Journal of Religion and Health

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 241–261 | Cite as

The personal meaning of symbols: A method of investigation

  • Hubert J. M. Hermans
  • Rens J. P. van Loon
Article

Abstract

In light of the inherent significance of symbols and their nevertheless manifold variety of meanings, we present a method for investigation. In the theory behind this method, the person is viewed as an organized process of self-reflection, always oriented from a particular point in time and space toward the past, present, and future. As this orientation varies, different valuations emerge, with avaluation being a unit of meaning seen by the person as particularly relevant in his or her own life. A distinction is made between “symbolic” valuations, which usually have a pictorial character (for example, “I am impressed by the roots of a tree”), and “ordinary” valuations, which typically have a conceptual character (for example, “I have a strong bond with my family”). These types of experiences are combined and organized in a system of valuations, from where the symbol receives its personal meaning. We present a method of self-investigation for studying the interrelation between the valuation of symbols and the valuation of daily life, the affective properties of these valuations, their motivational implications, and their long-term development. We illustrate the proposed methodology with the case study of a woman who incorporated the “tree” as a symbol of purification into her valuation system and show how this allowed her to reintegrate certain negative experiences out of her past in her actual self.

Keywords

Negative Experience Strong Bond Affective Property Personal Meaning Pictorial Character 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Heisig, J.W., “Symbolism.” In Eliade, M., ed.,The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol.14. New York, MacMillan Company, 1988, p. 198.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kahler, E., “The Nature of the Symbol.” In May, R., ed.,Symbolism in Religion and Literature. New York, George Braziller, 1960, pp. 70–74.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tillich, P., “The Religious Symbol.” In May, R., ed.,Symbolism in Religion and Literature,op. cit., pp. 75–75.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibid., pp. 76–77.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ibid., p.77.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eliade, M.,Patterns in Comparative Religion. London, Sheed and Ward, 1958.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ibid., p. 451.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    May, R., “The Significance of Symbols.” In May, R., ed.,Symbolism in Religion and Literature, op. cit., pp. 11–49.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibid., pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibid., pp. 15–16.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibid., p. 48.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frese, P.R., and Gray, S.J.M., “Trees.” In Eliade, M., ed.,The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 15. New York, MacMillan Company, 1988, pp. 26–33.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hermans, H.J.M., “Self as an Organized System of Valuations: Toward a Dialogue With the Person,”J. Counseling Psychology, 1987,34, 10–19; “The Dream in the Process of Valuation: A Method of Interpretation,”J. Personality and Social Psychology, 1987,53, 163–175; “On the Integration of Idiographic and Nomothetic Research Method in the Study of Personal Meaning,”J. Personality, 1988,56, 785–812; “The Meaning of Life as an Organized Process,”Psychotherapy, 1989,26, 11–22.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    James, W.,The Principles of Psychology, vol. 1. London, MacMillan, 1890; Merleau-Ponty, M.,Phénoménologie de la perception [Phenomenology of Perception]. Paris, Gallimard, 1945.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hermans, H.J.M.,; Hermans-Jansen, E.; and Van Gilst, W.,De grondmotieven van het menselijk bestaan: hun expressie in het persoonlijk waarderingsleven [The Basic Motives of Human Existence: Their Expression in Personal Valuation]. Lisse, Swets & Zeitlinger, 1985.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bakan, D.,The Duality of Human Existence. Chicago, Rand-McNally, 1966.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Angyal, A.,Neurosis and Treatment: A Holistic Theory. New York, Wiley, 1965.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klages, L.,Characterkunde [Characterology]. Zürich, Switzerland, Hirzel, 1948.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McAdams, D.P.,Power, Intimacy, and the Life Story. Personological Inquiries into Identity. Chicago, Dorsey Press, 1985 (reprinted by Guilford Press).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    op cit., pp. 14–20.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chomsky, N.,Aspect of the Theory of Syntax. Massachusetts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1967.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Foulkes, D.,A Grammar of Dreams. Sussex, England, Harvester Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    op cit., pp. 20–26.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hermans, H.J.M., “The Dream in the Process of Valuation: A Method of Interpretation,”J. Personality and Social Psychology, 1987,53, 166.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jacobi, J., “Der Baum als Symbol,”Analytische Psychologie, 1975,6, 336–367.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ibid., p. 338.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    op cit., p. 48.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    op cit., p. 204.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    op cit., pp. 15–16.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tillich,op cit., pp. 75–98.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hermans, H.J.M.; Fiddelaers, R.; De Groot, R.; and Nauta, J., “Self-Confrontation as a Method for Assessment and Intervention in Counseling,”J. Counseling and Development, 1990,69, 156–162.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sandfort, Th.G.M., “Sex in Pedophiliac Relationships: An Empirical Investigation Among a Nonrepresentative Group of Boys,”J. Sex Research, 1984,20, 123–142.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institutes of Religion and Health 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hubert J. M. Hermans
    • 1
  • Rens J. P. van Loon
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychological Laboratory of the University of Nijmegen in NijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations