Abstract
In this paper the author comments on the contribution by António P. Ribeiro and Miguel M. Gonçalves (in this journal) that offer a creative and unique perspective on maintenance and transformation of problematic self-narrative. From here the author contributes to the topic through the exploration of some issues: a) the relation, in the dialogical process of self-narrative construction, between semiotic processes that give voice to the semantic opposition and semiotic processes that give voice to the contradictory; b) the relation between sameness and ipseity in the self-narrative process; c) the role of a pathemic axis of meaning in the generation process of self-narratives. A final reflection is done on narrative as a device of clinical intervention in which the author makes a distinction between methods based on the recognition and extension of variability and methods based on the recognition of permanency so to get to variability.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
We use the concept of organization in reference to Maturana, as an abstract representation of relations. In the case of narrative organization it is the semiotic process that give order to the flux of events in reason of a perspective and, in so doing, contribute to the definition of the relation between the subject and the experience.
In this contribution, with reference to the works of Fornari (1976), Bion (1962, 1963, 1965) and Matte Blanco (1975) emotion is considered as a mind mode of functioning, ruled by specific logics, different from that of formal thought. On the background of what we have proposed can be found the idea that mental and symbolic processuality is a layered system with various gradients of interconnection between formal and emotional logic.
A thing usually happening in a dialogue between good friends.
In this paragraph my thinking is undoubtedly influenced by a psychodynamic matrix of thought that recognize to the perception of the absence a fundamental role in the generation of thought (Bion 1963).
I realize that in this contribute all the question about the therapeutic relationship, as an intersubjective and dialogic field of sense building, have been leaved in the background; and this happened also to the question about narrative as a process of interpretative collaboration, of co-construction between a narrator and an interlocutor. I am sad for this reduction of the discussion field, caused by space reason, and I refer the reader to other contributions where I discussed this questions (Freda 2004, 2008a, b, 2010).
References
Angus, L., & McLeod, J. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of narrative and psychotherapy: Practice, theory and research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature, a necessary unity. New York: Dutton.
Bion, W. R. (1962). Learning from experience. London: William Heinemann.
Bion, W. R. (1963). Elements of psychoanalysis. London: William Heinemann.
Bion, W. R. (1965). Transformation. London: William Heinemann.
Bromberg, P. M. (1996). Standing in the space: the multiplicity of the self and the psychoanalytic relationship. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 32, 509–535.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge (Mass): Harvard University Press.
Corrao, F. (1987). Il narrativo come categoria psicoanalitica. In F. Corrao Orme. Contributi alla Psicoanalisi. Volume primo. [Traces. Contribution to Psychoanalysis. First volume] Milano: Raffaello Cortina 1998, pp 180–189.
Corrao, F. (1991). Trasformazioni narrative. [Narrative transformations.] In M. Ammaniti, & D. N. Stern (Eds.), Rappresentazioni e narrazioni, [Representations and narratives] Bari: Laterza, pp. 43–52.
Eco, U. (1975). Trattato di semiotica generale. [A Theory of Semiotics]. Milano: Bompiani.
Fornari, F. (1976). Simbolo e codice. [Symbol and code]. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Freda, M. F. (2004). Metodi narrativi e formazione professionale: connettere e contestualizzare.[Narrative methods and professional formation: to relate and contextualize. In B. Ligorio (Ed.), Psicologie e culture. Contesti, Identità ed Interventi, [Psychologies and cultures. Contexts, identities and interventions] (pp. 263–287). Roma: Edizioni Carlo Amore.
Freda, M. F. (2008a). Understanding narrative role in depicting meaning and clinical intervention. In S. Salvatore, J. Valsiner, S. Strout Yagodzynski, & J. Clegg (Eds.), YIS yearbook of idiographic science. Carlo Amore: Roma.
Freda, M. F. (2008b). Narrazione e intervento in psicologia clinica. [Narrative and intervention in Clinical Psychology]. Napoli: Edizioni Liguori.
Freda, M. F. (2010). Narrative between logos and pathos. The role of storytelling in clinical psychology. In S. Salvatore, & T. Zittoun (eds) Cultural psychology and Psychoanalysis in dialogue. Issue for constructive theoretical and Methodological Synergies. Charlotte NC: in press.
Greimas, A. J. (1966). Semantica strutturale. [Structural Semantics] Tr. it. Milano, Rizzoli, 1969.
Greimas, A. J. (1987) de l’imperfection. Paris: Fanlac Tr. it. Dell’imperfezione. Tr. It. Firenze: Sellerio.
Greimas, A. J., & Fontanille, J. (1991). Sémiotique des passions: Des états de choses aux états d’âme. Paris: Seuil Tr. It.
Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The dialogical self: toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7, 243–281.
Hermans, H. J. M., & Dimaggio, G. (2004). The dialogical self in psychotherapy: an introduction. In H. J. M. Hermans & G. Dimaggio (Eds.), The dialogical self in psychotherapy (pp. 1–10). London: Brunner-Routledge.
Matte Blanco, I. (1975). The unconscious as infinite sets. An essay in Bi-logic. Gerald Duckworth and Company: London.
Matte Bon. (1999). Lingua, analisi della lingua e bi-logica [Antinomy of the primeval]. In P. Bria & F. Oneroso (Eds.), L’inconscio Antinomico. [The antinomical unconscious.] (pp. 44–53). Milano: Franco Angeli.
McLeod, J. (2006). Narrative thinking and the emergence of postpsychological therapies. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 201–210.
Ricoeur, P. (1990). Soi-mème comme un otre. Paris: P. Imprenta.
Salvatore, S. (2004). Inconscio e discorso. Inconscio come discorso.[Unconscious and discourse. Unconscious as discourse.] In B. Ligorio (a cura di), Psicologie e culture. Contesti, identità e interventi, [Psychologies and cultures. Contexts, identities and interventions.] Roma: Edizioni Carlo Amore, pp. 125–155.
Salvatore, S., & Freda, M. F. (2011). Affects, unconscious and sensemaking. A psychodynamic, semiotic and dialogic model. New Ideas in Psychology, 29(2), 119–135.
Salvatore, S., Freda, M. F., Ligorio, B., Iannaccone, A., Rubino, F., & Scotto di Carlo, M., et al. (2003). Socioconstructivism and theory of the unconscious. A gaze over a research horizon. European Journal of School Psychology, 3(1), 9–41.
Salvatore, S., Tebaldi, C., & Poti, S. (2008). The discursive dynamic of sensemaking. In S. Salvatore, J. Valsiner, S. Strout, & J. Clegg (Eds.), YIS: Yearbook of Idiographic Science 2008-Volume 1, pp. 39–72. Rome: Firera Publishing. First published 2006, in International Journal of Idiographic Science [On Line Journal], Article 3. Retrieved (September 20, 2008) from http://www.valsiner.com/articles/salvatore.htm
Valsiner, J. (2002). Forms of dialogical relations and semiotic autoregulation within the self. Theory and Psychology, 12, 251–265.
Valsiner, J. (2007). Culture in minds and societies. New Delhi: Sage.