Talk:Collective

Comments

I think an important distinction to make here is between open and closed collective. I have been in and valued collectives that have been 'open' that is open to anyone to join by turning up and becoming active. The special value these types of collectives (or networks) have is that they are permeable to cultural influences from the wider host culture. e.g. Brixton Artists CollectiveThis may make such formations capable of a level of innovative response that closed collectives are not so capable of if we take out definition of the central function of culture to be 'a continual reassessment of the totality'.

I'll see what discussion occurs before amending the front page... Of course it is not easy to define open ness - there are many varieties and degrees of open ness.

[1] Szczels 16:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Definition update and citation suggestion

I don't know how to do the right markup on the main article page, so thought I'd just add here the details in case someone would like to update the text and add a citation for the definition: "...the collective is a group in which interpersonal relations are mediated by the socially valuable and personally significant content of joint activity." Page 85 of the English translation of 'Studies in Psychology: The Collective and the Individual', authored by A.V.Petrovsky, published by Progress Publishers, Moscow in 1985.

Murder

We fight for justice we want justice 2409:4063:4E9F:400E:223C:C9D3:47B0:6AD0 (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)