Abstract
This paper aims to explain and discuss some aspects of Ernst E. Boesch’s Symbolic Action Theory that predicates the subject beyond the instrumentality of his action, inaugurating a cultural psychology that touches to the hermeneutic psychology of facticity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This aspect keeps similarities, but also differences, with Branco and Valsiner’s (1999) proposal of methodology as a cyclic process.
As pointed by Boesch (1991), “praxic” is distinguished here from “practical”. “Practical” is an action which furthers the attainment of a goal; the term implies an evaluative aspect, while “praxic”, being merely a descriptive term, simply means “overtly performed” (p. 96).
See Boesch (1992).
For a detailed explanation about these dimensions, see Boesch (1991).
The original text in French is: “(...) le “soi” est. l’effet d’une structuration partant de les données de l’expérience immédiate de l’action (Boesch 1980, p. 23).
The original text in French is: “L’aspect constructioniste et biologique se tenant de prés, je propose de les considérer ensemble sous le terme de l’action. L’aspect culturel, se son coté, sera traité sous le terme de l’objet, ce qui permettra de limiter le vaste problème des relations écologique à un domaine plus restreint. Il va de soit que les deux domaines, action et objet, ne peuvent être séparés qu’artificiellement: toute actions a un objet (ne serait qu’imaginaire), et tout objet se définit par sa valeur actionnelle. Cependant, les deux termes sont distingués dans le vécue subjectif : on croit savoir clairement ce qui est interne (« nous-mêmes ») ou externes (« objets ») (Boesch 1980, pp. 23–24).
Here the concepts of barriers, frontiers, limits and zones of tolerance and taboo zones are at play (Boesch 1991).
References
Boesch, E. E. (1956). Research plan 1956. Bangkok: International Institute for Child Study.
Boesch, E. E. (1980). Action et objet: Deux sources de l’identité du moi. In P. Tap (Ed.), Identité individuelle et personalization (Vol. 2, pp. 23–37). Toulouse: Privat.
Boesch, E. E. (1991). Symbolic action theory and cultural psychology. Berlin: Springer.
Boesch, E. E. (1992). Culture – individual – culture: The cycle of knowledge. In: M. von Cranach, W. Doise, e P. Mugny (Eds.), Social representations and the social bases of knowledge (Swiss Monographs in Psychology, Vol. I). Lewiston, NY: Hogrefe & Huber, 89–95. (reprinted in W. J. Lonner e S. A. Hayes (Eds.) (2007), Discovering cultural psychology – a profile and selecting readings of Ernest E. Boesch. Charlotte, N. C.: Information Age Publishing, 201–212).
Boesch, E. E. (1997). The story of a cultural psychologist: autobiographical observations. Culture & Psychology, 3(3), 257–275.
Branco, A. U., & Valsiner, J. (1999). A questão do método na psicologia do desenvolvimento: Uma perspectiva co-construtivista. In M. da Paz & A. Tamayo (Eds.), Escola, saúde e trabalho: Estudos psicológicos (pp. 29–39). Brasília: Editora UnB.
Coelho Junior, N. E. (2015). Como a epistemologia, os seminários clínicos e a psicopatologia psicanalítica podem contribuir para a psicopatologia fenomenológica [How epistemology, clinical seminars and the psychoanalytic psychopathology can contribute to the phenomenological psychopathology]. Psicopatologia Fenomenológica Contemporânea, 4(1), 39–51.
Cornejo, C. (2007). Review essay: the locus of subjectivity in cultural studies. Culture & Psychology, 13(2), 243–256.
Cornejo, C. (2011). What Should Idiographic Language be like? The Yearbook of Idiographic Science.
Culture & Psychology, 1997, 3(3). London, Thousand Oakcs, CA and New Delhi: SAGE Pub. Jaan Valsiner Editor.
Davydov, V. V. (1999). The content and unsolved problems of activity theory. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on action theory (pp. 39–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eckensberger, L. (1997). The legacy of Boesch’s intellectual oeuvre. Culture & Psychology, 3(3), 277–298.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1976/1995). Verdad y Metodo [truth and method] (Vol. I). Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme.
Heidegger, M. (1923/1999). Ontology- the hermeneutics of facticity. Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Herbst, D. P. (1995). What happens when we made a distinction: An elementary introduction to co-genetic logic. In T. A. Kindermann & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Development of person-context relations (pp. 67–79). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
James, W. (1902/1982). The varieties of religious experience. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Klempe, S. H. (2016). A philosophical vs. a psychological perspective on Borders. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50, 77–90.
Lamiell, J. T. (1998). ‘Nomothetic’ and ‘idiographic’ – contrasting Windelband’s understanding with contemporary usage. Theory and Psychology, 8, 23–28.
Mammen, J., & Mironenko, I. (2015). Activity theories and the ontology of psychology: learning from Danish and Russian experiences. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 681–713.
Marková, I. (2003). Dialogicality and social representations: The dynamics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marsico, G. (2011). The “non-cuttable” space in between: context, boundaries and their natural fluidity. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45, 185–193.
Marsico, G., Cabell, K. R., Valsiner, J., & Kharlamov, N. A. (2013). Interobjectivity as a border: The fluid dynamics of “Betweenness”. In G. Sammut, P. Daanen, & F. Moghaddam (Eds.), Understanding the self and others: Explorations in intersubjectivity and interobjectivity (pp. 51–65). London: Routledge.
Overton, W. F. (1997). Beyond dichotomy: an embodied active agent for cultural psychology. Culture & Psychology, 3(3), 315–334.
Simão, L. M. (2001). Boesch’s symbolic action theory in interaction. Culture & Psychology, 7(4), 485–493.
Simão, L. M. (2003). Beside rupture—disquiet; beyond the other—alterity. Culture & Psychology, 9(4), 449–459.
Simão, L. M. (2007). We researchers: unquiet people disquieting others. A commentary on Duarte & Gonçalves’ “negotiating motherhood: a dialogical approach”. International Journal for Dialogical Science, 2(1), 277–285.
Simão, L. M. (2008). Ernst E. Boesch’s holistic cultural psychology. In R. Diriwachter & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Striving for the whole- creating theoretical syntheses (pp. 131–150). New Brunswick: Transaction Pub..
Simão, L. M. (2010). Ensaios Dialógicos: compartilhamento e diferença nas relações eu-outro. São Paulo: HUCITEC [Dialogical Essays: sharing and difference in I-other relationships].
Simão, L. M. (2012). The other in the self: A triadic unit. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 403–420). New York: Oxford University Press.
Simão, L. M. (2016). Culture as a moving symbolic border. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50, 14–28.
Taylor, C. (1958). Ontology. Philosophy, 34, 125–141.
Valsiner, J. (1998). The guided mind: A sociogenetic approach to personality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Windelband, W. (1894). Rectorial address Strasbourg, 1894. History and Theory, 19, 169–185.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simão, L.M. Ernst E. Boesch’s Ontologic Predication in Focus. Integr. psych. behav. 50, 568–585 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9354-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9354-6