Lesley
You interpreted my original 'exclusive focus' on Bowlby correctly. I
picked him because he seems to be the one who figures most frequently
in some feminist critiques of attachment theory and the biological
nature of mother/infant needs and/or innate urges. I am now thinking
of broadening this original focus to look at the response of some
feminists/historians to the studies coming out of sociobiology and
psychology (including research into attachment theory) generally, not
just Bowlby. If there are any responses by Bowlby to feminist
criticisms of his work that would be very useful to me.
Elisabeth
---- Begin Original Message ----
From: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:15:02 GMT
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: emerging lurker
> Even my preliminary reading suggests that a focus on
Bowlby's
> attachment theory alone would be a bit narrow.
When drawing attention to the existence of the large
Bowlby archive I was not suggesting necessarily an
exclusive focus on his theories. The papers reflect
the wider context of the ideas he was engaging with to
evolve his own model, and, as I mentioned, include
correspondence with others. Also reviews, which would
indicate the reception of his theories over a range of
different perspectives.
It is (an archivist suggests!) not always realised to
what extent the archive of an individual or an
organisation will contain material contradictory of
their own views, or at least critical or not wholly in
accordance with them. If only because of a perceived
need to keep up with the opposition...
Lesley Hall
[log in to unmask]
---- End Original Message ----
Care2 make the world greener !
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|