{"title":"个性与社区:社会建构主义的局限","authors":"Dan Zahavi","doi":"10.1111/etho.12364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Is selfhood socially constituted and distributed? Although the view has recently been defended by some cognitive scientists, it has long been popular within anthropology and cultural psychology. Whereas older texts by Marcel Mauss, Clifford Geertz, Hazel Rose Markus, and Shinobu Kitayama often contrast a Western conception of a discrete, bounded, and individual self with a non-Western sociocentric conception, it has more recently become common to argue that subjectivity is a fluid intersectional construction fundamentally relational and conditioned by discursive power structures. I assess the plausibility of these claims and argue that many of these discussions of self and subjectivity remain too crude. By failing to distinguish different dimension of selfhood, many authors unwittingly advocate a form of radical social constructivism that is not only incapable of doing justice to first-person experience but which also fails to capture the heterogeneity of real communal life.</p>","PeriodicalId":51532,"journal":{"name":"Ethos","volume":"50 4","pages":"392-409"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/95/1c/ETHO-50-392.PMC10099490.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Individuality and community: The limits of social constructivism\",\"authors\":\"Dan Zahavi\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/etho.12364\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Is selfhood socially constituted and distributed? Although the view has recently been defended by some cognitive scientists, it has long been popular within anthropology and cultural psychology. Whereas older texts by Marcel Mauss, Clifford Geertz, Hazel Rose Markus, and Shinobu Kitayama often contrast a Western conception of a discrete, bounded, and individual self with a non-Western sociocentric conception, it has more recently become common to argue that subjectivity is a fluid intersectional construction fundamentally relational and conditioned by discursive power structures. I assess the plausibility of these claims and argue that many of these discussions of self and subjectivity remain too crude. By failing to distinguish different dimension of selfhood, many authors unwittingly advocate a form of radical social constructivism that is not only incapable of doing justice to first-person experience but which also fails to capture the heterogeneity of real communal life.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethos\",\"volume\":\"50 4\",\"pages\":\"392-409\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/95/1c/ETHO-50-392.PMC10099490.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethos\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/etho.12364\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethos","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/etho.12364","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
自我是社会建构和分配的吗?尽管这一观点最近受到一些认知科学家的辩护,但它在人类学和文化心理学中一直很流行。Marcel Mauss, Clifford Geertz, Hazel Rose Markus和Shinobu Kitayama的旧文本经常将西方的离散,有界和个体自我的概念与非西方的社会中心概念进行对比,而最近越来越普遍的观点是,主体性是一种流动的交叉结构,从根本上与话语权力结构相关并受其制约。我评估了这些说法的合理性,并认为许多关于自我和主体性的讨论仍然过于粗糙。由于未能区分自我的不同维度,许多作者无意中提倡一种激进的社会建构主义,这种建构主义不仅无法公正地对待第一人称体验,而且也无法捕捉到真实社区生活的异质性。
Individuality and community: The limits of social constructivism
Is selfhood socially constituted and distributed? Although the view has recently been defended by some cognitive scientists, it has long been popular within anthropology and cultural psychology. Whereas older texts by Marcel Mauss, Clifford Geertz, Hazel Rose Markus, and Shinobu Kitayama often contrast a Western conception of a discrete, bounded, and individual self with a non-Western sociocentric conception, it has more recently become common to argue that subjectivity is a fluid intersectional construction fundamentally relational and conditioned by discursive power structures. I assess the plausibility of these claims and argue that many of these discussions of self and subjectivity remain too crude. By failing to distinguish different dimension of selfhood, many authors unwittingly advocate a form of radical social constructivism that is not only incapable of doing justice to first-person experience but which also fails to capture the heterogeneity of real communal life.
期刊介绍:
Ethos is an interdisciplinary and international quarterly journal devoted to scholarly articles dealing with the interrelationships between the individual and the sociocultural milieu, between the psychological disciplines and the social disciplines. The journal publishes work from a wide spectrum of research perspectives. Recent issues, for example, include papers on religion and ritual, medical practice, child development, family relationships, interactional dynamics, history and subjectivity, feminist approaches, emotion, cognitive modeling and cultural belief systems. Methodologies range from analyses of language and discourse, to ethnographic and historical interpretations, to experimental treatments and cross-cultural comparisons.