Eakin's argument about a singular contributor to an auto biography completely confused me as well as incited a deep need to be overly facetious about his pro-multi personality psychological review. I saw a line early on in the text that made me think about standing in front of a mirror and how this equals multiple "I"s. From there he goes on a rampage through psychology-ville which is completely lost on my tiny brain. I got really caught up in the "socially based self hood" which to me means putting on a different face for various groups of people, friends, and family. And then came a list... "ecological self," interpersonal self," the private self," and so on.
It's all really interesting although I tend to disagree with the whole premise of the article. Sure, people demonstrate slight (or major) multiple personalities or "selves" but that doesn't mean that an auto biography is not written by a single person who has complete control and even the knowledge of their own multiple selves... I mean I know that if I ever wrote an autobiography I sure would consider the fact that I can act completely different to various people.
Truthfully, the one hand that writes an autobiography is attached to a singular person therefore it is an autobiography in my book... unless its a Siamese twin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment