Perhaps: - Responsibility can be (partly?) ‘designed out of’ people. However, this turns people into objects (billart balls) - Personal responsibility (autonomy?) is possible. But: comes together with: ‘aspects of our designed environments are *part of* “person” (embeddedness) https://twitter.com/djnavarro/status/1047611743499763712 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @djnavarro
I chose it as my research topic. My desk is a complete mess ever since (as are me methods) haha!
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @theblub @djnavarro
Anyway I really like the example of the stairs. There is this superficial idea that there are 1. the system and 2. the autonomous individual. A ‘hero’ would be one to resist the system. But it is not that simple. I think the dichotomy rests on a Cartesian split of sorts.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @djnavarro @theblub
Using levels/layers of analysis/abstraction/explanation is really useful here IMHO. Stating clearly that each stratum is true and valid but that different ones are more applicable to different social/psychological situations. Not exactly like this pyramid, but close.pic.twitter.com/27hgleHLV0
1 reply 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @djnavarro
Have you all come across Martha Nussbaum’s capability theory? I thought that was an interesting perspective on the conplex relations between personal choice/ acts/skills and circumstances/context/environment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach …
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
No — will read up.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.