Groping in the Light

Abstract

Even though Fisher's (1995) own `solution' to the alleged problems brought on by social constructionism in regard to the self is questionable in that positing internal causes leads to much the same moral impasse as those more external formulations he seeks to criticize, it is nevertheless of value both to call attention to the limits of the movement and to imagine alternatives that might better allow human agency and moral responsibility into their reach. He is therefore to be commended for thinking against the grain as well as for following his apparent intuition that there may be more to selfhood and moral life than the conventional wisdom would indicate. After having drawn out the implications of this intuition, some direction is provided for thinking about moral life in a manner different from the social constructionists and from Fisher himself.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Fisher, H. (1995). Whose right is it to define the self? Theory & Psychology, 5(3), 323-352.

Levinas, E. (1979). Totality and infinity. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Levinas, E. (1985). Ethics and infinity. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Mauss, M. (1985). A category of the human mind: The notion of person; the notion of self. In M. Carrithers , S. Collins , & S. Lukes (Eds.), The category of the person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1938.)