Re: MM\symbolic interactionism and PCP

(no name) ((no email))
Mon, 21 Aug 1995 23:16:46 -0400 (EDT)


Will you charge us for using your cliches. They seem to be very
useful, and we might want to pass them around.
I would like to claim that I have yet to find any part of the basic
positions which Kelly outlines to be wanting. I can agree that the position
can be elaborated extensively, and that some of the excellant work of some of
our colleagues can allow us to elaborate PCP in very fruitful directions.
Additionally, I would claim that I have not yet found any demonstration
of the unacceptability of the basic underlying assumptions which I believe to
be the foundations of PCP.
I would agree with Mike about looking at how new work can help us to
elaborate theory, but I would find it difficult to move away from a theoretical
framework which continues to serve us very well. If any of the new work
presents a theory as well integrated as is PCP, I might find it attractive. AT
the same time, I would find it attractive only if it solves the problems of a
personality theory as well as does PCP -- which means, I would guess, that
theory would need to offer propositions which parallel those offered by PCP.

Jim Mancuso