Exploring Master Therapists’ Use of Power in Conversation

Various theoretical approaches to therapy place different emphases on the use of power in therapy. In this study, we explore six master therapists’ use of power via communicational control for theoretical consistency. Results indicate that all therapists, regardless of their stance on power, use the role of therapist to exert power in an initial therapy session. Master therapists, in general, did appear to be theoretically consistent with their stated philosophies of therapy. Suggestions for future studies exploring power therapists have are included.     

References to Mental States in Mother–Child Conversation in the Second Year of Life

Research into social influences on young children’s growing understanding of others’ inner states has highlighted the value of early conversational exchanges. This longitudinal study was aimed at investigating whether and how mothers changed their inner state words when children were 16 months olds (T1) and 4 months later (T2), and the children’ s ability to use references to mental states at 20 months. Overall language measures (e.g. number of words, mean length utterances) and internal state labels were analyzed during play interactions at T1 and T2 for the mothers, and at T2 for the children. Results highlighted that the mothers partially modified their mentalistic vocabulary over 4 months. Moreover, the use of maternal references directed to the other at T1 is linked to the children’s ability to use references with a commentary function at T2. Conversation with the caregivers during daily activity may constitute, for children, a key practice to enhance their metarepresentation skills.     

Contentious Conversation: Framing the ‘Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture’ in Russia

Abstract

The relationship between the Russian government and the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has increasingly become the object of much scrutiny. The debate centres on the question of whether or not the ROC enjoys inordinate influence over the Russian political sphere. This article examines one case in which the Moscow Patriarchate has attempted to influence federal policy, namely, by lobbying the state to include courses on ‘Orthodox culture’ in the federal curriculum. The article draws on social movement theory to argue that the ROC has, to date, failed in its endeavour, as a result of a combination of three factors. First, it has failed to persuade either the state or society that teaching ‘Orthodox culture’ in schools is a worthy cause. Second, it has been unable to demonstrate a united front on the issue, revealing serious disagreements within the ranks of both clergy and laity regarding the content and form of the proposed curriculum. Third, it has been unable to demonstrate that it represents a constituency sufficiently numerous for the government to take its interests seriously in this case. The article thus argues that the relationship between church and state in the Russian Federation is more contentious than frequent joint appearances of clerical and lay leaders would suggest, and that the ROC is in the position of a junior partner whose ability to influence the state is circumscribed by important societal and political factors.     

The Communication of Naïve Theories of the Social World in Parent–Child Conversation

Three studies examined the communication of naïve theories of social groups in conversations between parents and their 4-year-old children (N = 48). Parent–child dyads read and discussed a storybook in which they either explained why past social interactions had occurred (Study 1) or evaluated whether future social interactions should occur (Studies 2 and 3). In all 3 studies, the content of parents’ and children's explanations reflected an intuitive theory of social groups as markers of intrinsic obligations, whereby individuals are obligated to avoid harm to and direct positive actions toward their in-group members. Furthermore, Studies 2 and 3 suggested that when discussing the normative obligations that guide behavior, parents covertly reinforce their children's developing beliefs about social categories. Implications for the development of social cognition are discussed.     

What is a Minor Philosophy? A Conversation on Thinking from the Periphery in a Global World

This is the text of a conversation that follows up on Roberto Farneti??s article ??A Minor Philosophy: The State of the Art of Philosophical Scholarship in Italy?? published in Philosophia 38 (1) 2009: 1?C28. After a brief introductory note that details the reception of the article in Italy, Ferrara and Farneti engage in a conversation on the notion of ??minor philosophy?? and on the meaning and future of philosophizing ??from the periphery?? in a globalized world. The text is followed by a short Appendix, a reply to Annalisa Coliva??s commentary on Farneti??s article.     

Kitzinger’s Feminist Conversation Analysis: Critical Observations

This paper contributes to ongoing discussions on feminism and the analysis of discourse. In particular, I examine Celia Kitzinger’s [(2000), Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism and Psychology, 10, 163–193 and (2002) Doing feminist conversation analysis. In P. McIlvenny (Ed.), Talking gender and sexuality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.] claims to be engaged in “feminist conversation analysis.” This paper identifies susceptibilities in her arguments at both the theoretical level and the level of data analysis. My argument is that Kitzinger fails to appreciate the fact that her enterprise is basically a formal analytic one and that as such it is both radically different from, and incommensurate with, ethnomethodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA). Indeed her attempts to supplement feminism with EM/CA are unnecessary and counterproductive from an EM/CA position insofar as they crucially undermine its integrity.

Hans-Georg Gadamer “The Incapacity for Conversation” (1972)

In his 1972 essay “The Incapacity for Conversation” (“Die Unfähigkeit zum Gespräch”) Gadamer takes up the question of whether changes in society have made it such that we are losing our ability to participate in dialogue. By the end of the essay he argues that this is not the case and that the claim that someone is incapable of dialogue is merely an excuse for not listening to the other person. Over the course of the essay Gadamer provides a clarification of what exactly counts as a conversation and of how conversation is connected to friendship.     

Mother–Child Conversation and Children's Social Understanding During Middle Childhood

The authors investigated the relationship between mother–child conversation and children's social understanding during middle childhood. Thirty-eight mother–child pairs participated, including a younger group (5–7 years old) and an older group (8–10 years old). Children completed 2 measures of social understanding and mothers and children discussed 4 stories involving social dilemmas. Results indicated that compared to the younger group, the older group (a) performed better on both measures of social understanding and (b) produced more basic mental talk (i.e., talk about beliefs, emotions, personality traits, and desires), and more advanced mental talk (i.e., talk about contrasting perspectives, recursion and relationship between mental states, and advanced emotions). Mothers of older children also produced more basic and advanced mental talk. Mothers' advanced mental talk predicted both children's social understanding and children's advanced mental talk.     

Does Conversation Need Shared Language? Davidson and Gadamer on Communicative Understanding

In a rare discussion of Gadamer's work, Davidson takes issue with Gadamer's claim that successful communication requires that interlocutors share a common language. While he is right to see a difference between his own views and Gadamer's on this point, Davidson appears to have misunderstood what motivates Gadamer's position, conflating it with that of his more familiar conventionalist interlocutors. This paper articulates Gadamer's view of the role of language in communicative understanding as an alternative to both Davidson's and that of the conventionalist writers Davidson critiques. It is argued, first, that Gadamer employs a conception of what individuates a language, and thus of what it means for two speakers to “share” a language, that Davidson never considers. By emphasizing the role of “application” in the historical development of languages, Gadamer develops a view in which languages are distinguished not by their particular semantic or syntactic rules, but by subtle differences between the concepts they express. Second, it is argued that the instances of “asymmetrical” communication—communication between interlocutors who have different sets of concepts at their disposal—that motivate Gadamer's position pose a challenge to Davidson's account of interpretative charity.     

Self-Talk: Conversation With Oneself? On the Types of Internal Interlocutors

The two studies presented in the article aimed to empirically verify the tentative typology of internal interlocutors in self-talk proposed in a previous research project. The typology comprised four emotional types: Faithful Friend, Ambivalent Parent, Proud Rival, and Helpless Child. Study 1 involved 98 participants (49 women) and Study 2 involved 114 (55 women), mostly students. In both studies, the names of internal interlocutors were generated by participants as qualitative data, quantified by reference to the standard set of affect terms, and, as affective patterns, subjected to clustering. Study 2 fully confirmed the recent results, whereas Study 1 revealed a new interlocutor type instead of Helpless Child – Calm Optimist. The conducted studies confirm the existence of four main types of inner interlocutors and provide a reason to verify the existence of Calm Optimist.     

“Eat your Hamburger!”—“No, I don’t Want to!” Argumentation and Argumentative Development in the Context of Dinner Conversation in Twenty Swedish Families

The aim of the present study was to analyse family dinners as context of argumentation and argumentative development by using a context-sensitive model of basic argumentative structures in every day conversations. The data consisted of 40 argumentative sequences in dinner conversations in twenty Swedish families with children aged 7 to 17 years. The families were divided in two groups depending on the children's ages (10–11 years with younger siblings and 10–12 years with older siblings). The model revealed characteristic structures of argumentation appearing as co-text and suggested differences between family groups depending on contextual factors such as age of the children. The groups of older children produced longer argumentative sequences, more exchanges per sequence and higher rate of turns. The older children also engaged in non-instrumental deliberations and disputations significantly more often and they performed more elaborated expansions (through a higher quantity of backing arguments). The groups of younger children on the other hand were more often involved in negotiations on topics relevant in the immediate context. Less expected was, however, the lack of more complex and varied arguments, even in the groups of older children.     

The Church and the World: Are There Theological Resources for a Common Conversation?

Abortion is an especially salient issue for considering thegeneral problematic of religiously based conversation in thepublic square. It remains deeply divisive, fully thirty-fouryears after Roe v. Wade. Such divisiveness cannot be interpretedas merely an expression of profound differences between "secular"and "religious" voices, because differences also emerge amongChristian denominations, reflecting different sources of moralauthority, different accounts of moral discernment, and differentjudgments about the appropriate relations between law and moralityin the context of pluralism. As this paper explores, however,despite those differences, a generally identifiable "Christian"position concerning the moral status of abortion can be distinguishedfrom secular philosophical judgments on the issue, which isimportant for Christian engagement with public policy debate.     

‘Wholeness,Dignity and the Ageing Self’: A Conversation Between Philosophy and Theology

SUMMARY

Winifred Wing Han Lamb: My philosophical interest straddles the areas of education, religion and theology. As a teacher involved in school philosophy programs, I have also been interested in the philosophy of childhood and particularly in the recurring notion of the ‘whole child’ in education. In considering what ‘wholeness’ could mean for children's education, I have also been led to consider what meaning it holds for the self through the ‘changing scenes’ of life, especially in the face of the challenges of ageing.

The notion of ‘wholeness’ holds an intuitive appeal and invites articulation of the deep truths of our faith with respect to persons in all ‘sorts and conditions.’ In section one of this chapter, I attempt that articulation. But this conversation needs to be complementary. Our chapter is the beginning of a dialogue between philosophy and theology in which both affirm the ageing self in the light of the human search for wholeness and dignity.

Heather Thomson: My theological research into humanity as an image of God led me to inquire about the way in which we could speak meaningfully of ageing and dying in terms of imaging God. This challenged how God-likeness was to be understood in relation to glory, honour and power, terms associated with imaging God and exerting dominion. In searching for a theological view of the self that would confer dignity on the ageing, I was led into conversation with various philosophies of the self, some very helpful for my task.

It seems to me that, if ageing people are to be counted as having dignity and worth, and not discounted, then one's theory of the human person was significant. In pondering the issue, it appeared that a conversation between philosophy and theology would be fruitful. Hence, this joint paper. We each speak from our own discipline but find resonance with each other's work. We see this as a first step in a constructive conversation.     

��If This is What I��m ��Meant to be������: The Journeys of Students Participating in a Conversation Partner Scheme for People with Aphasia

The development of speech language therapy students into clinicians is an area of increasing interest as educators focus on how knowledge, skills and attitudes are taught and learnt within the profession. The personal journeys of students through experiences of service learning have potential to further our understanding of the impact of civic engagement on the student experience and their learning. This paper explores the journeys of first year speech and language therapy students through a Thematic Analysis of reflective letters written by students to themselves at the beginning and completion of a service learning module. Analysis demonstrates development of interpersonal and preclinical skills as well as an understanding of attitudes and values inherent in the social model of disability. The skills and attitudes developed by the students through participation in the Conversation Partner Scheme are consistent with social model principles that support therapists to fully address the long-term, real life needs of clients with aphasia (the acquired communication disorder that frequently follows stroke). The interface between the social model of disability and the role of service learning in nurturing the attitudes and values which underpin this model are explored.     

Therapy with Refugee Families: What Is a “Good” Conversation?

This article addresses the question of what is a “good” conversation by analyzing “poor” conversations. During a project on family therapy with refugee families, we often experienced what we labeled as “poor” conversations. We present examples of a variety of such conversations, which we then analyze with reference to therapeutic maps and central concerns of the therapists. We describe four patterns of therapist/client relationships that emerged from this analysis. The main focus of our discussion is to clarify when “poor” conversations may be an important part of the therapeutic process, and when and how they should be avoided. We believe that the issues we raise are central to therapeutic work in general and not just to therapy with refugee families.