Interesting to note in this context is that on a deeper level two ground motives appear to play a role creating a narrative: looking for acknowledgement of who you are and the desire to be connected to something or someone (Hermans 2012, pp. 51-52). It seems to boil down to: how to connect to something that might make you rise above yourself, without loosing your autonomy (also see 3.1.1: Art/creativity as something that happens between people).
Primatologist Frans de Waal provides evidence about the importance of connecting for primates and group animals in general (Waal 2009). He thinks this is also the reason for them to have a sense of identity; according to de Waal proved by the fact that they recognize themselves in a mirror, the Mirror Self-Recognition test (Plotnik, Reiss, Waal de, 2006).
‘Whose words we can use in expressing ourselves is not entirely up to us, for even as we speak, we must anticipate the responses of our listeners to what we are saying’ (Shotter in: Mayerfeld & Gardiner 1998, p. 18).
‘If you want to think, you must see to it that the two who carry on the dialogue are in good shape, that the partners be friends’ (Hannah Arendt 1971, pp. 187-188). In terms of what I described earlier, the different voices in your head have to be in a reciprocal position with each other .
Psychologist Carol Dweck, introduced the concepts Fixed mind-set and the Growth mind-set (Dweck 2007). In the fixed mind-set students are first and foremost interested in how they will be judged and therefore will avoid difficult challenges. They try to hide their mistakes. They think if you have the ability (talent) it shouldn’t take effort. She claims these children have two options when being faced with a difficult assignment, try hard or turn off (p. 68). Children with a growth mind-set however care about learning, for them effort is a positive thing (p. 69). According to Dweck a growth mind-set fosters the growth of ability over time. She links the fixed mind-set to parents praising their child for being special, compared to parents who praise their children for doing the effort, leading to a growth mind-set. She suggests there is even a connection to narcissism later in life (also see 2.3.3: Art and narcissism).
Frans de Waal (2009) did a lot of research trying to prove the importance of empathy and reciprocity for stabilizing the behaviour of primates living in groups. A famous experiment with capuchin monkeys tries to prove that a sense of fairness plays a big role in reciprocity and for that empathy is a prerequisite (Waal TED talk).
There is also research evidence about empathy with children, like the experiment with a child of one and a half being able to understand what an adult wants when he struggles with a pile of magazines in front of a cabinet. They decide to help by opening the door (Warneken & Tomasello 2006, p. 1301).
‘The caregiver's capacity for reflective self-functioning allows the caregiver to attune to the child and his needs […]. Such experiences become internalized in the individual's own reflective self-function […]’ (Fonagy et al. 1994, p. 250).
Besides that, if we connect through dialogue, according to Buber (1958), we regard the other as a subject. In his words this is an I-You connection (p. 4). In the opposite condition - the I-it connection - we reduce the other to being an object we could benefit from (we can sell him something, we could use the help of some of his skills), or dominate (we can win and therefore have power or control). Buber regards reciprocity as a characteristic of the I-You connection. The Contextual approach (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Krasner 1994), Narrative psychology (Bruner 1992) and the previously mentioned Attachment theory (Bowlby 1973), are examples of theories in psychology that were inspired by the dialogical view and therefore share the emphasis they put on reciprocity.
To enter a reciprocal relationship we need the ability to read each other’s mind, the concept of empathy.
According to Daniel Stern (2004), using empathy in a relation allows for a mutual interpenetration of minds that permits us to say: ’I know that you know that I know’, or ‘I feel that you feel that I feel’. There is a reading of the content of the other’s mind. In a reciprocal relationship such readings can be mutual, ‘two people see and feel roughly the same mental landscape, for a moment at least’ (p. 75). Stern claims these moments can have a big impact; they can even change our lives. Similar to Buber he describes them as moments of meeting, moments of real contact.
Language seems to play an important role in dialogue. Despite or thanks to the strict authoritarian regime of Stalin, Russian linguists showed interest in the concept of dialogue (they appeared to be aware of the ideas of Buber). Valentin Voloshinov claims: ‘a word is a bridge thrown between myself and another, if one end depends on me, then the other depends on my addressee’ (1986, p. 86). According to Mikhail Bakhtin, ‘a word (or in general any sign) is interindividual. Everything that is said, expressed, is located outside the ‘soul’ of the speaker and does not belong only to him’ (1986, pp. 121-122).
By verbalizing through dialogue with another person, we create narratives about important events. We can use the narrative to give meaning to what we experience and therefore integrate these events into our life-story (Ricoeur 1984, p. 33) (also see 2.1.3: Inner dialogue). This gives us other options to deal with life events, besides using coping behaviour. The story of the self that weaves together these events, giving them a sense of unity and meaning, even creates a narrative identity (McAdams 1995, p. 385). The dialogical context in the narrative is essential, what we say does not only express something from our inner world, but is also created through our interaction with others. The result is different from and more that what could have been created without the other. The influence of the other also results in a condition, where ‘each is at risk for change’ (Anderson 2012, p. 12). This presumes that you are able to allow in change coming from outside. It might create ambiguity or vulnerability and besides that, the end result cannot be traced back to a single person; it’s a joint effort.
Just like with actual dialogue, inner dialogue creates narratives that organize meaningful experiences into a single narrative structured system (Hermans & Hermans-Jansen, 1995, p. 14).
All of this creates the vulnerable perspective of not having complete control through the effect others have on us or by the effect we have on others. According to family therapist Bert Hellinger (1998, p. 210), the vulnerability of being a product of our connections is centred on how to become part of a larger whole without loosing our individuality. This is reflected in the fact that most of the theories mentioned above share the idea of reciprocity, as a prerequisite for connecting to the other without the risk of loosing the connection to oneself.
2.1.2 Dialogue and reciprocity
We can see communication from the perspective of meanings being coded into words, drawings, gestures or other signs that are transmitted to a receiver. Wertsch (1991, p. 79) calls this the Transmission model and considers it to be a monological view on communication. The sender can create meaning without the receiver. The communication model of Shannon & Weaver (1971), widely used in the systemic approach in psychology is based on this view. Buber (1958) and later Bakhtin (1981,1984) emphasize a dialogical view on communication, which states that meaning is created through a dialogue between two or more persons. According to the dialogical view genuine human communication is not a simple matter of transferring information from point A to point B. In addressing the other we always speak or act with an understanding of what this person’s anticipated response might be.
2.1.3 Inner dialogue
While growing up, we create an inner world by internalizing the other. An interpersonal process is transformed into an intrapersonal one (Vygotsky 1978, p. 57). This phenomenon is considered to also be applicable to dialogue (Fosha 2003, p. 228, Hermans, Kempen & v Loon 1992, p. 28, Govaerts 2007, p. 85, Rober 2012, p. 79). Lakoff & Johnson (1980, p. 232) claim the capacity for self-understanding presupposes the capacity for mutual understanding. Just like dialogue through narratives is the connection from us to the other, inner dialogue is the connection from us (things coming from inside like needs, wishes, etc.) to the internalized other (things coming from outside like obligations, expectations, etc.).
Actually there are two aspects involved in the process of developing inner dialogue. We have to learn how to verbalize and have a dialogue in the first place, but we also have to learn to gradually transform actual dialogue with someone else into inner dialogue. Parents have an important role in stimulating both aspects; their own ability to have inner dialogue is a prerequisite for this role.
Similar to the concept of narrative identity, within the context of inner dialogue there is the concept of the dialogical self as a multiplicity of positions in our own head (Hermans 1992, p. 28). Utterances like: ‘If my mother could see me now’, ‘What would my therapist say about this’ (Hermans 1992, pp. 28-29), illustrate this. Allowing these voices, from their different perspectives and corresponding emotions, to enter a dialogue, creates a sort of meta position where someone can overview himself with all his power and weakness and possibly conflicting perspectives. Provided the person is able to tolerate the ambiguity this creates, this can lead to new insights at a later moment.
The tendency to create a single narrative structured system vs. the ability to tolerate ambiguity, are two opposite aspects of inner dialogue. These aspects are also reflected in the concept of cognitive dissonance introduced by Leon Festinger (1957). Festinger claims: ‘New events may happen or new information may become known to a person, creating at least a momentary dissonance with existing knowledge, opinion or cognition concerning behaviour‘ (p. 4). The theory of cognitive dissonance deals with the tendency of humans to reduce the dissonance between several cognitions in order to restore consonance in their head. The ability to accept cognitive dissonance is often associated with creativity and playfulness (Tegano 1990; Zenasny, Besançon, Lubard 2008) (also see 3.2: Art and inner dialogue). According to Festinger taking decisions inevitably leads to dissonance: ‘A decision between two alternatives, each having both positive and negative aspects […], dissonance will result when action is taken’ (1957, p. 36). This could explain why some people avoid taking decisions or first have to reduce perspectives in order to do so. The inability to take decisions is also associated with failing inner dialogue: the inability to accept several perspectives on an equal level or to connect to the one’s own needs and emotions as one of the perspectives (Damasio 1994, p. 51). It helps if we can accept some dissonance while taking decisions or, if our decisions can be based on dialogue between several (possibly conflicting) perspectives instead of excluding perspectives. To enable this dialogue between several voices or cognitions, they should relate in a reciprocal way. The domination of a single voice (‘everything has to be perfect’), or multiple single voices to the exclusion of not being able to entertain others can be described as monological (Anderson 2012, p. 13). The different perspectives can also be a hierarchical relation, where one position may dominate the others, thereby reducing the possibility of dialogue (Hermans 1992, p. 30). If one voice dominates the others (‘things have to be easy for me’) it forces a person to ignore other needs or considerations.
Chapter 2.1
Personal growth from a weak perspective
2.1.1 Connecting and identity
In Deneer, van Zelm (2014) I presented several theories in psychology that focus on the strength of the individual (neurological psychology, empowerment, mindfulness) and how to get rid of symptoms that might interfere with that strength. Paul Verhaeghe suggests a connection to similar tendencies in society like neo liberalism (Verhaeghe 2014, p. 120), it’s in our hands if we reach the top and it’s our own fault if we don’t. One of the effects of this tendency is the need for parents to have successful children. Therefore there seems to be a lot of interest in what it is that makes children successful in school.
The focus on the individual also shows in the fact that we tend to see ourselves existing from birth as separate, isolated individuals already containing ‘minds’ or ‘mentalities’ wholly within ourselves. But what if our identity is not something we own, but something that is being defined by our connections? What if maturing means connecting to the right people from the day we are born? Despite the focus on the individual who can be strong enough to deal with the world, as a solitary animal, there is also evidence that claims we need the other to be ourselves. This is a weak perspective that was first described by Martin Buber (1958), claiming ‘through the Thou [You] a man becomes I’ (p. 28). It also plays a role in the reasoning of Nietzsche (2010, p. 52) when he claims the ‘thou’ is older than the ‘I’, or Voloshinov who claims that ‘the processes that basically define the content of the psyche occur not inside but outside the individual organism’ (Voloshinov 1986, p. 25). From a psychological perspective Attachment theory (Bowlby 1973) describes this process in detail, starting from day one by connecting to our mother and continuing into our lives as adults. According to Shotter (1989, p. 143) we stay dependent upon being addressed by others throughout our life, for whatever form of autonomy we may achieve.
|
Casus piano female 26, excerpts from a letter |
|
|
|
Casus composition male 23 |
|
|
Chapter 2.1
Personal growth from a weak perspective
2.1.1 Connecting and identity
In Deneer, van Zelm (2014) I presented several theories in psychology that focus on the strength of the individual (neurological psychology, empowerment, mindfulness) and how to get rid of symptoms that might interfere with that strength. Paul Verhaeghe suggests a connection to similar tendencies in society like neo liberalism (Verhaeghe 2014, p. 120), it’s in our hands if we reach the top and it’s our own fault if we don’t. One of the effects of this tendency is the need for parents to have successful children. Therefore there seems to be a lot of interest in what it is that makes children successful in school.
The focus on the individual also shows in the fact that we tend to see ourselves existing from birth as separate, isolated individuals already containing ‘minds’ or ‘mentalities’ wholly within ourselves. But what if our identity is not something we own, but something that is being defined by our connections? What if maturing means connecting to the right people from the day we are born? Despite the focus on the individual who can be strong enough to deal with the world, as a solitary animal, there is also evidence that claims we need the other to be ourselves. This is a weak perspective that was first described by Martin Buber (1958), claiming ‘through the Thou [You] a man becomes I’ (p. 28). It also plays a role in the reasoning of Nietzsche (2010, p. 52) when he claims the ‘thou’ is older than the ‘I’, or Voloshinov who claims that ‘the processes that basically define the content of the psyche occur not inside but outside the individual organism’ (Voloshinov 1986, p. 25). From a psychological perspective Attachment theory (Bowlby 1973) describes this process in detail, starting from day one by connecting to our mother and continuing into our lives as adults. According to Shotter (1989, p. 143) we stay dependent upon being addressed by others throughout our life, for whatever form of autonomy we may achieve.
All of this creates the vulnerable perspective of not having complete control through the effect others have on us or by the effect we have on others. According to family therapist Bert Hellinger (1998, p. 210), the vulnerability of being a product of our connections is centred on how to become part of a larger whole without loosing our individuality. This is reflected in the fact that most of the theories mentioned above share the idea of reciprocity, as a prerequisite for connecting to the other without the risk of loosing the connection to oneself.
2.1.2 Dialogue and reciprocity
We can see communication from the perspective of meanings being coded into words, drawings, gestures or other signs that are transmitted to a receiver. Wertsch (1991, p. 79) calls this the Transmission model and considers it to be a monological view on communication. The sender can create meaning without the receiver. The communication model of Shannon & Weaver (1971), widely used in the systemic approach in psychology is based on this view. Buber (1958) and later Bakhtin (1981,1984) emphasize a dialogical view on communication, which states that meaning is created through a dialogue between two or more persons. According to the dialogical view genuine human communication is not a simple matter of transferring information from point A to point B. In addressing the other we always speak or act with an understanding of what this person’s anticipated response might be.
Besides that, if we connect through dialogue, according to Buber (1958), we regard the other as a subject. In his words this is an I-You connection (p. 4). In the opposite condition - the I-it connection - we reduce the other to being an object we could benefit from (we can sell him something, we could use the help of some of his skills), or dominate (we can win and therefore have power or control). Buber regards reciprocity as a characteristic of the I-You connection. The Contextual approach (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Krasner 1994), Narrative psychology (Bruner 1992) and the previously mentioned Attachment theory (Bowlby 1973), are examples of theories in psychology that were inspired by the dialogical view and therefore share the emphasis they put on reciprocity.
To enter a reciprocal relationship we need the ability to read each other’s mind, the concept of empathy.
According to Daniel Stern (2004), using empathy in a relation allows for a mutual interpenetration of minds that permits us to say: ’I know that you know that I know’, or ‘I feel that you feel that I feel’. There is a reading of the content of the other’s mind. In a reciprocal relationship such readings can be mutual, ‘two people see and feel roughly the same mental landscape, for a moment at least’ (p. 75). Stern claims these moments can have a big impact; they can even change our lives. Similar to Buber he describes them as moments of meeting, moments of real contact.
Language seems to play an important role in dialogue. Despite or thanks to the strict authoritarian regime of Stalin, Russian linguists showed interest in the concept of dialogue (they appeared to be aware of the ideas of Buber). Valentin Voloshinov claims: ‘a word is a bridge thrown between myself and another, if one end depends on me, then the other depends on my addressee’ (1986, p. 86). According to Mikhail Bakhtin, ‘a word (or in general any sign) is interindividual. Everything that is said, expressed, is located outside the ‘soul’ of the speaker and does not belong only to him’ (1986, pp. 121-122).
By verbalizing through dialogue with another person, we create narratives about important events. We can use the narrative to give meaning to what we experience and therefore integrate these events into our life-story (Ricoeur 1984, p. 33) (also see 2.1.3: Inner dialogue). This gives us other options to deal with life events, besides using coping behaviour. The story of the self that weaves together these events, giving them a sense of unity and meaning, even creates a narrative identity (McAdams 1995, p. 385). The dialogical context in the narrative is essential, what we say does not only express something from our inner world, but is also created through our interaction with others. The result is different from and more that what could have been created without the other. The influence of the other also results in a condition, where ‘each is at risk for change’ (Anderson 2012, p. 12). This presumes that you are able to allow in change coming from outside. It might create ambiguity or vulnerability and besides that, the end result cannot be traced back to a single person; it’s a joint effort.
2.1.3 Inner dialogue
While growing up, we create an inner world by internalizing the other. An interpersonal process is transformed into an intrapersonal one (Vygotsky 1978, p. 57). This phenomenon is considered to also be applicable to dialogue (Fosha 2003, p. 228, Hermans, Kempen & v Loon 1992, p. 28, Govaerts 2007, p. 85, Rober 2012, p. 79). Lakoff & Johnson (1980, p. 232) claim the capacity for self-understanding presupposes the capacity for mutual understanding. Just like dialogue through narratives is the connection from us to the other, inner dialogue is the connection from us (things coming from inside like needs, wishes, etc.) to the internalized other (things coming from outside like obligations, expectations, etc.).
Actually there are two aspects involved in the process of developing inner dialogue. We have to learn how to verbalize and have a dialogue in the first place, but we also have to learn to gradually transform actual dialogue with someone else into inner dialogue. Parents have an important role in stimulating both aspects; their own ability to have inner dialogue is a prerequisite for this role.
Just like with actual dialogue, inner dialogue creates narratives that organize meaningful experiences into a single narrative structured system (Hermans & Hermans-Jansen, 1995, p. 14).
Similar to the concept of narrative identity, within the context of inner dialogue there is the concept of the dialogical self as a multiplicity of positions in our own head (Hermans 1992, p. 28). Utterances like: ‘If my mother could see me now’, ‘What would my therapist say about this’ (Hermans 1992, pp. 28-29), illustrate this. Allowing these voices, from their different perspectives and corresponding emotions, to enter a dialogue, creates a sort of meta position where someone can overview himself with all his power and weakness and possibly conflicting perspectives. Provided the person is able to tolerate the ambiguity this creates, this can lead to new insights at a later moment.
The tendency to create a single narrative structured system vs. the ability to tolerate ambiguity, are two opposite aspects of inner dialogue. These aspects are also reflected in the concept of cognitive dissonance introduced by Leon Festinger (1957). Festinger claims: ‘New events may happen or new information may become known to a person, creating at least a momentary dissonance with existing knowledge, opinion or cognition concerning behaviour‘ (p. 4). The theory of cognitive dissonance deals with the tendency of humans to reduce the dissonance between several cognitions in order to restore consonance in their head. The ability to accept cognitive dissonance is often associated with creativity and playfulness (Tegano 1990; Zenasny, Besançon, Lubard 2008) (also see 3.2: Art and inner dialogue). According to Festinger taking decisions inevitably leads to dissonance: ‘A decision between two alternatives, each having both positive and negative aspects […], dissonance will result when action is taken’ (1957, p. 36). This could explain why some people avoid taking decisions or first have to reduce perspectives in order to do so. The inability to take decisions is also associated with failing inner dialogue: the inability to accept several perspectives on an equal level or to connect to the one’s own needs and emotions as one of the perspectives (Damasio 1994, p. 51). It helps if we can accept some dissonance while taking decisions or, if our decisions can be based on dialogue between several (possibly conflicting) perspectives instead of excluding perspectives. To enable this dialogue between several voices or cognitions, they should relate in a reciprocal way. The domination of a single voice (‘everything has to be perfect’), or multiple single voices to the exclusion of not being able to entertain others can be described as monological (Anderson 2012, p. 13). The different perspectives can also be a hierarchical relation, where one position may dominate the others, thereby reducing the possibility of dialogue (Hermans 1992, p. 30). If one voice dominates the others (‘things have to be easy for me’) it forces a person to ignore other needs or considerations.
Inner dialogue is claimed to be crucial for personal growth and, if in this process our inner dialogue is (temporary) not working, it is often facilitated by external dialogue (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010, p. 191). Offering students this option I saw this as my main role being a student counsellor.