Abstract
This article examines the storytelling aspect in philosophizing with rehabilitating cancer patients in small Socratic dialogue groups (SDG). Recounting an experience to illustrate a philosophical question chosen by the participants is the traditional point of departure for the dialogical exchange. However, narrating is much more than a beginning point or the skeletal framework of events and it deserves more scholarly attention than hitherto given. Storytelling pervades the whole Socratic process and impacts the conceptual analysis in a SDG. In this article we show how the narrative aspect became a rich resource for the compassionate bond between participants and how their stories cultivated the abstract reflection in the group. In addition, the aim of the article is to reveal the different layers in the performance of storytelling, or of authoring experience. By picking, poking and dissecting an experience through a collaborative effort, most participants had their initial experience existentially refined and the chosen concept of which the experience served as an illustration transformed into a moral compass to be used in self-orientation post cancer.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The empirical field work ran from October 2012 until May 2013. JK facilitated three Socratic Dialogue groups with a total of 17 participants. Half of the dialogue sessions were filmed and 2/3 also taped on audio. The dialogue groups were followed up by interviews 5–6 weeks after the end of each group. 15 out of 17 were interviewed as one relapsed, another was taken ill but not related to his cancer. All interviews were transcribed. The majority of the SDGs were held at the Center for Cancer and Health in Copenhagen. Most of the interviews were carried out at the Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen. This article also draws on the experience gathered from JK's pilot project with six SDGs and a total of 33 participants that took place from 2008 to 2010 and was also held at the same Center. The pilot project was financed by the Center whereas the research project is financed by the Danish Cancer Society.
For more on the process of reflecting philosophically in JK's SDGs, please consult her article Sculpting Reflection and Being in the Presence of Mystery—Perspectives on the Act of Philosophizing in Practice with People Recovering from Cancer, in HASER International Journal on Philosophical Practice, no. 6, 2015.
The first group decided on “What is a meaningful everyday life?” the second group settled on “What is vitality of life?” and the third group went with “What is loyalty?”
Nelson (1882–1927), a Kantian inspired philosopher at the University of Göttingen, developed in pre-Nazi Germany the method of Socratic dialogue as a tool within education to help the critical and independent thinking of his students. Quickly, the method was found helpful in the resistance to anti-democratic movements and fascism pointing to the fundamental role of dialogue in the mutual understanding and respect within a society. Nelson was himself aware of the political potential of Socratic dialogue when he became the founder of the Philosophical-Political Academy in 1922. His thoughts were carried on by his pupil Heckmann (1898–1996). The method is now used in as diverse areas as management, adult education, and schools.
The pilot project rested on the same idea as the research project: to use philosophy as medicine for the soul and in the service of human flourishing (see Nussbaum 1994).
Ricoeur's (1984) Time and Narrative is a commentary on Augustine's concept of time and Aristotles' idea of mimesis in his Poetics.
The theater is only used as a metaphor for the dramatic, dialogical and narrative aspects that go on in a SDG. The participants are of course not expected to enact their story.
This assumption is further theoretically based within philosophy on understanding the human being as a storytelling animal (MacIntyre 2014/1981) and on the idea that we "grasp our lives in a narrative" (Taylor 1989: 47). In the past several decades we have seen a similar narrative turn in qualitative research (Clandinin and Connelly 2000), medicine (Charon 2006), anthropology (Kleinman 1988; Mattingly 1998, 2010, 2014), sociology (Frank 1995, 1997, 2010) and psychology (Bruner 1990). As seen in narrative philosophy, the narrative turn in qualitative research has also been subject to increasing criticism (Thorne 2009; Vice 2003).
JK's methodological procedure diverts, but not entirely, from the Dutch philosopher Jos Kessels' famous hourglass model where the dialogue begins wide with a philosophical question, then narrows in on a crucial moment in a single story picked by the group to create a core statement; the dialogue then ends wide by revealing the underlying assumptions and values of the core statement and the other stories in the group. See Kessels (2001).
Though JK suggested the idea of them keeping what she calls "a reflective diary" of the dialogues and their thoughts in between meetings, she did not hear back that anyone followed up on the idea. However, many participants took notes during the dialogues and used them to remember what had been said as we went through the stages of a SDG or just to make a note of thought-provoking or inspiring words.
From W. Dowling's book on Ricoeur where he quotes E. M. Forster's aphorism: Ricoeur on Time and Narrative. University of Notre Dame, 2011.
JK would here draw on her prior theater studies and experience working for a theater company.
The details recounted here have been adapted to exemplify the importance of getting a full and meticulous storyline.
Since JK give much attention to all stories, all stories go through a co-authoring process. Though one can argue that a similar co-authoring process occurs in a traditionally conducted SDG where only one story is focused on (or put in the hot spot), it is a much less accentuated co-authoring process.
The question chosen to be examined by the group was “What is vitality of life?” Naomi had just finished her cancer treatment when she had her empowering and life-affirming experience.
References
Aristotle, 2006. Poetics. Newburyport: Focus Publishing/R. Pullins Co.
Boele, D. 1997. The benefits of Socratic dialogue. Or: Which results can we promise? Inquiry. Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines Spring XVII 3: 48–70.
Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Charon, R. 2012. At the membranes of care: Stories of narrative medicine. Academic Medicine 87(3): 342–347.
Charon, R. 2006. Narrative medicine. Honoring the stories of illness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Charon, R., and M. Montello (eds.). 2002. Stories matter. The role of narrative in medical ethics. New York: Routledge.
Clandinin, J., and M. Connelly (eds.). 2000. Narrative inquiry. Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DasGupta, S., and R. Charon. 2004. Personal illness narratives: Using reflective writing to teach empathy. Academic Medicine 79(4): 351–356.
Dowling, W. 2011. Ricoeur on time and narrative. Notre Dame (IN): University of Notre Dame.
Frank, A. 1995. The wounded storyteller. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Frank, A. 1997. Illness as moral occasion: Restoring agency to ill people. Health 1(2): 131–148.
Frank, A. 2010. Letting stories breathe. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Frank, A. 2012. Practicing dialogical narrative analysis. In Varieties of narrative analysis, ed. J.A. Holstein, and J.F. Gubrium. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Freytag, Gustav. 2008. Freytag’s technique of the drama: An exposition of dramatic composition and art. Charleston: BiblioBazaar.
Harter, L.M. 2009. Narrative as dialogic, contexted, and aesthetic performances. Journal of Applied Communication Research 37(2): 140–150.
Heckmann, G. 1993. Das Socratische Gespräch. Erfahrungen in philosophischen Hochschulseminaren. Frankfurt am Main: dipa-Verlag.
Herrestad, H. 2002. Short socratic dialogue. In Philosophy in society, ed. H. Herrestad, A. Holt, and H. Svare, 91–102. Oslo: Unipubforlag.
Kearney, R. 2002. On stories. London and New York: Routledge.
Kessels, J. 2001. Die Macht der Argumente. Die sokratische Methode der Gesprächsführung in der Unternehmenspraxis. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.
Kleinman, A. 1988. The illness narratives. Suffering, healing and the human condition. New York: Basic Books.
Knox, J.B.L. 2015. Sculpting reflection and being in the presence of mystery—Perspectives on the act of philosophizing in practice with people recovering from cancer. HASER International Journal on Philosophical Practice 6: 53–79.
Krohn, D. 2004. Theory and practice of socratic dialogue. In Enquiring minds. Socratic dialogue in education, ed. R. Saran, and B. Neisser, 15–24. Stoke on Trent (UK): Trentham Books.
Lippitt, J. 2007. Getting the story straight: Kierkegaard, MacIntyre and some problems with narrative. Inquiry 50(1): 34–69.
MacIntyre, A. 2014/1981. After virtue: A study in moral theory. New York: Bloomsbury.
Mattingly, C. 1998. Healing dramas and clinical plots. The narrative structure of experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mattingly, C. 2010. The paradox of hope. Journeys through a clinical borderland. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mattingly, C. 2014. Moral laboratories: Family peril and the struggle for a good life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nelson, L. 1949. Socratic method and critical philosophy. New York: Dover Publications Inc.
Nussbaum, M. 1994. The therapy of desire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ricoeur, P. 1992. Oneself as another. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ricoeur, P. 1991. Life in quest of narrative. In On Paul Ricoeur, ed. David Wood. London and New York: Routledge.
Ricoeur, P. 1984. Time and narrative. (Trans: McLaughlin K and Pellauer D) Vol. 1. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Riessman, C.K. 2003. Performing identities in illness narrative: Masculinity and multiple sclerosis. Qualitative Research 3(1): 5–33.
Sacks, O. 1987. The man who mistook his wife for a hat and other clinical tales. New York: Perennial Library.
Strawson, G. 2004. Against narrativity. Ratio 17(4): 428–452.
Svare, H. 2010. Socratic dialogue and narrative theory. In The challenge of dialogue, ed. J.P. Brune, H. Gronke, and D. Krohn, 63–72. Berlin: Lit Verlag.
Taylor, C. 1989. Sources of the self. The making of modern identity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Thorne, S. 2009. Is the story enough? Quality Health Research 19(9): 1183–1185.
Vice, S. 2003. Literature and the narrative self. Philosophy 78(1): 93–108.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the participants in this project who generously shared their existential experiences at a most challenging time in their lives.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Knox, J.B.L., Svendsen, M.N. Authoring experience: the significance and performance of storytelling in Socratic dialogue with rehabilitating cancer patients. Med Health Care and Philos 18, 409–420 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-015-9641-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-015-9641-x