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).
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz