How Does Autodialogue Work? Miracles of Meaning Maintenance and Circumvention Strategies
Author(s): Ingrid E. Josephs and Jaan Valsiner
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 68-82
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2787058 .
Accessed: 14/01/2012 07:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Social Psychology Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
Social Psychology
Quarterly
1998,Vol. 61,No. 1,68-83
How Does AutodialogueWork?
MiraclesofMeaningMaintenanceand Circumvention
Strategies
INGRID E. JOSEPHS
Otto-von-Guericke-University
Magdeburg
JAANVALSINER
ClarkUniversity
In contemporary
socioculturalstudies,thehumanmindis oftenclaimedto be dialogic.
Precise elaborationsof modelsof dialogicalityare rare,howeverWepresenta process
modelofdialogicality
thatoccurswithina person'sself-system
(autodialogue)in theconrelitextof twokindsof tasks:makingsense of ordinaryhappeningsand understanding
thatthepersonis involvedinan ongoingselfgiousmiracles.Westartfromtheassumption
inwhichthesemiotically
mediatedreflections
on the
and world-reflecting
meaning-making
Once a
worldand on one's ownselfare constantly
created,negotiated,
and transformed.
meaningemergesin an ambiguousaction setting,it is instantly
workedon througha
or qualifyit.
processentailingcircumvention
strategies,
whichallow thepersonto rigidify
The workof thesestrategiesis elaboratedtheoretically
withthehelp of a hypothetical
from
exampleofreasoning
fromeveryday
life,and is demonstrated
empirically
byevidence
is showntoworkthrough
theflexiadults'reasoningaboutbiblicalmiracles.Autodialogue
inanyhere-and-now
ble construction
ofcircumvention
strategies
setting.
Interviewer:
Can miracleshappentoday?
Interviewee:
Miraclesusuallydo nothappen.Butsomehowtheyhappen,anyway.
(Excerpt
fromourinterview
study)
In manyways,humanreasoningin everyday
contexts
is a miracle.We arecapableofmakingup
ourmind-as well as changingit instantly-about
relationto theenvidifferent
aspectsofourpresent
ronment.
We use a standard
tool,humanlanguage,
from
in waysthatsometimes
arequitenonstandard
to
a linguisticpointof view.Often,in an attempt
makesenseofourselvesandtheworldat large,we
do notobeyrulesof logic and reasonin ourinternal and externaldiscourses (see introductory
excerpt).Yet (or as a result?)we manage,whether
in communication
withothersor withourselves.
ofmeaningthrough
language
By suchconstruction
we can createourworriesand ourfeelingsof horfeelror,as well as our hopesand ourillusionary
ingsof security.
The processof suchconstruction
is referred
to hereas meaning-making.
We emphasize thetime-based
processof making,ratherthan
offeringyet anotherdemonstration
thathuman
beingsuse semioticsystemsin theirpsychological
life.
Social scienceshave recognizedtherichness
in everyday
of possibilitiesformeaning-making
life(Edwards1997; Garfinkel
1967; Pollner1987;
Wieder1974; Wooffitt
1992). Ethnomethodology
in thetradition
of Garfinkel
(1967) explicitly
analyzescommonsenseand theconstruction
of mundanerealityas discursive
practice.If ourcommonsense reasoningis challengedby some extraordinaryexperiences-forexample,by miracles(see
introductory
excerpt)-we tryto finda resolution
our "worldin common,"eitherby
that
restores
1 Wearegrateful
Wolgast
forhishelpin
toMatthias
and
a stateof affairsin
establishing
maintaining
andtranscribing
andtoHubert
conducting
theinterviews,
Alfred
fortheir
helpful which there are definite and singular truths
Hermans,
Lang,andUrsFuhrer
draft
ofthispaper.We also (Pollner1974) or by harmonizing
thetwo worlds
suggestions
on a previous
to thethreeanonymous in another
wishto expressourgratitude
way(Stromberg
1993).
valureviewers
andto theeditor
ofthejournalfortheir
We construct
meaningsas we move through
ablecomments.
Pleaseaddress
to Ingrid
correspondence
therealmof our lifeexperiences;oftenwe do so
Magdeburg,
E. Josephs,
Otto-von-Guericke-University
quickly,sometimesveryslowly.Some
Instituteof Psychology,Postfach4120, D-39016 extremely
of theconstructions
are relatedto our social roles
Magdeburg,
Germany.
E-mail:[email protected](Smithand Kleinman1989,on psychological
copmagdeburg.de.
68
HOW DOES AUTODIALOGUE WORK?
69
ing strategiesamong medical students),others Vygotsky
and GeorgeHerbert
Mead, amongmany
with the need to feel secure about the future others).Yet as a resultof thatdevelopment,
the
in relationto
(Aphekand Tobin 1990,on meaningconstruction personbecomes quasi-autonomous
by fortunetellers).
We construct
meaningsin order his or her social settings.The worldof personal
thusis theworldofpersonalsubto controlotherwiseuncontrollablesituations meaning-making
on matters
bothoutsidetheper(Weisz, McCabe, and Dennig 1994, on primary jectivereflection
realm. Given
and secondarycontrol),to rebalanceour interper- son and in the intrapsychological
psychologyhas takentwo
sonal relations(Heider 1946, 1958), or to harmo- such quasi-autonomy,
in viewcoexisting
theoretical
directions
nize logicalfunctioning
withourbeliefsin spiritu- different,
ality(Griffin
1995). Silences-absences of stylis- ingtheperson.
ticfeatures
oftalk-similarlycan actas communication devices (Ohnuki-Tierney1994, on "zero Person as Entity
Constructed
signifiers").
meaningsmakethe differencebetweenshameand honor(Sande 1992),
In thefirstofthesetheoretical
approaches,
the
killingandpersonalrights(Danet 1980),and vari- personis viewedas a conglomerate
or structure
of
ous ways of looking at morality(Shweder and unitarycharacteristics,
such as characteror perMuch 1987).
sonalitytraits.Such characteristics
mayreflectthe
All these aspects of meaningconstruction, complexityof thepersonas an entity-eitherby
however,can be viewed fromtwo standpoints. their combination (e.g., any person can be
This describedby somecombination
First,it is possibleto analyzetheirstructure.
of thepersonalityleads to an analysisof psychologicalphenomena reflectingtermsin the English language, as in
as overdetermined
by meanings(Boesch 1991; Allportand Odbert1936), or by positingsome
Obeyesekere1990). This approachprovidesthe quantification
of similarunitaryfeatures(e.g., as
social scienceswithinformation
abouttheredun- in "personalitymeasurement"by standardized
dancyof controloverpsychologicalprocessesby scales). This perspective
allows fortheproliferasystemsofmeanings.Second,it is possibleto ana- tionof ever-newunitary"buildingblocks"in the
of theperson.In thisconstruction,
lyzethewaysin whichmeaningconstruction
oper- psychology
the
ates "on-line": how meanings are made and personemergesas an ontologicalentity-some
or set of dimensionalized
remadein conjunction
withtheflowof everyday complexstructure
paralifeevents.Herethemeaningsaremadeup foruse metersthatexists similarlyto other"things."
cannotbe
in a particular
here-and-now
context.Manyof the Processesof theperson'sdevelopment
meaningscreatedaroundspecificobjectsmaybe conceptualizedwithinthisperspectiveexceptby
abandonedas the need foractionwithregardto assertions similar to those of alchemy,which
intoanother.
theseobjectspasses. Meaningsare createdcon- merelystatethatone thinghas turned
stantly;yet only a few survive.This process of
is framedby the social setting Person as Dialogue
meaning-making
rules thatpeople take forgranted(Schuitzand
Luckmann1973); the violationof such rules in
Both historical(Baldwin 1897; James1890;
challengingtherolesof thepersonsinvolvedcan Mead 1934; Vygotsky1931) and contemporary
be complicatedin practice(Garfinkel1967:chaps. psychologists (Hermans and Kempen 1993;
1-4).
Watkins1986; Wertsch1991) as well as philosoIn thispaper we takethe second of the two phers(Buber [1923]1994) and literaryscholars
in makingsenseof (Bakhtin1981; Volosinov1973) have challenged
We are interested
perspectives.
thegeneralprocessesthatenablehumanbeingsto thenotionof thepersonor selfas an entified
unit;
construct
meaningswhichcan be bothflexibleand thesechallengesled to thenotionofthedialogical
howidenticalmech- self. From thispointof view,the social others'
rigid.We hopeto demonstrate
anismsofmeaning-making
bothofthese internalized
voices are assumedto makeup one's
guarantee
self. Insteadof appearingas a monologicentity,
oppositestates.
the self is seen as a relationof "I-Thou," as in
in which
TWO WAYSOF CONSTRUCTINGTHE PERSON MartinBuber's([1923]1994)philosophy,
"theother"-whether
a person,an idea, an object,
The activeagentwho constructs
of self.
meaningsis or God-is necessaryforthedevelopment
theperson.Ontogenetically,
thanan entipersonalsubjectivity Thusthebasic unitis a dualityrather
andthisdualitycan be specifiedfurther
emergesthroughrelatingwiththe social world fiedunity,
axiomof theprimacy as a dualityof opposites(Hermans1996; Linell
(e.g., as in theoften-quoted
of the social in the person, expressed by Lev
arethe
1992;Rychlak1995).Onlyrarely,
however,
70
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
of
called by Karl Btihler([1934]1965)fieldability
signis situatedwithinitsfield
signs:An emergent
othersigns.Buihlerdid notemphaof appropriate
size theoppositionalnatureof thefield,as we do
In a simfunctions.
hereto showhowdialogicality
ilarvein,GregoryBatesondiscussedthenotionof
if
opposites.Forinstance,
class anditsappropriate
in ourter{
or
chair,
word
the
utters
a
person
AI
BASICS OF AUTODIALOGICALITY
minology,thenthe whole fuzzy field of "noninvoked.Thisfieldcan
includesthenotionsof chair"{non-Alis instantly
Ourbasic terminology
meaningas a dualityfield,qualifiersof meanings, be madeto includeanyobjectthatbelongsto the
dialogicalitybetweenmeanings,and circumven- class "admissible non-chairs"(Bateson 1971).
ofthedialogicality.
Thus "table" and "car" are "admissible nonas regulators
tionstrategies
chairs";"justice"is not.Bateson'sexamples,howdiscusMeaningComplexes:DualitiesofOpposites, ever,wereofferedwithinclassicallogical
sion of class inclusion,and not in a dialectical
and Qualifiers
to
Classicallogic has foundit difficult
framework.
1986).
Wright
(von
opposites
of
issues
reconcile
Ourviewofmeaningsentailsa heterogeneous
theunityof oppounitcalled themeaningcomplex.We view mean- Froma dialecticalperspective,
point
ing complexesas consistingof signs (meanings sites{A and non-Alis an axiomaticstarting
per se) thatpresentsome aspects of the world, (Rychlak1995).
Oppositesdepictedas fields.In our formulatheirimplied opposites,and qualifiersthatare
linkedwitheithersignsor theiropposites,making tion,notonly {non-Al butalso {Al itselfcan be
versionsof {Al can
either(or both)fuzzy.Meaninghereis a termthat definedas a field.Different
in the
byqualifiers
played
of
the
role
exist
because
terin field-theoretic
semioticpresentation
reflects
Consider
complex.
meaning
of
the
construction
fields
are
dual
minology(Lewin 1942). Meanings
person
bya hypothetical
utterances
thatare relatedby specificformsof oppositional thefollowing
or tensional(fora thorough ({A} ="sad"):
harmonious
relations,
(1) I am sad.
discussionoftheroleoftension,see Lewin 1936).
sad.
(2) I am somewhat
at
kind
of
this
meanings
we
discuss
In thispaper
(3) How sad!
two levels: words and utterances.An utterance
(4) AttimesI feelsad.
a complexmeaningcreatedby combiconstitutes
sad.
(5) I am generally
nationofwords.
(6) I am neversad.
pointis
Ourstarting
Rootsofthisformulation.
Each of the qualifiers ("somewhat," "at
the basic notionof oppositesunitedwithinthe
"never,"eventheexclamation
same whole.This pointcan be recognizedas bor- times,""generally,"
the meaningof "sad" in the
modifies
"how...!")
dialectical
versionsof past
rowingfromdifferent
philosophicalsystems.In thiscase, however,the {Al partof thisperson'smeaningcomplex.The
directrootsare in thetheoryof co-geneticlogic use of qualifiersmakes it possible to keep the
(especially in
(Herbst1995), whichformalizestheinevitability meaningopen fortransformation
butalways
"I
never
sad,
am
6-for
example,
line
and
utterance)
form
at
a
(word,
of lookingjointly
mean(co-genetically)impliedcontext. happy"with"happy"as thenew emerging
its immediately
stabilizedbythequalWhena meaningemergesin thecourseof a per- ing,whichitselfis instantly
setting(e.g., "I am ifier"always"),or to protectthemeaningagainst
son's life in a here-and-now
fromothers(e.g.,
challenges,whether
meaning),immedi- preemptive
emergent
as
the
with
sad
sad,"
a fuzzyfieldof oppo- "Did I evertell you I am sad? I told you I was
reflection
atelyand without
sitesemerges:all thatcouldfitadequatelyintothe somewhatsad at thetime")or fromoneself("I do
to overcomemysadness,
fieldof non-sad.The genericformof suchmean- notneedto tryanything
I
am
sad").
because
generally
in
our
example,
{A
and
non-A};
is
complex
ing
Relationsbetweenthe oppositeswithinthe
{sad andnon-sad).
In generaltermsthis means thatthe emer- whole.We positthattwogeneralkindsof oppositionalrelationscan existbetweenthefieldof {Al
gence of any form,structure,or meaning {Al
whatbecomes"foreground- and thefieldof {non-Al.First,thetwo opposites
differentiates
instantly
is nontheopposition
friction;
ed" (Linell 1992) as {Al and what becomes can coexistwithout
oppositions
We assumethatnon-tensional
as a fuzzyfieldof its opposites. tensional.
"backgrounded"
transformaprocess was close themeaningcomplexto further
This foregrounding/backgrounding
of thedualitiesof oppositesstudactualworkings
A theoretiand empirically.
ied boththeoretically
by thetradiis supported
cal basis forsucheffort
tionsof the PragueLinguisticSchool (Markova
1992). Empiricalworkin accountsof religious
1993) is also noteworthy.
(Stromberg
conversion
HOW DOES AUTODIALOGUE WORK?
tionand are notinteresting
in thecontextof this
paper.Second,in contrast,
tensional
oppositions
are
relationsthatopen the {A and non-Al meaning
complextofurther
transformation
byentering
a dialogicrelation
withothermeaningcomplexes.
71
duct,internalfeelings)regardlessof whetherthe
establishedmeaningitselfchanges.For example,
in "I am generallysad, buttodaythesun is shining!" the meaningis maintained,butthe person
has circumvented
themeaningby distancing
himselfor herself.In thisprocess,a "fragile"meaning
can (but need not) be strengthened
by a circumDialogic Transformation
ofMeaning
ventionstrategy,
or alternatively
can be overcome.
Complexes
Circumvention
strategiesare relatedto the goals
and instantly
establishedby theperson
in dia- constantly
Meaningcomplexesare transformed
logic relationswithothermeaningcomplexes.If in the here-and-nowcontextof life; because of
This does notimply,
an {A and non-Al complexis to be transformed,this,we call themstrategies.
thattheyforma fixedsetof"tools"ready
its internalrelationmustbe tensional.Then, in however,
to
instantly
contactwithanotheremergent
meaningcomplex forapplication.Theyare constructed
in theperson'scontinu{B andnon-B1,someversionofthe{ non-A}field makesenseof a situation
aftermeaning"(Bartlett1932). Below
maybecomeidentified
as {B 1. The {B andnon-BI ous "effort
stratecomplexis inserted(Surgan1997) intotheprevi- we elaboratein depthhow circumvention
andhowtheywork,especially
ous fieldof {non-A). This insertion-thecontact gies areconstructed
betweentwomeaningcomplexes-allowsfordia- in makingsenseof thereligiousworldin thehereand-nowcontextofeveryday
life.
in subsequent
logicality
transformations.
Throughtheinsertion,
a relationis established
betweenthenewlyemergedcomplexand thepreAN EXAMPLE OF AUTODIALOGUE IN
vious complex,whichleads to a contrastof the
ACTION: TRANSFORMATIONOF BREAD
two meaningcomplexes.This contrastcan take
A person says or thinks"This is bread."
different
forms,
dependingon howthepersonreg"Bread"entailsthenotionof a dualityof opposiulatesthe [{A and non-A) <=> {B and non-B)]
1, but it does not yet
relationship.
The two opposingcomplexesof this tion {bread and non-bread
or autodialogicality
in thenarcontrastcan remainin harmoniouscoexistence entaildialogicality
("AttimesI am sad, and at timesI am happy")or rowersenseof thesetermsas used here.A second
perentera stateof rivalry("AttimesI am sad, and at personpointsto thebreadandsaysto thefirst
timesI am happy,but...").We assume a stateof son:"Thisis thebodyofJesus."A relationimmedibetweentwomeaningcomplexescalatedrivalryin the case in whichthe newly atelyis established
constructed
meaning{B and non-BI takes over es, namely{breadandnon-bread)and {thebodyof
and "destroys"thepreviouslyconstructed
mean- Jesusand non-[thebodyof Jesus]1. Now,by our
has comeintobeing.If the
dialogicality
ing: {BI takesover the whole fieldof {non-Al, definition,
(or has
and {A and non-Al is overcomeby {B and non- firstpersonpicksup thissocial suggestion
thesecondutterance
byhimselfor herof thepreviousexam- constructed
B), as in thiscontinuation
ple: "but,well,mostof thetimeI am happy".The self)and elaboratesit (forexample,just by feeling
former{ A} may remaina versionof { non-B1, the createdtensionor by "workingon" it, as by
withthepotentialfor"revenge"-reversalof the asking "But is this bread really the body of
Jesus?"),an autodialogic
processhasbegun.
takeover.
This autodialogicprocess involvesa wider
Theautodialogicprocess.The above descripcontrast:thatbetweenthe symbolicknowledge
tion is generic for all dialogic processes.
Autodialogicality
impliesthatthepersonhimself domainof a religion-namelytheliteralthough
of bread into "Jesus's
or herselfconstructs
thisrelation,
in intra- invisible transformation
whether
act in theCatholic"holy
mentalor extramental
talk(Surgan,Valsiner,and body"duringa ritualistic
The autodialogicprocess mass"-and the everydayknowledgedomainin
Josephsforthcoming).
can be set in motionby social suggestionsfrom whichbreadhas clearlyspecifiable
mundanecharothers,but it proceeds withinthe person's own acteristics.At the intersectionof such autodialogues betweenseparatedomains,the workof
psychological
sphere.
of autodialoguescan be studCircumvention
strategies.Regulatorsof the semioticregulation
betweenmeaningcomplexesare what ied mostfruitfully.
Whena personin autodialogue
relationship
we call circumvention
strategies;theseare semi- interpretsthe two domains withoutseparating
oticorganizers
of dialogic(and autodialogic)rela- them,thepuzzlement
impliedabovemaycontinue.
tionsbetweenmeaningcomplexes.They change Anthropological
research(Clark 1989) has shown
the"outcome"oftheperson'sreasoning(e.g.,con- thatthistransformation
is notunderstandable
to
72
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
I shouldnoteat anything
dirty.
people fromsome non-Christian
communities
in
(4)
That'swhyI shouldnoteat thisbread. (5)
New Guineawho are in theprocessof becoming
Christianized:They stateclearlythatthe newly
arrived"holy bread" ("Jesus's body") neither
Phase2:
tasteslike meatnorfillsthe stomachadequately.
ButI am hungry.
(6)
Theyfailto immediately
understand
thenatureof
I needtoeat something.
(7)
So eventhoughthebreadis dirty,
(8)
thetransformative
process;thisfailureresultsin a
I'll eatitanyway.
rivalrybetweenmeanings.Such rivalrycan be
(9)
reformulated
through
circumvention
strategies.
The partsemphasizedin thisinternal
dialoguerepresentthe evokedmeaningsthatenterintorelationswithone another.
PuzzlesofMeaningTransformation
in the
Everyday
World
Autodialogicalityand the Unison
lifeis no Maintenance ofMeaning
How we makemeaningsin everyday
a piece of breadsymsimplerthantransforming
The term
Focusedmeanings.
bolicallyinto"Jesus'sbody."Imaginea mother
focusedmeaning
watchingher child eat a piece of something, is used herepurelyfortechnicalreasonsin order
labeled forthechildas "bread,"whichsuddenly to denote the temporarily"highlighted"focus
Beforethechild withinthe person'spsychicorganization,
fallson thefloorof a restaurant.
which
can retrieve
it,themotherpicksit up and quickly can (butneednot)be circumvented.
Anymeaning
betweencomplexescan temthrowsitawaywhiletellingthechildthat"this"is complexor contrast
Thusthethingknownas breadhas invisi- porarilybecomea focusedmeaningwhenits crenowdirt.
Forthemother,
thenewly ationleads to a tensionthatrequiressomekindof
blychangeditsidentity.
arrivedmeaning-dirt-may have completely resolution.In Phase 1 we see the "diagnosis"of
thefocusedmeaning(line
taken over (destroyed) the previous meaning thenewstateof affairs:
holdtruefor 3), whichleads to a self-oriented
reflection
(bread),butthismaynotnecessarily
(lines
thechild,especiallyifhe or she continues
to focus 4, 5). The autodialogicemergenceof thefocused
of thebread:The meaningimpliesa speci-fication
on thevisuallygivenstructure
ofthestill-unspecbreadwas introduced
as breadand remainsbread. ified opposite field of {bread), namely {nonof mean- bread),by theinsertion
of {dirty},whichleads to
Thus thechildmayexperiencea rivalry
ing. Ratherthaninternally
workingthroughthe thenew meaningcomplex{dirtyand non-dirty).
tensioncreatedby thequestion"Whatis thisthing In a completeovertakeof {breadand non-bread)
in frontof me, reallyand truly?"the child may by {dirtyand non-dirty),the bread would have
solve theproblemeasilyby his or herconduct- completelyleftbehindits breadlikenatureand
forexample,by eatingthebreadwhilethemother would have turnedunequivocallyintoa piece of
is lookingaway.Whether
thebreadis stillbreador dirt.Such a case would mostlikelyresultin an
is alreadydirtis no longerimportant
herebecause absenceof further
conflictor elaboration:Dirtis
thechildhas founda way to circumvent
thechal- dirt,anditcan andwillbe approached
as such.
lengedmeaningby his or her conduct,whichis
the dialogic relationbetween
Alternatively,
in itself.Likewise,themother's
imme- {breadand non-bread
meaningful
I and {dirtyand non-dirty}
diatelyemergingas-if-stablemeaning(dirt)may could resultin a contrastin the formof harmobe challengedand workedon at any time-for nious coexistenceor in the formof rivalry:The
example,if she findsherselfextremelyhungry breadis (to someunknownextent)stillbread,but
whileonlythispiece of"bread"is available.
at the same timeit is dirty-and this createsa
Let us take this example one step further, problem.This latterstateof rivalryin particular
solutionor temporary
applyingthe analyticalterminologyelaborated requiressomepsychological
above,andlook at adultintrapsychological
regula- "decision."
tionof one's relationto a piece of breadthathas
Macro organizers.The focusedmeaningin
fallento the ground.Let us further
assume that ourexampleis nowrelatedto whatwe call macro
now it is themotherwho is hungry
and has noth- organizers(line 4). These are obviously(as in our
ing butthisbreadto eat. She mightengagein an example)or implicitly(as below) evaluativeand
likethefollowing:
moralistic
("you should;you shouldnot").Macro
autodialogue
Phase 1:
organizers
operateon a moregeneralizedsemiotic
The breadis on thefloor.
(1)
level, depictingconvictions,rules,worldviews,
The flooris dirty.
and thelike,whichcan be self-or object-oriented.
(2)
That'swhythebreadis dirty.
(3)
They guaranteestability,continuity,and pre-
HOW DOES AUTODIALOGUE WORK?
73
In general,Phase 1 can be summarized
as an
dictability
of one's attempts
to makesenseof life.
of a monologicvoice.
Without
them,lifewouldbe a flowfromone state autodialogicconstruction
Thereforeour littlescenariocould be terminated
offuzzinesstothenext.
Macro organizersare ratherstableand resis- hereifwe assumedthatthepersonhadno competofthemeaningwouldnot
tantto change.In fact,theymaybe an exampleof inggoal. Circumvention
{A and non-A} complexesin whichtherelation be necessarybecauseoftheunisonmaintenance
of
betweenoppositesis non-tensional.
Thus foreach themeaning.
"should"(or "shouldnot")thereexistsno access to
the oppositepart(let us call these"non-should" CircumventionStrategiesElaborated:
and "non-[should-not]"),
whichcould indicatethe
Modulation of theDialogue
insertion
ofanypossibledoubtintothissuggestion
In otherwords,line 4 in
by themacroorganizer.
As describedabove,circumvention
strategies
theexampleabove cannotbecomesomething
like are semioticmeans withina process of dialogic
"I do notknowwhether
ornotI am supposedto,or meaning-making
whichcan modifythe relation
entitled to, eat anythingdirty." Instead the betweenmeaningcomplexes.Such modifications
"should"does itsjob preciselyby rulingout any can proceedin a number
ofways.
doubtabout its oppositefield.Once developed,
Circumvention
of meaningbyfocusing on
macro organizers operate as rigid generative stronger,
competing
goals. In Phase2, theautodiaprocesses; theselead immediatelyto an infinite logueis continued
through
theemergence
ofa new
numberof applicationsand specifications,
all of "voice, indicatedby the wordbut,whichintrothesame kindand in thesame direction(line 5 =
duces a new self-oriented
meaningcomplex(hunapplicationof thegeneralruleto thespecificcon- gryand non-hungry)
(line 6) and its consequence
tentareabya simplededuction).
(line 7). The new voice could be represented
as
macro organizersare devices well by anyotherlinguistic
Furthermore,
termindicating
a subthatconstrainthe construction
of new meaning sequentopposition,
suchas nevertheless,
yet,howcomplexesor contrastsand the modificationof ever.Thisnewmeaning,withitsfocuson a strong
in ourexample motivational
presentones.The macroorganizer
goal, now entersa new rivalrywith
the {dirtyand non-dirty}
clearlyforegrounds
part the previouslyconstructedcontrast[ bread and
ofthecontrast
whilebackgrounding
itscounterpart non-bread}<=> {dirtyandnon-dirty}]
withitslat{breadandnon-bread}.In thiswaytheautodialog- terpartforegrounded
and stabilized(by themacro
in thedirection
is minimized
ic rivalry
of a unison organizer).Because of the entranceof thisnew
action-not "rival,"however,we can assume thatthe {bread
voice,whichmakesa straightforward
eatingthe"thing"-morelikely.
and non-bread}aspect now is foregrounded
as
Thoughmacro organizersprovidestability, strongly
is
as possible,while{dirtyand non-dirty}
theirexclusiveoperationin one's lifewouldlead overlooked. In general, each entranceof new
to an imprisoned
inevitably
rigidity:
The applica- meaningcomplexeschangestherelationand the
tion of only a few basic rules would generate qualityof theexistingmeaningcomplexes.If this
withina closed system.The creation new competing
homogeneity
goal (hunger)has becomeintense
of any semioticfluxand noveltybeyondthebor- (a clearlyfeltstateof hunger),it couldlead, as in
dersof ourpresentsemioscopewouldbe impossi- ourexample,to thestrategic
circumvention
(rather
ble. Thus macroorganizers-usefulas theyarethanthechange)ofthefocusedmeaning,as estabmustbe neutralized
temporarily.
To counteract
an lished in Phase 1, preciselyby highlighting
this
macroorganizer(in ourexample,eating stronger,
operating
competing
goal: The bread'strueidentity
the"thing"despiteits questionableidentity),
the is stillunclear,butthepersonis clearlyhungry
and
strate- eatsitanyway.
personmustinvent"tricks"-circumvention
gies-that leave the macro organizers'general
Circumvention
ofmeaningbypersonalpreferbutnever- ences.A similarresultcan be obtainedin thefolvalidityand applicability
unquestioned,
thelessallow foran exceptionto therule.These lowingway:
"tricks"are necessarybecausea direct"attack"on
Phase2:
themacroorganizer,
whether
initiatedby theperButI likebread.
(6)
sonhimselforherselfor suggestedbyanother
perAndI wanttoeat something.
(7)
son ("butwhyshouldone noteat dirtythings?"),
So eventhoughthebreadis dirty,
(8)
leads-as we knowfromeverydaylife-only to
I'll eatitanyway.
(9)
circularprotest
ordefense("one shouldnotdo that Here, as in our previous example, the focused
because one shouldnot do that")and oftento a meaningis not questioned or changed. Again,
further
ofrigidity.
a shiftin focusis assumedbecauseofthe
however,
strengthening
74
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
}, which,in action.The changeof the focusedmeaningalso
{ like and non-like
strongpreferences
previousempha- can be moreradical and less fragilethanin the
contrast
to themacroorganizer's
illuminatethecom- previousexample.The simplestway wouldimply
sis on {dirtyand non-dirty},
plex {breadand non-bread}.The conduct,howev- directactiontowardthebread-for example,by
way.In wiping it clean (circumventionand change of
er,stillcan be organizedin a meaningful
everydaydiscourse,such dialogic circumvention meaning by direct action; line 6a below).
offocusedmeaningis evidentin Likewise,symbolicactioncan be directedtoward
oftheassignment
to invisiblyreestablish
theuse of sentencessuchas "I shouldnotdo this, thebreadin an attempt
its
clean status-forexample,bykissingit
butI stillliketo do this."Again,theuse of thecir- previously
and changeofmeaningbysymbolcumventionbringstemporaryliberationby not (circumvention
otherwise
fixedandfirmconstraints.
ic action; line 6b below). In bothexamples,the
denying
Circumvention
of meaningbyfocusing on visible structureof the bread remainsidentical
its transformation
intosomething
harmoniouscoexistenceof meaningcomplexes. throughout
dirty
into"unequivocal"bread.
Separatedomainsof beliefor meaningcomplexes and itsretransformation
applicationof the
can coexistdespitetheirobviousincompatibility,In bothexamples,the further
in theper- macroorganizer
becomesnonsensicalbecausethe
thusguaranteeing
enormousflexibility
son's reasoning.In the followingexample,the breadis clearlybreadagain(andno longerdirt).
Phase2:
bread's presentstate(being dirty)is not denied
as bread.This situation
ButI can cleanthebread.
(line 6), noris its identity
(6a)
allowsthepersonto act (to eat thebreadas bread)
[oralternatively]
ButI can kissthebread.
(6b)
at any time,again while neutralizingthe macro
thefocuson breadinsteadofon
Symbolicactionis one of themostpowerful
through
organizer
a focusedmeaningthrough
dirt(line7).
ways to circumvent
transformation.
Veryoften,symbolicactsarerootPhase2:
in culturalbeliefsystemsand strengthed firmly
Butevenifthebreadis dirty,
(6)
itis stillbread.
ened sociallythroughrituals.They extendfrom
(7)
beliefsin theneedto washour(visuCircumvention
of meaningbyfocusing on oureveryday
The focusedmeaningalso can aNyclean) handsbeforeeatingto ritualisticand
semanticqualifiers.
be changed(moredrastically
thanin theshiftsof symbolic"healings"(as in exorcism).Such acts
theuse of circum- are easilyapplicableand guaranteesuccess.If this
focusdescribedabove) through
This can occurbyfocusingon successis notobvious,thecorrectness
of theact's
ventionstrategies.
can be questioned(below, see our
semanticqualifiers
(line6):
performance
of miracles).
Phase2:
analysis of adults' understanding
eviButmaybethebreadis notso dirty. (6)
Thus theseacts are immuneto contradictory
I'll eatitanyway.
(7)
dence.
As describedabove,bothpartsof {A and non-A}
Circumvention
ofmeaningbytheintroduction
areviewedas fields,whichincludesemanticquali- ofsymbolic
helpers.An eveneasierwayto circumin everydaylifeinvolves
fiers.The circumvention
process can highlight ventmeaningsinstantly
theparticular theintroduction
orimmediate
invention
ofsymbolsomeofthesequalifiers,
thusaltering
{A andnon-A}thatis in dialoguewithsomestrict- ic helpers,whethersociallysuggestedor autodiabut
ly fixedothermeaningcomplex(in thiscase, the logicallycreated.Symbolichelpersarenothing
trivialphrasesthatare readyto
focusedmeaningin Phase 1 fortified
by macro decontextualized,
themacro use and allow the personto distancehimselfor
on thequalifier,
By focusing
organizers).
in Phase 1 is notneutralized; herselffromthesituation(changeof internal
established
feelorganizer
and ings) while not necessarilychangingeitherthe
theconnection
betweenmacroorganizer
rather,
modifiedmeaninghas becomeblurred.
The mean- focusedmeaningorthebehavior.
in line6 is no longeran unequivoIf thepersonfeelsgenerallypositivetoward
ingconstructed
ofthemacroorganizer. eatingthebreadin our scenario(otherwisethere
cal case fortheapplication
of this question wouldbe no needforanycircumvention
An analyticalworking-through
strategy),
would taketime.(Is it or is not a "case" forthe thatpersoncoulddistancehimselfor herselfemomacroorganizer?)
The person,however, tionallyfromthe whole problematicsituationof
operating
thanchangingthe
instantlyperformsthe behaviorin thismoment thesomewhat
dirtybread(rather
whenthetemporarily
activatedmeaningsystemis behaviorand/orthemeaningcomplex)in thefolfuzzy.Thus the"problem"is solvedproductively lowingway:
Phase2:
beforeitis solved,so to speak.
Circumvention
But, well, that'slife.You don't always get
ofmeaningbydirectIsymbolic
HOW DOES AUTODIALOGUE WORK?
75
whatyouwant.
[or]
The specificapplicationsresultingfromthis
Butsomedaysarejustlikethat.So what?
newmacroorganizer
(line 8) are assumedto be as
[or]
rigidas thosedescribedin connection
withthefirst
Buttomorrow
willbe another
day.
[or]
one. Thus,paradoxically,
thefreedomof actionor
But OK, that'slife. Tomorrowthe sun will conduct(eatingthebreadanyway)is introduced
shineagain.
[or]
through
rigidity,
which"interprets"
theconductas
Butanyway-takeitwitha smile.
[or]
a case of a newlyestablishedrule.At any time,
... andso on.
however,thefirstmacroorganizercan regainits
This"list"of symbolichelperscouldbe continued previousstrength-forexample,by a refocusing
a social suggestion
infinitely
suchas "How can you
by theinsertionof well-knownexpres- through
sions(e.g.,proverbs)orinvented
which eatdirtybread?One shouldnoteatdirty
things!"
trivialities,
acquirea metaphorical
powerfromtheirdecontexCircumvention
ofmeaningbytheintroduction
tualization.An immediatelyinventedexample of immunizedsymbolicorganizers.Finally,the
mightbe "Well,that'slife.But afterall, a window newlyintroduced
organizers
can be of sucha high
level as to bluror reconcilethepreviouslyestabis onlymadeoutofglass."
Throughthese kinds of circumvention,
the lished rivalrybetweenmeaningcomplexesand
personchangesherownwaysoffeeling.She or he even to overcomethe Phase 1 macro organizer.
symbolicorganizers.
does not"leavethefield"horrified
bytheproblem- These are called immunized
inherit
themoralistic
atic situation(the bread conflict),as in Lewin's First,theydo notnecessarily
(e.g., 1931) theorizing,but internallydistances and evaluativenotionof the macro organizers,
herselfor himselffromthefieldand thuschanges althoughmacroorganizerseasily can be derived
herrelationto thefield.Usefulas thesesymbolic fromthem.Second,theyare immunizedbecause
can challengethemas a
helpersare,theirexcessiveuse leads to an infinite- no factualcounterevidence
ly floating"anythinggoes" attitudetowardlife. resultof theirpurelysymbolicnature.In thefolTherefore
symbolichelpersare thecounterparts
of lowingexample,two immunizedsymbolicorgain succession:nature(line 6)
macroorganizers:
The predominance
of thelatter nizersare introduced
whilethepredominance
of the andGod (line7).
guarantees
rigidity,
Phase2:
former
resultsin a free-floating
fluxof construtcButisn'tbreadas wellas dirt
tions.
partofnature?
(6)
Untilnow we have focusedon threegeneral
Andis naturenotgivenbyGod?
(7)
kindsof circumvention
the
strategies:
neutralizing
Andis notGod's goal to careforus? (8)
macroorganizer(timeout forthemacroorganizI can eatthebread!
(9)
er),changingthefocusedmeaning,and distancing
oneselffromthe fieldinternally
in a productive This last, highestlevel of semioticconstruction
way. The followingstrategiesare employedas makes obsolete the rivalrybetween {bread and
} and { dirtyand non-dirty}.
non-bread
The comwell.
into unitsof the
Circumvention
one plexes have been transformed
ofmeaningbychallenging
macroorganizerbya competing
macroorganizer. same kind. Thoughthis highest-levelorganizer
An additionalway of circumvention
impliesthe (referenceto God) does not directlyinclude a
com- moralisticor evaluativeappeal, it certainlysugchallengeofone macroorganizer
byanother,
the elaborationof "should" sengestsindirectly
petingone,as in thisexample:
tences.It is theperson'sowntaskto considerwhat
Phase2:
fromtheimmufollows,morallyandbehaviorally,
Butyoushouldneverthrowaway
nizedsymbolicorganizer.
Throughthatprocessthe
whichis inprincipleedible. (6)
anything
organizeritself becomes even more powerful
Thepoor in theworldwouldbe happy
(compare the power of implicitsuggestionsin
tohavethisbread.
(7)
myths;GuptaandValsiner1996).
So I can (evenmust)eatit.
(8)
In thisexample,our previousmacroorganizeris
overcomeby a higher-level,
temporarily
clearly Summary
moralistic
macroorganizer
(lines6, 7). The general applicability
of thePhase 1 macroorganizeris
thebasic constituents
of
Table 1 summarizes
not called into question;thusthe personwould theautodialogicprocess.In theremainder
of this
continueto statethatit is not good to eat dirty paper,we analyze empiricalevidenceas to how
things.The moralisticnatureof thisnewlyintro- adultsreasonaboutreligiousmiracles.Such miraducedorganizer
makesit so powerful
thatit easily cles arechallenging
forpsychological
analysis.On
neutralizes
thepreviousorganizer.
the one hand,theyare remarkablefictions;yet
76
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
manypeople believein them.On theotherhand,
of
themiraclestoriesoftenincludetransformations
lifewithcommonly
known
objectsfromeveryday
characteristics
(bread,water,wine).In thecase of
miracles,thetransformation
shouldraise experience-baseddoubtsin thebelievers,
butitdoes not.
TheStudy
In a recentstudy(JosephsandWolgast1996),
in Germany,
conducted
we studiedparents'
andchildren'sjointattempt
to makesenseof threemiracle
storiesfromtheNew Testament:
curingtheblind
man(Mark8:22-26),miracleoftheloavesandfishes (Mark6:30-44),andJesuswalkingon thewater
THE CASE OF MIRACLES: HOW DO ADULTS
(Matthew14:22-36).Furthermore
(and thisis the
TALK ABOUT THEM?
focushere),we interviewed
about
parents
separately
toward
biblicalmiraclesandmirAbove we arguedthatthe dialogic process theirownattitudes
wererecruited
through
mechanisms-circumventionstrategies-make aclesin general.The parents
possible the coexistenceof separatedomainsof theirchildren,who eitherattendeda Protestant
or belongedto a groupof adolescents
beliefs despite theirobvious incompatibility. kindergarten
parish
Religious systemssucceed in propagatingbelief whometoncea weekin thesameProtestant
all oftheparents
Neither
norall
unverifiable
byevery- forleisureactivities.
systemsthatareempirically
wereProtestants
however,
(oursamday experienceand oftenin conflictwithsuch ofthechildren,
experience.Such successrequiresa psychological ple includedsomeCatholicsand some unbaptized
claimto believein
analysis,whichwe presentnow in therealmof persons),nordid all participants
ofmiracles.
theChristianfaith.Membersof religiousgroups
adults'understanding
Table 1. Basic Constituents
oftheAutodialogic
Process
Constituent
Definition
MeaningComplexes
Dualitiesofoppositions
in thegenericform{A andnon-A).
Tensionalornon-tensional
relations
betweentheopposites.
Contrasts
Relationsbetweenmefaning
insertion
of
complexes-following
{B) into{non-A)-in thegenericform[{A andnon-A)<=> {B and
coexistenceorrivalry.
non-B)].Possibleforms:Harmonious
FocusedMeaning
Anymeaningcomplexorrelationbetweenmeaningcomplexes
whichbecomeshighlighted
in theautodialogicprocess.
Takeover
"Destruction"
of {A andnon-A}by { B andnon-B) as a consequenceofescalatedrivalry.
Circumvention
Strategiesa
Constructed
semioticregulators
ofdialogic(andautodialogic)
relations
betweenmeaningcomplexes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Circumvention
ofmeaningbyfocusingon stronger,
competing
goals
Circumvention
ofmeaningbypersonalpreferences
Circumvention
ofmeaningbyfocusingon harmonious
coexistence
of meaningbyfocusingon semanticqualifiers
Circumvention
ofmeaningbydirectaction
Circumvention
Circumvention
ofmeaningbysymbolicaction
Circumvention
ofmeaningbysymbolichelpers
Circumvention
ofmeaningbychallenging
one macroorganizer
bya
macroorganizer
competing
ofmeaningbyimmunized
9.
Circumvention
symbolicorganizers
ofmeaningbyabstraction
10. Circumvention
MacroOrganizers
Moralisticandevaluativesemioticconstructions
in theformof
"should"sentences.
Immunized
SymbolicOrganizers
Symbolsofmaximally
highsemioticlevelwhichareimmune
againstanycounterfactual
evidence.
SymbolicHelpers
thatallowfor
Proverbs
or self-made
decontextualized
trivialities
personaldistancing.
aCircumvention
10 was notelaborated
butwithintheanalysisoftheempiricalmaterial.
strategy
hypothetically,
HOW DOES AUTODIALOGUE WORK?
otherthanCatholicand Protestant
were
Christians
notincluded
inoursample.
All interview
participants
wereeagerto discuss the issue underconsideration-miraclesand partlybecause adults
partlyout of curiosity,
usuallydo notdiscusssuchtopicsin everyday
life.
The interviews
weresemistructured
andtookplace
at the interviewees'homes. Intervieweeswere
askedthestandard
questionslistedin Table 2. The
interviewees
also were encouragedto talk about
theissue as frankly
as theywished.Four fathers
and 17 mothers
participated.
The interviewswere fullytranscribedand
analyzedaccordingto our theoretically
developed
model(fora fullpresentation
of data see Josephs
and Valsiner1996). In thefollowinganalysiswe
look especially for the emergenceof focused
meaningcomplexesand circumvention
strategies.
thecompletematerialhere,
Ratherthanpresenting
we analyzesomeselectedexamplesin depth.
FocusedMeaningand Its Circumvention
Revisited
The principalquestionpresented
to ourintervieweeswas whethermiracles-biblicalor mundane-can or couldhappen.The participants
started fromtwokindsof focusedmeaningcomplexe-s:
imiracleshappenand non-[miracles
happen]) or
do not
{miraclesdo nothappenand non-[miracles
versionsof meaningcomplexes
happen].Different
emergedbecause of therole playedby qualifiers
modifyingthese complexes. Thus interviewees
of {A}-for
severalvariants
beganbyconstructing
instance,"miraclescan happen,""miraclescan
happenat times,"or "miraclesusuallydon'thappen." In thisway the meaningcomplexis made
moreorless opentotransformation.
Absence of circumvention
strategies.Three
participants
started
withan "unequivocal"meaning
complex(no qualifiers)by statingthatmiraclesdo
ordo nothappen.One participant
said:
Miraclesdo notexist.
(1)
Luck,chance,and coincidence,
however,
do exist.
(2)
Miraculoushealing,as observedat
Lourdes,can be explainedbythat.
(3)
The unequivocalmeaningcomplexelaboratedin
line 1 {miraclesdo notexistand non-[miracles
do
notexist]},however,
is assumedto createtension;
otherwisethe person would not continue.The
fuzzyfieldof {non-A} becomesspecifiedby the
insertion
of ( B }, namelyluck,chance,and coincidence(line2). Thisinsertion
leads to a takeoverof
{A and non-A}by {B and non-B}. The personis
no longer reflectingon miracles,but on luck,
chance, and coincidence (line 3). Former{AI,
however, remains a version of { non-B}.
Circumvention strategies are not necessary
because I B and non-B} allows fora non-miraculous explanation
of miraclesthatfitswithexperilife.
encesin everyday
In mostcases, however,thefocusedmeaning
complex is modifiedby qualifiers;thisprocess
leads to further
elaborationsand to thepotential
use of circumvention
In contrastto the
strategies.
exampleinvolvingbread,no problemof actioneatingor noteatingthebread-was addressedin
themiraclescenario.The breadexamplecreateda
problemonlyin thecourseof theperson's"motiwas thedesireto
vateddialogue"(themotivation
the
eatthebread).In thecase ofmiracles,however,
person's motivationto entera dialogue ("I do
believein miracles,but...")stemsfromthedesire
meanandtheneedto makesenseof theemerging
ingcomplexwithinherorhiseveryday
world.This
world,at firstglance,is obviouslynotcompatible
withtheworldof miracles.How do circumvention
a resolution?
strategies
helpin finding
Table2. StandardInterview
Questions
Topics
Questions
Understanding
Miraclesin General
Whatis a miracleforyou?
Do youbelievein miracles?
Can miracleshappentoday?
Underwhichconditions
can miracleshappen?
Have youeverexperienced
miraclesin yourlife?
Understanding
theBiblicalMiracles
andinterpret
thebiblicalmiracles?
How do youunderstand
Did thebiblicalmiracleshappenthewaytheyaretold?
ofthesemiracles?
77
Whatimplications
wouldyoudrawfromyourunderstanding
78
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
The use of circumvention
strategies.Rather belieftheywould not happen,and Jesuscan do
than startingwithan unmodified,unequivocal miracleswiththepowerof God,and "little"mira{A}, thepersonin thefollowingexampledefines cles happen.
In contrast
to theabove example,circumven{A} in a fuzzyway-by qualifierusually(line 1).
Miraclesareusuallyimpossible.
tionbysymbolicaction,formanyof ourintervie(1)
wees, is sufficient
fora takeoveror balancingof
beliefandprayingthey
Withoutfirm
meaningcomplexes.One person,forinstance,
statwouldnothappen.
(2)
Jesuscan do miracleswiththe
ed:
Miraclesusuallydo nothappen.
(1)
powerofGod.
(3)
ButifI believefirmly
enoughin
Butwhyis therewarall overtheworld?(4)
I can succeed,
myselforin others,
(2)
Todayonlylittlemiracleshappen;
we wouldotherwise
haveno war.
andmiraclescan happen.
(5)
(3)
to symbolicaction(line
Because of themodification
by thequalifier,the In thisexample,referring
the
emergingfocused meaning complex {usually 2) is extremelypowerfulin circumventing
impossibleand non-[usually
impossible]}is filled focused meaningestablished in line 1. "Firm
withtensionand "asksfor"a but,or at leastforan belief" is a miraculous constructionin itself
elaboration.
This followsimmediately because nobody can judge where firmbelief
explanatory
through
thecircumvention
ofmeaningbysymbolic beginsand whereit ends.Because of its symbolic
action, namely referringto "firmbelief" and nature,it cannotbe challengedby counterfactual
"praying."
Line 2, however,
onlyindirectly
depicts evidence.If-despite "firmbelief'-miracles do
oftheperson'sfirmbelief
theconditions
fora not-yet-offered
of nothappen,theintensity
specification
{non-[usually
impossible]
}. This newlyconstruct- can be questioned: He or she simply has not
ed condition(line 2) is not elaboratedso as to believedfirmly
enough.In everyday
life,suchconworkeasily:Motherstelltheirchildren
structions
overcometheformer{A and non-A} complexa simplereversaloftheutter- that they have not "believed enough in their
forinstance,
through
ance ("With firmbelief,theywould happen"). power"to be successfulin school,or a personcan
Whenlines1 and2 aretakentogether,
theperson's claim thatif her partner"reallyloved" her,he
to thispointaremaximal- w,ouldunderstand
heror behavedifferently.
The
meaningsas constructed
ly open.It is as if thepersonspecifiestheground person's lack of effortin the symbolic realm
thatis necessaryfortheelaboration
ofthefigure- (believing,loving)alwayscan be heldresponsible
to symbolthemiracle.
forthefailure;thismakesthereference
By the furthercircumventionof meaning ic actionespeciallyeffectivein any educational
throughthe introduction
of immunized
symbolic context.
Asked specificallyforheropinionaboutthe
organizers-thepowerof God (line 3)-{non-A}
is specifiedby the insertionof a new meaning biblicalmiracles,one interviewee
answered:
The biblicalmiraclesdidnot
{Jesuscan do miracleswiththepowerof God}.
Thisnewlyintroduced
meaningholdsforonlyone
happenliterally.
(1)
which
Butsomehowtheyhappened.
(2)
person,namelyJesus.A completetakeover,
a general- The focusedmeaninghere{did nothappenliteralmighthave been possibleherethrough
} is of the
izationof line 3 in combinationwithline 2 ("if ly and non-[didnot happenliterally]
miraclescan happenwiththe same fuzzytypeas discussedabove (through
the
you believefirmly,
It is filledwithtensionandasks
powerof God"), is blockedby the immediately qualifierliterally):
followingself-oriented
question(line 4), whichis foran elaboration.Whatfollowsin line 2 is cirof the "devil's advocate"type:It seems as if the cumvention
ofmeaningbyfocusingon harmonious
to applyhis or herown construc- coexistenceof meaningcomplexes.In thiscase,
personis trying
tion to the criticaltest.Line 2 would providea harmonious
coexistenceimpliesa minimalelabosoundanswer("thereare warsbecausepeople do rationof the {non-A} partby {B }: {non-[didnot
notbelievefirmly
enough"),butthepersonfindsa happen literally]} is elaborated minimallyby
"better"solutionthatdoes not place the whole [somehowtheyhappened},whilethelatteritself
responsibilityfor events on the shoulders of is fuzzybecause of the qualifiersomehow.The
humanbeings:The problemis solvedimmediately twomeaningcomplexescan coexistharmoniously,
a versionof { non-B} andvice
by the circumvention
of meaningbyfocusingon with{A } remaining
semantic qualifiers (line 5, "little" miracles). versa.
thesamestrategy:
Because ofthatfocus,all elaboratedmeaningscan A further
exampleillustrates
remain in a state of harmoniouscoexistence:
thebiblicalmiracles
Rationally,
(1)
Miraclesusuallydo nothappen,and withoutfirm
cannothappen.
HOW DOES AUTODIALOGUE WORK?
79
I am a rationalman.
counterfactual
evidence.
(2)
In thenextexample,meaningis circumvented
I believeinthemanyway.I knowthis
soundscrazy,butitis as itis.
(3)
bytheintroduction
ofsymbolic
helpers:
The biblicalmiraclesdidnothappen
In theaboveexample,whichcontradicts
theclassi(1)
thatway.
cal syllogism,the contrastbetweenthe meaning
Butafterall,it'sall a question
complexesis morepronounced.
Nevertheless,
the
(2)
of interpretation.
personcan be bothrationaland a believerin miracles at the same time,withoutbeingconfusedor Thoughthetensionin themeaningcomplex(line
overcomeby
itis completely
feelingcrazy.It is preciselythisharmonious
bal- 1) is notpronounced,
ance of incompatibledomains of belief which line2.
allowspeopletoreconciletheirreligiousreasoning
or contradicto- Summary
withtheirsometimesincompatible
ryeveryday
knowledge.
Rivalry-thatis, the continuation
of tension
Circumvention
strategiesare abundantlyin
betweenthetwomeaningcomplexes-is foundin use in adults'reasoningabout miracles.In most
thefollowing
interviewee's
statement:
thanalone,
cases theyappearin combination
rather
As a rationalpersonI do notbeliefthat
whichmakesthemeven morepowerful.Some of
reallyeverything
has happenedtheway
our hypothetically
strategies
set-upcircumvention
(1)
itwas told.
com(circumvention
through
focusingon stronger,
ButIfeel a split:Beliefversusrational
petinggoals, circumvention
by personalpreferthinking?
(2)
ences, and circumventionby challenging one
The nextexampleillustrates
a circumvention
strat- macro organizerby a competingone) were not
egy we have notelaboratedtheoretically,
namely foundin theempiricalmaterial,possiblybecause
circumvention
ofmeaningbyabstraction
(through of the contextand thetopicof theinterview.
On
construction
of a higher-level
sign). Interviewees theotherhand,circumvention
abstraction
through
usedthisstrategy
quiteoften:
was observedquiteoftenin theempiricalmaterial,
The biblicalmiraclesmight
although we did not expect it theoretically.
havehappenedthatway.
(1)
ourparticipants
did notmentionmacro
Similarly,
Butthesymbolic
meaningis more
In theparent-child
howevinteractions,
organizers.
forme.
important
(2)
er,whichare notreported
here,theywerebrought
The fuzzinessof the {A and non-A} complexin in quiteoften,usuallyin reference
to a symbolic
line 1 is circumvented
byfocusingon thesymbolic action("You shouldalwaysbelievein God; then
meaningof the miracles (line 2). As a conse- he wouldhelpyou").
on his or
quence,thepersoncontinuesreflecting
herunderstanding
of thesymbolicmeaning,while
GENERAL DISCUSSION
leavingaside thequestionof theconcrete,literal
As we have triedto demonstrate,
humanrearealityof the miracles.Focusing on the "sign"
a way to circum- soning is autodialogic, and some formsof the
qualityof thestoriesis certainly
ventinconsistencies
betweenthe miraculousand processthatoperateon thetransformation
ofmeanthemiraculous ingcomplexescan be identified.
theeveryday
world.In thismanner,
Thesecircumvenin the miraclescan be understoodas a trope(a
thecoreof humanmeantionstrategies
constitute
metaphoror simile),in an abstractratherthana ing-making.
Ourgoal was nottopresent
a complete
literalsense.
"list" of circumvention
strategies,whichpeople
concrete,
In balancingthemiraculous
withthemundane "use."New situations,
in whichnewgoals become
In every- important,
seemsquiteeffective.
strateworld,thisstrategy
mightrequirenewcircumvention
it mainlycreatesproblems.The gies. These strategiesare not the "elements"of
day life,however,
miraculousin everydaylifeoftenseemsto be the mind,or moreglobalandgeneralmodesof control
situations(e.g.,
conductand actionof anotherperson.If conduct or copingactivatedin distressing
and actionresistliteral,concreteunderstanding, Weiszet al. 1994); rather,
theyare whatpeopledo
in ordertogetalongintheirdailylives.
as a sign.Everybody constantly
theycan be easilyinterpreted
how secularand reliWe have demonstrated
knowsof breakfast-table
commentsbetweencouples (such as "You look so strange.Is something gious meaningcomplexesinhabitadults'psychoas logical worldsin ways in whichneitheris chalwrongwithme?"),wherethelookis understood
a sign,as a commenton therelationship.
by theother;norare theymutually
Higher- lengeddirectly
the
levelsignshavepower:Theylead us intotheworld coordinated.
strategies,
Throughcircumvention
of abstraction.As a result,theyare immuneto notionof religiousmiraclescan be establishedin
80
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
waysthatcannotbe challengedbyeveryday,
mun- to analyze religious conversion stories (e.g.,
1993) or
dane experiences.We can arguethatthe special Caldwell1983; Harding1987; Stromberg
circumstances
powerofthehumanmeaning-making
systemis the people's actionsin life-threatening
see Glavis 1946; also see
capacityto developheterogeneous
reasoningsys- (e.g., combatfighters;
temsthatpresentthemselvesto the personas if Harvey Sacks's analysis of a reportof a Navy
on servinginVietnam;Sacks 1992,
theywerehomogeneous.
In otherwords,thecon- pilot'sremarks
requirequickreadtext-specificity
of themeaningsmadeis a resultof 1:205). Extremecircumstances
a generalsystemof meaning-making
thatallows justments
in theautodialogic
processas partofthe
fortheconstruction
ofcontext-specificity.
person's generalsurvival.In addition,however,
This generalqualityof thepowerof discur- ourconstantconstruction
of everyday
experiences
sive construction
is well recognizedin thetradi- offersinfiniteexamples of meaning-making
tions of discourse and conversationanalysis through
circumvention
whetherin perstrategies,
(Edwards 1997). Parallelsto our analysisof cir- sonal relationships
("I shouldhatehim,butI love
cumvention
strategy
can be foundin theingenious himanyway"),in scientificwork("The paperis
in the nota big deal,butafterall, it is notso bad"; also
role-modification
(breaching)experiments
ethnomethodological
tradition(Garfinkel1967, see GilbertandMulkay1984; LatourandWoolgar
also see Heritage1984) as well as in thesociology 1986), or in worrisometimes ("I am damned
of conversations
butafterall, theywill
(Schegloff1992,on conversation afraidof thejob interview,
repairs).
notkillme").
Similar mechanismsmay be operatingin
Variouscircumvention
strategies
thatwe have
explanationsof paranormalexperiences,which outlinedherecan be regardedas devicesof "semiof a herechallenge one's constructionof everydaylife otic liberation"fromtheuncertainties
to deal with and-nowsetting.
Thesestrategies
allowforspeedy
(Wooffitt
1992),or in people'sefforts
"realitydisjunctures"-thoseoccasionson which distancingof the person's position fromsome
whilemovingintoa differpeopleproduce(or are facedwith)morethanone aspectsof thissetting,
versionof the world,as in traffic
court(Pollner entposition.Meaning-making
becomes flexible,
1987). Wooffitt's
and Pollner'sanalysesfocuson and can "leap out" fromthelogical schemesthat
"whatreallyhappened,"
andhowthisis decidedin people'sreasoning
is assumedto follow.
we foundin reasoningabout
thepresenceofconflicting
orimplausibleaccounts
The flexibility
of events.The survivalof a singlecharacterization miraclesor breadis analogous-butnotsimilarof eventsis maintained
againstthethreatofmulti- to what "cognitive heuristics" researchers
thestatusof one or (Kahnemann,
ple versionsby undermining
Slovic,and Tversky1982) havedismoreofthoseversions.
covered by examining"shortcuts" in problem
One way of doingthisis whatHarveySacks solving.Unlikethe"cognitive
heuristics"
tradition,
(1984) calls "doingbeingordinary":
One can pre- however,
whichcontrasted
statistical
modelsofreasent oneself as an "ordinary,"normalperson, soningwiththoseof real-lifeheuristics,
we have
whereordinaryimpliesnothingremarkableand triedto outlinethespecificdevicesthatoperateon
is trueby default."Doingbeingnormal" themakingof inferential
therefore
"leaps" in real time.We
is one way of dealingwithunusualexperiences- focuson how autodialogueis modulatedby one
hardto see thingsas ordinary
until"reality" circumvention
or another(or combination
trying
strategy
no longercan be denied,accordingto theformula of strategies)
ratherthandemonstrating
thatinferI thought
"Atfirst
(mundaneX), butthenI realized ential"leaps"occurin humanmeaning-making.
The cognitiveheuristics
tradition
has demon(extraordinary
Y)" (see Jefferson
1984, quotedin
Edwards1997).The latterimpliesthenotion"I am strated
thattheuse ofdescribedheuristics
depends
normalbecause I did mybest to understand
the on theperson'sinterpretational
positionregarding
worldin theusualway,so itmustbe theworldthat thegiventask(e.g., Gigerenzer
et al. 1989). In an
is crazy."
to move one stepfurther,
we have examattempt
In our analysis,however,it was not always inedhowthatnewinterpretational
positionis actutheperson'sgoal to construct
one true,unequivo- allyachieved.For thatpurpose,thematerialabout
cal versionof reality.Circumvention
Whenpeostrategies religiousmiraclesprovedappropriate.
moreflexibility-for
witha scenariothatcan occur
permitted
instance,the"har- ple wereconfronted
monious coexistence" of the mundaneand the bothalongthelinesof a miraclestory(e.g.,Jesus
miraculous
world.
feedingfive thousandpeople withone loaf of
in termsof everyday
For additional,ample empiricalevidenceof bread) and, alternatively,
theflexibility
of meaning-making
circum- activities(e.g., a largefamilybarelyfedby a loaf
through
ventionstrategies,
one can consultvariousefforts of bread),theneed to bringintoactiondifferent
HOW DOES AUTODIALOGUE WORK?
81
Trial."Semiotica32:187-219.
kindsofcircumvention
strategies
was enhanced.
Yet, the liberationof the meaning-making Edwards,D. 1997. Discourse and Cognition.London:
Sage.
processfromthehere-and-now
actioncontextcannotbe unlimited
(exceptin cases ofpsychopathol- Garfinkel,H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology.
EnglewoodCliffs,
NJ:Prentice-Hall.
ogy,as describedamply,forexample,by Janet
Gigerenzer,Gerd, Zeno Swijtink,Theodore Porter,
1925). Rather,semioticliberationby circumvenLorraineDaston,JohnBeatty,and LorenzKruger.
tionneedstobe constrained
byreversecircumven1989. The Empireof Chance. Cambridge,UK:
of the autodiation,whichlimitsthe flexibility
Cambridge
University
Press.
logue fora givenmoment.A personwho claims Gilbert,G. Nigel and Michael Mulkay.1984. Opening
Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of
that"withthe powerof God you can do everyScientists'
UK: Cambridge
Discourse.Cambridge,
thing,butunlessyou believefirmly
nothingwill
Press.
University
happen"firstmakesuse of a maximally
amplified,
liberated claim, which is then followed by a Glavis, Louis R. 1946. "Bombing Mission Number
Fifteen." Journal of Abnormal and Social
reversecircumventionstrategythateffectively
Psychology
41:189-98.
reducesthemomentary
liberation
to a morefixed Griffin,
Wendy.1995."The EmbodiedGoddess:Feminist
statusquo in thehere-and-now
Thussemisetting.
Witchcraft
and Female Divinity."Sociology of
otic liberationand semioticconstraintsare two
Religion56:35-48.
sides of the same coin; theirmutualinterplay Gupta,Sumedhaand JaanValsiner.1996. "Mythsin the
Hearts: Implicit Suggestions in the Story."
allowspeople to navigateefficiently
their
through
Presentedat the Second ConferenceforSociolives.An exclusiveemphasison eitherof
everyday
CulturalResearch,September
14,Geneva.
thesesides mightresultin a manic,free-floating
Harding,SandraF. 1987. "Convictedby theHoly Spirit:
construction
oflifeorin a depressivestateofsemiThe RhetoricofFundamental
BaptistConversion."
oticimprisonment-a
challenging
topicforfurther
AmericanEthnologist
14:167-81.
investigation
alongthelinesof themodelof auto- Heider, Fritz. 1946. "Attitudes and Cognitive
we haveoutlinedhere.
dialogicality
Organization."
JournalofPsychology
21:107-12.
. 1958. The Psychologyof Interpersonal
Relations.
NewYork:Wiley.
REFERENCES
Herbst,D.P. 1995. "WhatHappens WhenWe Make a
Distinction:An ElementaryIntroduction
to CoAllport,Gordon W. and H.S. Odbert. 1936. "TraitGenetic Logic." Pp. 67-79 in Developmentof
Names: A Psycho-LexicalStudy."Psychological
editedbyT. Kindermann
Person-Context
Relations,
Monographs
47 (wholeno. 211).
andJ.Valsiner.
Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Aphek,Edna and Yishai Tobin. 1990. The Semioticsof
Heritage,J.C. 1984. Garfinkeland Ethnomethodology.
Fortune-Telling.
Amsterdam:
JohnBenjamins.
UK: Polity.
Cambridge,
Bakhtin,M.M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination,edited
Hermans,HubertJ.M. 1996. "Oppositesin a Dialogical
byM. Holquist.Austin:University
ofTexasPress.
Self: Constructs as Characters." Journal of
in
Baldwin,J.M.1897.Social and EthicalInterpretations
9:1-26.
Constructivist
Psychology
MentalDevelopment.
NewYork:Macmillan
Hermans,HubertJ.M. and HarryJ.G. Kempen. 1993.
Bartlett,F.C. 1932. Remembering.Cambridge,UK:
TheDialogical Self.San Diego: AcademicPress.
Press.
Cambridge
University
James,W. 1890. Principlesof Psychology.New York:
Bateson, G. 1971. "The Message 'This Is Play."' Pp.
Holt.
261-66in Child'sPlay,editedby R.E. Herronand
Janet,P. 1925. Psychological Healing. New York:
B. Sutton-Smith.
NewYork:Wiley.
Macmillan.
Boesch,E.E. 1991.Symbolic
ActionTheoryand Cultural
Jefferson,Gail. 1984. "'At First I Thought...': A
NewYork:Springer.
Psychology.
Events."
NormalizingDevice forExtraordinary
Buber,M. [1923]1994. Das dialogischePrinzip [The
KatholiekeHogeschool
Unpublishedmanuscript,
Dialogic Principle]. Gerlingen: Lambert
Tilburg.
Schneider.
Buihler,K. [1934]1965. Sprachtheorie [Theory of Josephs,IngridE. and JaanValsiner.1996. "How Does
Dialogue Work?:Coordinating
theMundaneand
Language].Stuttgart:
GustavFischer.
the Miraculous in Religious Understanding."
Caldwell,P. 1983. The PuritanConversionNarrative:
Presentedat the Second ConferenceforSocioThe Beginnings of American Expression.
CulturalResearch,September
11,Geneva.
Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge
University
Press.
Clark,J. 1989. "God, Ghostsand People: Christianity Josephs, I.E. and M. Wolgast. 1996. "Die KoKonstruktion
religi6serBedeutungaus kulturpsyand Social Organization
amongTakuruWiru."In
chologischer Perspektive: Eine Analyse von
Family and Gender in the Pacific: Domestic
Eltern-Kind-Interaktionen."
[The Co-Construction
Contradictions
and theColonialImpact,editedby
of Religious Meaning from a Cultural
M. Jolly and M. Macintyre.Cambridge,UK:
An Analysisof ParentCambridge
University
Press.
PsychologicalPerspective:
Danet,Brenda.1980. "'Baby' or 'Fetus'?:Languageand
Child-Interactions]
Pp. 41-68 in Eingebettetins
Menschsein:BeispielReligion:Aktuelle
the Constructionof Reality in a Manslaughter
psycholo-
82
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
gischeStudienzur Entwicklung
von Religiositdt,
edited by F. Oser and K.H. Reich. Lengerich,
Germany:
Pabst.
Kahnemann,Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky.
1982. Judgment
under Uncertainty:Heuristics
and Biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Press.
University
Latour,Bruno and StevenWoolgar.1986. Laboratory
Life:The Construction
ofScientific
Facts.2nded.
Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press.
Lewin, Kurt. 1931. Die psychologischeSituationbei
Lohn und Strafe[The PsychologicalSituationof
RewardandPunishment].
Leipzig:Hirzel.
. 1936. Principlesof TopologicalPsychology.
New
York:McGraw-Hill.
. 1942. "Field Theoryof Learning."Yearbookof
NationalSocial StudiesofEducation41:215-42.
Linell, P. 1992. "The Embeddedness of
Decontextualizationin the Contextsof Social
Practices." Pp. 253-71 in The Dialogical
Alternative:Towardsa Theoryof Language and
Mind,editedby A.H. Wold. Oslo: Scandinavian
Press.
University
Markova, I. 1992. "On Structureand Dialogicity in
PragueSemiotics."Pp. 45-63 in The Dialogical
Alternative:Towardsa Theoryof Language and
Mind,editedby A.H. Wold. Oslo: Scandinavian
University
Press.
Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, Self and Societyfromthe
Standpointof a Social Behaviorist. Chicago:
ofChicagoPress.
University
Obeyesekere,G. 1990. The Workof Culture.Chicago:
ofChicagoPress.
University
Emiko. 1994. "The Powerof Absence:
Ohnuki-Tierney,
Zero Signifiers and Their Transgressions."
L'Homme34:59-76.
Pollner, Melvin. 1974. "Mundane Reasoning."
Philosophy
oftheSocial Sciences4:35-54.
. 1987. MundaneReason: Realityin Everydayand
Sociological Discourse. Cambridge, UK:
Press.
Cambridge
University
Rychlak,JosephF. 1995. "A Teleological Critiqueof
Modern Cognitivism." Theory & Psychology
5:511-31.
Sacks, H. 1984. "On Doing 'Being Ordinary."' In
Structures of Social Action: Studies in
Conversation
Analysis,editedby J.M.Atkinson
and J. Heritage. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge
Press.
University
. 1992. Lectures on Conversation,edited by G.
Jefferson.
Oxford:Blackwell.
Sande, Hans. 1992. "PalestinianMartyrWidowhood:
Emotional Needs in Conflict with Role
Expectations."
Social Science& Medicine34:709-
17.
Schegloff,EmanuelA. 1992. "RepairafterNextTurn:
The Last StructurallyProvided Defense of
Intersubjectivityin Conversation."American
JournalofSociology97:1295-1345.
Schuitz,Alfred and Thomas Luckmann. 1973. The
Structures of the Life-World. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern
University
Press.
of
Shweder,R.A. and N. Much. 1987. "Determinations
Meaning:Discourseand MoralSocialization."Pp.
197-244 in Moral DevelopmentthroughSocial
Interaction,edited by W.M. Kurtinesand J.L.
Gewirtz.NewYork:Wiley.
Kleinman.1989."Managing
Smith,AllenC. and Sherryl
Emotionsin Medical School: Students'Contacts
withtheLivingand theDead." Social Psychology
Quarterly
52:56-69.
Stromberg, P.G. 1993. Language and SelfTransformation: A Study of the Christian
Conversion Narrative. Cambridge, UK:
Press.
Cambridge
University
One's Selfin Dialogue:
Surgan,S.E. 1997."Constructing
Semiotic Tectonicsof the Mind." Unpublished
honorsthesis,Universityof NorthCarolina at
ChapelHill.
Surgan,S.E., J.Valsiner,and I.E. Josephs.Forthcoming.
"Semiotic Action and the Emergence of
IntentionalOrientations."In Action and SelfDevelopment:Theoryand Researchthroughthe
Life-Span,edited by J. Brandtstadter
and R.M.
Lerner.ThousandOaks,CA: Sage.
Volosinov,V.N. 1973. Marxismand thePhilosophyof
Language.NewYork:SeminarPress.
von Wright,Georg H. 1986. "Truth,Negation, and
66:3-14.
Contradiction."
Synthese
Vygotsky,L.S. 1931. Paedology of the Adolescent.
Moscow-Leningrad:
Gosudarstvennoie
UchebnoPedagogicheskoe
Izdatel'stvo.
M. 1986.InvisibleGuests:TheDevelopment
Watkins,
of
ImaginalDialogues.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Weisz, JohnR., Mary Anne McCabe, and Marie D.
Dennig. 1994. "Primaryand SecondaryControl
Medical Procedures:
amongChildrenUndergoing
Adjustmentas a Function of Coping Style."
Journalof Consultingand Clinical Psychology
62:324-32.
MA:
Wertsch,
J.V.1991. VoicesoftheMind.Cambridge,
HarvardUniversity
Press.
Wieder, D.L. 1974. "Telling the Code." In
Ethnomethodology, edited by R. Turner.
UK: Penguin.
Harmondsworth,
R.C. 1992. TellingTalesoftheUnexpected:
The
Wooffitt,
Organization of Factual Discourse. Hemel
UK: Harvester.
Hempstead,
IngridE. Josephsis AssistantProfessorat theInstituteof Psychology,
Otto-von-Guericke-University
Magdeburg,
Germany.
Her maininterests
are in thedevelopment
oftheselfwithina culturalpsychologicalframework
and indialogicalapproachesinpsychology.
at ClarkUniversity,
USA.His maininterests
are
Jaan Valsineris Professor
ofPsychology
Massachusetts,
in theoretical
issues ofpsychology,
culturalpsychology,
and developmental
issues in science.His most
recentworkincludesthebookTHE GUIDED MIND (HarvardUniversity
Press,1998).