>Can we say, "a system of personal constructs," as a substitute for the term
>"a concentrated domain or nexus of discourses, etc. . and sense of "identity".
>. ."
> Would the substitution be legitimate, Bob???
> I ask this, because I would think that it would then be legitimate to
>say that the person's system of constructs allows for rather different dynamics
>of identity construciton in different cultural contexts.
> That is, a person can create "multiple identities," each of which
>depends on the social context in which that identity is created.
> But -- the use of the term "can create," suggests that I would see a
>limiation on which identities one "can" create -- and that would depend on the
>personal construct system.
Nice one Jim. Does this lead us into a choice between the Behaviourist view
of Personality - broadly, there ain't no such thing, merely different
response patterns produced by historical reinforcement contingencies
operating in different contexts - and the fragmentation corollary which
would suggest that the different 'creations' are simply _my_ view of _your_
inconsistency in apparently similar situations?
(Aside: if 'mind is the creationism of psychology' -Skinner - then is
Personality its prophet?)
This seems to me to provide a fairly sharply defined possible test of the
relative utility of the two frameworks. How do we operationalise such a test?
Regards,
Bill.
Bill Ramsay,
Dept. of Educational Studies,
University of Strathclyde,
Jordanhill Campus,
GLASGOW,
G13 1PP,
Scotland.
'phone: +44 (0)141 950 3364
'fax: +44 (0)141 950 3367
e-mail: w.ramsay@strath.ac.uk
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%