This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hermans, H. J.M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Limitations of Logic in Defining the Self

University Of Nijmegen, The Netherlands, hhermans{at}psych.kun.nl

Three aspects of Fisher's (1995) logical analysis are criticized: (a) his tendency to separate and polarize points of view in such a way that he provides a misconstrued picture of social constructionism, (b) his adherence to a Cartesian view, with the implication that unity and multiplicity, like continuity and discontinuity, are treated as mutually exclusive rather than as coexistent features of the self, and (c) his conception that narrative has no basis in the body.

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 3, 375-382 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354395053005


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Valsiner The First Six Years: Culture's Adventures in Psychology Culture Psychology, March 1, 2001; 7(1): 5 - 48. [Abstract] [PDF]

				I. Markova' The Individual and Society in Psychological Theory Theory Psychology, February 1, 2000; 10(1): 107 - 116. [Abstract] [PDF]

				I. E. Josephs Playful Dancing vs Fighting for Dominance: Towards a Dialogue between Mythos and Logos Culture Psychology, December 1, 1997; 3(4): 511 - 520.

				J. Valsiner Review Note Culture Psychology, June 1, 1996; 2(2): 233 - 239.

				H. Fisher Empty Sets or Empty Self: A Response to Comments on `Whose Right is it to Define the Self?' Theory Psychology, August 1, 1995; 5(3): 391 - 400. [Abstract]