Culture and dialogue: Positioning,mediation or style?

Dialogicality has become a key notion in current cultural psychology. Strikingly, whereas mediational and semiotic thinkers have developed the dialogical view by emphasizing the role of psychological distancing in semiotic and dialogical processes, dialogical self-theorists following the work of Hermans remain caught up in a perspective that naively privileges non-mediated interaction. In this article I argue that both accounts lack an adequate ontological understanding of dialogicality. In looking for an alternative, I will first discuss how Bakhtin offers a spatial account of dialogicality that is quite different from the positional account proposed by DST. For an ontological explication of the deep dialogicality underlying all signification, I will then turn to Merleau-Ponty's ontology of flesh and show how it allows us to see our embodied presence as always already part of a field of divergences, a carnal intersubjectivity, by which we participate in a particular style of being. I argue that the work of Bakhtin and Merleau-Ponty allows us to recognize a primordial dialogicality in the stylized, poetic and deeply equivocal nature of human expression. This primordial dialogicality defies the logic of positioning and distancing and reveals a deeper entwinement of self and other, with different psychological and developmental implications than those of DST.     

Positioning Microanalysis: Studying the Self Through the Exploration of Dialogical Processes

Self-multiplicity is a widely recognized phenomenon within psychology. The study of how self-continuity emerges amidst self-multiplicity remains a crucial issue, however. Dialogical approaches are widely viewed as suitable for developing this field of study but they demand coherent methods compatible with their theoretical bases. After reviewing the available methods for the study of the dialogical self, as well as other dialogical methods for the study of psychotherapy, we conclude that we still lack a method which can be used by external observers and is devoted to the systematic tracing of the dialogical dynamics of self-positions as they unfold over time. A new method, positioning microanalysis, is described in detail as a possible way to overcome current limitations in methods focused on the dialogicality inherent in selfhood processes. Positioning microanalysis takes a genetic-developmental perspective on dialogical processes in the self and allows for the depiction of microgenetic movements of self-positions over time and the establishment of more or less stable sequences or patterns of positions. This is illustrated by its application to an emotion-focused therapy session.     

Contingent Resistances Methodology: Analyzing Resistance in Parents' and Daughters' Choice of an All‐Girl Middle School

Contemporary perspectives on dominance and resistance as multifaceted and dialogical call for a similarly dialogical methodology, as reflected in Saukko's concept of contingent resistances. Compared to much of the past resistance research, contingent resistances sets forth an expanded vision of dialogicality in research design and in the interpretation of actor's meanings. Our purpose is to illustrate three implications of this methodology: (i) polyvocality—a comparison of perspectives of two groups of actors; (ii) consideration of the full range of meanings relevant to the action with particular attention to reactions from the local context; and (iii) interpretations of resistance that are firmly grounded in narrators' meanings. The analysis is based on interviews with parents and their young adolescent daughters about their decision to attend a new all‐girl college‐preparatory public school located in southwestern USA. Expanding on past studies of girls' school choice, we show how parents and daughters create different meanings of this decision, largely based on interactions with their peers. Although both parents and daughters emphasized academic opportunity as their main reason for the school choice, daughters, unlike parents, were confronted with violating peer femininity/heteronormativity norms. Thus, the decision required resistance on the part of daughters in a way that it did not for parents. We view contingent resistances as a useful methodological framework in a range of areas where questions of resistance are at stake. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Religion as Dialogical Resource: A Socio-cultural Approach

William James proposed a psychological study of religion examining people’s religious experiences, and to see in what sense these were good for them. The recent developments of psychology of religion moved far from that initial proposition. In this paper, we propose a sociocultural perspective to religion that renews with that initial stance. After recalling Vygtotsky’s core ideas, we suggest that religion, as cultural and symbolic system, participates to the orchestration of human activities and sense-making. Such orchestration works both from within the person, through internalized values and ideas, and from without, through the person’s interactions with others, discourses, cultural objects etc. This leads us to consider religions as supporting various forms of dialogical dynamics—intra-psychological dialogues, interpersonal with present, absent or imaginary others, as well as inter-group dialogues—which we illustrate with empirical vignettes. The example of religious tensions in the Balkans in the 90’s highlights how much the historical-cultural embeddedness of these dynamics can also lead to the end of dialogicality, and therefore, sense-making     

Bakhtin and Winnicott on dialogue,self, and cure

This paper develops a Bakhtinian dialogical perspective on the psychoanalytic discourse in general and on the concepts of true and false selves (Winnicott, 1960b) in particular. Bakhtin's assumptions about the origins of dialogicality in children's development are compared to Winnicott's ideas about the origins of true‐ and false‐self processes. This comparison leads to a characterization of the false and true selves as different genres of the narrated self—the epic and the novel—each with its specific configurations of experience and temporality. Moreover, psychoanalysis is conceived as a unique phenomenon that centers on the internal and most of the time simultaneous dialogues that take place in each of the two participants. This perspective underscores the impact of the analyst's subjectivity on the analytic process as well as the multiplicity of the patient's and the analyst's selves. In this context, therapeutic change can be seen most of the time as a transformation of genre and not necessarily as a modification of contents. Free association allows for the transgression of the basic rules of narrativity, thus facilitating a generic shift. A dialogical relation between the openness of free association and narrativity's coherence is suggested.

Life by its very nature is dialogic. To live means to participate in dialogue [Bakhtin, 1963, p. 293].

A word like “self”; naturally knows more than we do [Winnicott, 1960a, p. 158].     

The Self Between Cacophony and Monologue: A Conceptualization and Empirical Examination of Dialogical Complexity

Theory of dialogical self distinguishes between cacophonous, monological, and dialogical structure of the self. So far these structures have not been examined within systematic quantitative studies. Focusing on this issue, we conceptualized the three structures as degrees on a dimension of dialogical complexity. To assess dialogical complexity, we proposed a numerical index derived from the personal position repertoire and examined it empirically. We compared the index of dialogical complexity with indices of cognitive complexity (derived from the repertory grid technique), integrative complexity, and presence of dialogical relationships in narratives (both derived from the thematic apperception test). In our sample of a total of 60 nonclinical respondents, the index of dialogical complexity was not correlated with cognitive complexity. It was weakly negatively but significantly correlated with integrative complexity. Respondents who yielded a higher score of dialogical relationships in narratives formed the dialogical structure of the self according to the dialogical complexity index. Respondents who yielded less dialogical relationships in narratives obtained a wider range of dialogical complexity scores that indicated more cacophonous or monological structures. We conclude that the relationships with integrative complexity and with presence of dialogical relationships in narratives support the original conceptualization of dialogical complexity. However, due to limitations of the study, the results are not decisive, and further examination of dialogical complexity including clinical samples is needed.     

Reasoning and Arguing,Dialectically and Dialogically,Among Individual and Multiple Participants

Within three of the most well-known contemporary approaches to argumentation, the notions of solo argumentation and arguing with one’s self are given little attention and are typically argued to be able to be subsumed within the dialectical aspects of the approach being propounded. Challenging these claims, this paper has two main aims. The first is to argue that while dialogical argumentation may be most common, there exists individual (monological) dialectical argumentation, which is not so easily subsumed within these theories. Second, in order characterize this type of argumentation the paper also offers distinctions between the interrelated notions of dialectical, dialogical, and quasi-dialogical, reasoning and argumentation, within an individual or between multiple participants, which I hope provide useful precision for the field.     

Liminality in Language Use: Some Thoughts on Interactional Analysis from a Dialogical Perspective

This essay traces my engagement with Michèle Grossen’s ideas of a dialogical perspective on interaction analysis (Grossen Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 1–22, 2009) and highlights a process account of self in interaction. Firstly I draw on Turner’s concept of liminality with respect to the transformative, temporal significance in interaction. Secondly I explored further the conversation analytic concepts such as formulation and reformulation as a viable analytical tool for a dialogical perspective. Lastly, I addressed the issue of interaction in institutional settings, in particular with interactional asymmetries of interaction, whilst relativising the I-position dialogical perspective. I explore insights from social anthropology as well as revisiting conversation analysis and discursive psychology, concluding that a promising direction would be sought through a cross-fertilisation between dialogism and other sibling perspectives concerning language use, communication, social action and discourse- and narrative-based analyses.     

Chance operations in training: a participatory format for introducing dialogical family therapy

Presenting dialogical approaches to therapy calls for training approaches that are themselves participatory and dialogical. The use of chance operations is one way of enhancing an interactive and co‐constructive learning process.     

Equanimity and Intimacy: A Buddhist-Feminist Approach to the Elimination of Bias

In this article I criticize some traditional impartiality practices in Western philosophical ethics and argue in favor of Marilyn Friedman’s dialogical practice of eliminating bias. But, I argue, the dialogical approach depends on a more fundamental practice of equanimity. Drawing on the works of Tibetan Buddhist thinkers Patrul Rinpoche and Khenpo Ngawang Pelzang, I develop a Buddhist-feminist concept of equanimity and argue that, despite some differences with the Western impartiality practices, equanimity is an impartiality practice that is not only psychologically feasible but also central to loving relationships. I conclude by suggesting ways that feminist dialogical practices for eliminating bias and meditative practices are mutually supportive.     

Dialogue and the limits of violence: some thoughts on responsible action

In this article I explore some of the limitations of violence, in particular focusing on how it can possibly be undermined by dialogical action. Firstly, I argue that, although violence is at times justified by some people, its disrespectful use against innocent others, makes it illegitimate and therefore un‐dialogical. Secondly, the use of violence is considered by some as circumstantial and restricted to the achievement of short‐term goals. However, I argue that such action would lead to more violence and therefore should at all times be abandoned and conditions be established which are more favourable for dialogical action. Thirdly, violence ought to be prevented through the practice of responsible (respectful) action—action which takes into account non‐instrumentality, impartiality and deliberation.     

Towards Dialogical Models of Radicalization and de-Radicalization

According to social psychology, radicalization occurs for a variety of reasons reasons. They include a sense of exclusion, threatened identity, loss of meaning and significance, negative emotions and defensive identification with a group representing power and a clear-cut ideology. In the terms of the Dialogical Self Theory, radicalization implies atrophy of the internal polyphony and dialogical functions of the self. Two hypothetical models of the radicalized self are proposed. The first posits the creation of a powerful I-position that represents a “universal” truth that is not open to doubt. The second introduces twin I-positions, one representing a sense of insecurity and another depicting a redemptive idea. Both types imply lowered openness and reduction of social and internal dialogs, resulting in a dysfunctional, rigid organized self. The question discussed in this article is: How can such an internal organization of the self be changed? Thus it aims to describe and explain the process of de-radicalization, which is proposed to consist of three elements: (1) reorganization of the self-structure and stimulation of a promoter position, (2) restoration of security, which can awaken the polyphony and dialogicality of the self, and (3) supporting internal dialog, promoter functions and a meta-position by reference to values that are significant for the relevant I-positions and the system as a whole.     

On Interaction Analysis and Dialogical Perspective: Emergent Patterns of Order and Relational Agency

This essay proposes to contribute with a continuing discussion on Grossen’s paper (2010) establishing a link between the analysis of interactions and dialogical perspective using what I call simplication-for-approaching-complexity (SFAC). This approach conceives of dialogical dynamics as a dynamic system of relationship that construct patterns. Moreover, these emergent patterns allow inferring the features of dialogical partners as relational agencies. The specific characteristics of the relational agency at any moment in dialogue can be inferred from the analysis of the specific pattern of order achieved by the historical development of dialogue. This proposal is illustrated by the analysis of mother-infant interactions.     

Modal Logic As Dialogical Logic

The title reflects my conviction that, viewed semantically,modal logic is fundamentally dialogical; this conviction is based on the key role played by the notion of bisimulation in modal model theory. But this dialogical conception of modal logic does not seem to apply to modal proof theory, which is notoriously messy. Nonetheless, by making use of ideas which trace back to Arthur Prior (notably the use of nominals, special proposition symbols which name worlds) I will show how to lift the dialogical conception to modal proof theory. I argue that this shift to hybrid logic has consequences for both modal and dialogical logic, and I discuss these in detail.     

H. Richard Niebuhr's Reading of George Herbert Mead: Correcting,Completing, and Looking Ahead

In this essay, I reconstruct H. Richard Niebuhr's interpretation of George Herbert Mead's account of the social constitution of the self. Specifically, I correct Niebuhr's interpretation, because it mischaracterizes Mead's understanding of social constitution as more dialogical than ecological. I also argue that Niebuhr's interpretation needs completing because it fails to engage one of Mead's more significant notions, the I/me distinction within the self. By reconstructing Niebuhr's account of faith and responsibility as theologically self‐constitutive through Mead's I/me distinction, I demonstrate Niebuhr's deep yet unacknowledged agreement with Mead: the self is constituted by its participation in multiple communities, but responds to them creatively by enduring the moral perplexity of competing communal claims. I conclude by initiating a constructive account of conscience that follows from this agreement. Conscience is more ecological than dialogical because it regards our creative participation in multiple ecologies of social roles oriented by patterns of responsive relations.     

Reductio ad absurdum from a dialogical perspective

It is well known that reductio ad absurdum arguments raise a number of interesting philosophical questions. What does it mean to assert something with the precise goal of then showing it to be false, i.e. because it leads to absurd conclusions? What kind of absurdity do we obtain? Moreover, in the mathematics education literature number of studies have shown that students find it difficult to truly comprehend the idea of reductio proofs, which indicates the cognitive complexity of these constructions. In this paper, I start by discussing four philosophical issues pertaining to reductio arguments. I then briefly present a dialogical conceptualization of deductive arguments, according to which such arguments (especially mathematical proofs) are best understood as a dialogue between two (fictitious) participants—Prover and Skeptic. Finally, I argue that many of the philosophical and cognitive difficulties surrounding reductio arguments are dispelled or at least further clarified once one adopts a dialogical perspective.     

Making Space for a Dialogical Notion of Religious Subjects: A Critical Discussion From the Perspective of Postsecularity and Religious Change in the West

In this article I address some topical themes from the ongoing discussion on contemporary religious change in the West and how it poses conceptual challenges to the study of religion. The academic discussion on religious change is vast and my observations are, of course, by necessity limited to my particular interest and argument in this article. On the one hand, I draw on some of the literature that has evolved within and around the concept of postsecularity and, on the other, on more general literature on contemporary religious change. Based on some selected observations, I underline the need to critically rethink how we conceptualize both religion and religious subjects. In my view, current research fosters a greater attentiveness of complexity with regard to religion, but simultaneously it requires us to take seriously a dialogical notion of religious subjects that provides a conceptual account of a subject constituted by being located within and emerging through ongoing social process. This dialogical notion provides a better tool for how current social and cultural reconfigurations of religion are simultaneously played out as a diversity of identities that challenge received categories, such as the religious and the secular.     

Dialogue and power: a critical analysis of power in dialogical therapy

This article explores the relationship between dialogue and power in the practice of dialogue-oriented, "not-knowing" forms of therapy. It is argued that power of a dynamic and reversible kind infuses much ordinary social dialogue, and that the joint processes of power and resistance work together to render an interaction dialogical. In contrast, in dialogical therapy, overt exercises of power threaten the interaction's dialogical status, and power is deferred and denied by the therapist through not-knowing practices. A case study of Harlene Anderson's (1997) is used to illustrate that it is precisely power's presence that informs the practices of not knowing and uncertainty that characterize dialogical therapies. It is suggested that the not-knowing therapist withholds aspects of his or her voice as a condition for dialogicity. Instead, special speaking arrangements are required, in which the therapist's not-knowing is continuously communicated to the client, for the therapeutic conversation to remain dialogical. Without these speaking arrangements, I argue that therapy moves toward monologue. Therapists inherit powerful speaking positions from the institutional and sociocultural context, and the rejection of power within therapy serves only to conceal this aspect of power, which nevertheless pervades the therapeutic relationship. Finally, it is suggested that power is a "common factor"--shared by all therapies--and that our status as "inheritors" of power needs to be included in our understanding of the therapeutic process. This expanded view of therapy requires the re-theorization of dialogue, such that it includes, rather than excludes, considerations of power.     

Auditory Verbal Hallucinations as Dialogical Experiences

The purpose of this study is to offer a model in which auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) can be conceptualized as dialogical experiences. This model is of interest in that it integrates several different perspectives (phenomenological, cognitive, social, and evolutionary) and the findings of empirical research on the subject. Hallucinations are understood as the product of a state of consciousness in which the self is dissociated into different positions or perspectives. After reviewing the most relevant results of psychological research, dialogical self theory is proposed as the theoretical framework for understanding hallucinatory experiences. It is argued that the voices possess a series of characteristics, pragmatic properties, relationships with the voices similar to their social surroundings, and more dissociative experiences in people who experience voices than in those who do not, with which they may be considered a dialogical experience. Finally, a model attempting to integrate psychological research on AVHs within the framework of dialogical self theory is presented.