other people, of social structures, etc. One question, for me anyway, is whether the self is something people possess or have, or whether it's more of a reflection of a wide range of factors. If it's the latter, then it's harder to say it's determined in any way. Instead, perhaps it's perceived.
> But... I'm not sure that that notion captures quite what we mean by the self. The everyday term 'self' is something of a vague notion...
I think in everyday usage the term self is implied to be quite a stable thing: something reliable and straightforward. But I don't think it's that simple.
> I'll admit that I haven't read any Foucault. Don't know that much about him. Don't know much about postmodernism either... But I'm happy to talk that stuff... I've been reading some stuff about therapy (mostly critiques of the medical model) that have arisen from the postmodernist / feminist critique and I do believe they have some interesting points...
Foucault is fun but hard going. When I started reading his work it would take me an hour to read a single page. But after a while you get used to it.
I haven't yet read anything postmodern or feminist about therapy. I'd really like to. I find much of the argument in the medical model to be quite circular. I'd be keen to see how it's challenged! Is there anything in particular you'd recommend?
Tamar
poster:Tamar
thread:534847
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050725/msgs/536206.html