Giuseppina Marsico – författare

The volume revolves around the theme ‘inclusive oppositions’ in social sciences that address the issue of making of distinctions and create artificial dichotomies and dualistic view of society. It is set against the currents of systematic reduction of anthropodiversity and psychodiversity, which appears as a pathology of the current neo-liberalist and colonialist model of development. The volume is an attempt to overcome the colonial tendencies and forces to ‘standardize’ and ‘homogenize’ various categories and institutions in society by establishing structural relationality and intersectionality between the parts of the whole ecosystem where in the human and non-human intersect and interact.

The volume brings together a unique collaboration in the field of Cultural Psychology and offers the intellectual tools to grasp how a syncretic understanding of Identity and Culture unfolds, particularly in the key domain of gender. The chapters and commentaries uncover cultural dynamics and identity formation from a specific location, the region of Kerala in south-western India. The chapters and commentaries in this volume illustrates that Kerala is a cultural micro-cosmos, in which gender, identity, religion, ethnicity, caste, global market and tradition intersect to create complex and multiple subjects that do not fit in binary categorizations.

The compiled volume will be of great value to scholars, researchers and academicians in Social Sciences, particularly Cultural Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology, Social Work, Political Science, Philosophy, Anthropology and Economics.

The concept of intimacy puts forth important challenges to contemporary cultural psychology. Intimacy refers to a felt experience of interiority that although is intuitively comprehensible, does not have rigorously defined limits. Intimacy can refer to a content, an object, a person, ownership, or even a part of one’s own body.

A potentially problematic issue for cultural psychology is that acknowledging intimacy seems to bound the Self to areas disjointed from the social sphere. In a globalized world, we witness a developmental process where social life becomes sectioned, where people are involved in an identity search by foregrounding certain social roles. With this backdrop in mind, people redefine and rebuild their intimacy spaces and the ways they roam from these to the public and collective realm.

Exploring the current historical situation leads us to consider intimacy as culture in the making; certainly, in the way it manifests itself, but particularly in how we approach and understand it. The lived (experienced) dimension of intimacy becomes truly important, since it casts new light on what we mean by intimacy in different spheres of the self’s life, as well as life with others.

This volume is the firstborn of the Annals of Cultural Psychology-- a yearly edited book series in the field of Cultural Psychology. It came into being as there is a need for reflection on “where and what” the discipline needs to further develop, in such a way, the current frontiers and to foster the elaboration of new fruitful ideas.

The topic chosen for the first volume is perhaps the most fundamental of all- motherhood. We are all here because at some unspecifiable time in the past, different women labored hard to bring each of us into this World. These women were not thinking of culture, but were just giving birth. Yet by their reproductive success—and years of worry about our growing up—we are now, thankfully to them, in a position to discuss the general notion of motherhood from the angle of cultural psychology. Each person who is born needs a mother—first the real one, and then possibly a myriad of symbolic ones—from “my mother” to “mother superior” to “my motherland”. Thus, it is not by coincidence if the first volume of the series is about motherhood. We the editors feel it is the topic that links our existence with one of the universals of human survival as a species.

In very general terms what this book aims to do is to question the ontology of Motherhood in favor of an ontogenetic approach to Life’s Course, where having a child represents a big transition in a woman’s trajectory and where becoming (or not becoming) mother is heuristically more interesting than being a mother. We here present a reticulated work that digs into a cultural phenomenon giving to the readers the clear idea of making motherhood (and not taking for granted motherhood). By looking at absences, shadows and ruptures rather than the normativeness of motherhood, cultural psychology can provide a theoretical model in explaining the cultural multifaceted nature of human activity.

Reflexivity is a category that is too appealing not to arouse interest. It is a concept largely diffused in several psychological domains, as well as associated with epistemological, theoretical, methodological and practical discussions. At the same time, it is a very polysemic notion, understood and used in many different ways.

If one approaches the notion and tries to identify the semantic boundaries of its usage, the seeming solidity of the term fades away, and a rather liquid semantic field emerges – a field where several interpretations coexist, being contingent to the context of the discussion in which they are implemented. This is the reason that makes the notion of reflexivity a prototypical example of the difficulties encountered by Psychology – and more in general social sciences –in the effort to define their own language. The term “reflexivity” - like many others the language of Psychology is full of – is used in daily life and thus its semantics is shaped by the pragmatic, contingent functions it serves in such communicational circumstances. The apparent – from afar - clearness of the concept does not concern its conceptual, epistemic status, but the capacity of the sign to contribute efficaciously to mediate and regulate the exchange.

The theoretical elaboration of the notion of reflexivity can be seen as one of the ways of performing the challenging task of developing an intentional language for Psychology. By working on such a notion one can realize that common sense lies at the core of psychological science and what it means to separate the former from the latter, so as to pursue the foundational task of developing Psychology as a theory-driven science.