From: MARTINDD-AT-CASMAIL.MUOHIO.EDU Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:08:46 -500 Subject: Re: M-PSY: Object Relations - a definition Hello everyone: Symbolic interactionist, George Herbert Mead, in his theory of the self also theorised the self as an object that is constituted in a field of relations, though not quite in the same way as feminist scholar Nancy Chodorow. For Mead, of course, the self was both an object that was implicated - or more precisely "indicated" - in action and something that people could act toward (i.e. it was an "objective"). A critique of Mead's theory, one rendered by Gregory Stone (also S.I.), is that it is "overly discursive." Appearance is also a communicative vehicle through which we place others and are placed ourselves within a field of relations (A.K.A. "identity"). While Mead did not specifically deal with class in his analysis, it certainly has rather obvious implications in how selves as objects are constituted and the networks of relations within which they are ongoingly formulated. Yet, I gather that this is a bit different from the way that object relations theorists deal with the matter. I was wondering if Winnicott, Fairbairn and others distinguish between the discursive and nondiscursive dimensions of of object relations. Or is discourse epiphenominal to the cognitive development that initially occurs wherein a field of objects ( the self included) is originally differentiated? (My take on Mead is that the entire process will take place only if children acquire linguistic symbols.) Best - Daniel Martin Oxford, Ohio --- from list marxism-psych-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005