Abstract
From a cultural and psychological perspective, everyday life’s meaning generation is a treasure box of highly important and complex mechanisms. The potential use of the cultural thinking stream, inhabiting the individual’s perception of their reality, is increasingly connected and connects to a multitude of psychological and scientific streams. By generating a new model, the concepts of irreversible time will be connected with you- (from self and other constructed concepts) and I-positioning generations, allowing us to dive deeper into the complexity of the Gegenwarts-experienced phenomena. Unfortunately, the direct application of such a theoretical elaboration to the individual phenomena is rare, wherefore the redefined model will be discussed using a wide range of daily occurrences. In this paper, the question of “how multi-dimensional visualizations are used to define the concept of now and how they impact the self in form of self-dialogues between inner voices?” is generated. The potential for therapeutical measures and theoretical implications will be derived from the findings and subsequently presented. Meanwhile, the theoretical baseline will be used to link the concepts of how beings perceive their reality and how art and science can function as interactive tools for a more I-centered expression of inner distress.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Not applicable, no datasets were generated or analyzed.
Notes
The I-position is a term that generalize the dynamic multi-constructed unites of meaning, a connection that represents a role that we as human beings are believing to embody, or we desire to embody currently. It is a unite that is constructed by an accumulation of believes and understanding of the self and the environment -self-environment dialogue- and changes by the confrontation with other I-positions. The I-position is one of multiple believes of the self that emphasize a certain decision and try to direct the self - the temporary I-position accumulation in charge- to a certain behavior or meaning configuration/making. I-position are extremely dynamic goods that can are permanently in change through their confrontation with new experiences (Herman, 2001).
The dialogical self as self that is construct, resulting out of the dialogues between a multitude of internal positions, generated though the experienced made throughout the own life span. Allowing contradiction in behavior and thoughts.
3 Hyper generalizations, as a field where meaning is located, generated in such compressed form in the human mind that the individual him/herself is not able anymore to describe certain personal feelings, needs and desires. The meaning complex and dynamic in its Gestalt is hidden in the multiple layers of experiences and co-existing meaning constructions. A process that makes certain individual understandings temporarily to felt but not describable constructs (Valsiner, 2020).
Metaphysical: Represent the non-physical layers that beside the physical notions exist, as for example “our thoughts”. Thoughts exist while their physical shape and how we individually perceive those in our everyday life are different; electrical impulses vs. complex information-streams, that we observe as picture and feelings.
Meadow is a metaphorical description and extension of dialogical self, allowing to emphasize the constant development of the self by the organic nature of the metaphor, while underlining the fields notion of dynamic and complex co-existence (Campill, 2021).
People create cognitive and affective orders through processes of interpretation and sense-making, who create the possibility for themselves to be classified in highly complex situations and environments. Man becomes an “animal symbolicum” and is guided by performative needs and desires, which become comprehensible by communicating them in the everyday life (Valsiner, 2020).
Gegenwart = Now, in its meaning the “Gegen-” is standing as in Gegenstand as “opposing” sth, whereby “-wart” can be conducted as past tense of being. Leading in this paper to the use of Gegenwart as process of opposing past, while moving constantly into the future.
An example that has been elaborated to emphasize a potential proceeding of an experience and experiencing in a certain moment. It is only one of multiple possibilities and is used to trigger the readings own experiencing and reflections to emphasize with the until know developed axioms.
Sharing the own experiences and challenges as client of the own everyday life, while following the upcoming memories, triggered in the therapeutic setting.
the client is looking to the therapist as a kind of savior and the therapist is rejecting this attempt by the client and so the therapist generates their own statement of depression.
In this occasion also the therapist can check if and what kind of I-positions he/she had shared. Furthermore, this can help to reduce the pressure from the client who could otherwise feel a potential pressure by the high attention of the dialoguing partner.
Initialized by Schoppenhauer. A state I use to describe the “enjoying” or existing in the Gegenwart, without reflecting, projecting, and comparing the current challenges (ruptures) with the remembered past and the potential future. A simple state of taking every challenge as a current challenge, not standing in relation with any past of future factors.
References
Allport, G. W. (1967). Gordon W. Allport In E. G. Boring & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Century psychology series. A history of psychology in autobiography, Vol. 5 (p. 1–25). Appleton-Century-Crofts. https://doi.org/10.1037/11579-001
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of reality: a Treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Allen Lane.
Bisgaard, C. H., Campill, M. A., von Fircks, E., & Valsiner, J. (In Press) Layered Attunement: Internal dialogues of intersubjectivity. Dialogic Perspectives in Times of Change. New York:Oxford UP
Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (1993). Meeting at the crossroads: women’s psychology and girls’ development. Feminism & Psychology, 3(1), 11–35.
Campill, M. A. (2021a). Towards a wholistic model of identity: why not a meadow? Integrative psychological and Behavioral Science, 55, 112–127.
Campill, M. A. (2021b). Dialogue Around Favors: Introducing a Field Model of How Service is Psychologically Possible.Human Arenas,1–16.
Campill, M. (In press). A. Cultivation in self and environment: When a voice echoes from one garden to another. The semiotic field of the gardendvances in Cultural Psychology
Campill, M. A., & Valsiner, J. (2021). Spiral and Helical Models for Psychology: Leaving Linearity Behind. Human Arenas, 1–21.
Durkheim, E. (1977). On education and society.Power and ideology in education,92–105.
Elms, A. C. (1972). Allport, Freud, and the clean little boy. Psychoanalytic Review, 59(4), 627–632.
Faber, M. D. (1970). Allport’s visit with Freud. Psychoanalytic review, 57(1), 60–64.
Günther, L. P. (2021). Homo allegoris: How art perception and allegory analysis reveal the life script ideology. Human arenas, 4(3), 471–486.
Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The Dialogical Self: toward a theory of Personal and Cultural Positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X0173001.
Inhorn, M. C., & Brown, P. J. (1990). The anthropology of infectious disease. Annual review of Anthropology, 19(1), 89–117.
Keck, V. (1993). Two ways of explaining reality: the sickness of a small boy of Papua New Guinea from anthropological and biomedical perspectives. Oceania, 63(4), 294–312.
Kiegelmann, M. (2000). Qualitativ-psychologische Forschung mit dem Voice-Ansatz. In F. Breuer, K. Mruck & Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Carl Ratner (Eds.), 1(2), Art. 13, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002136.
Morey, L. C. (1987). Observations on the meeting between Allport and Freud. Psychoanalytic review, 74(1), 135–139.
Rommetveit, R. (1985). Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behavior control. Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives, 183–204.
Valsiner, J. (2009). Between fiction and reality: transforming the semiotic object. Σηµειωτκή-Sign Systems Studies, 37(1–2), 99–113.
Valsiner, J. (2011). Constructing the vanishing present between the future and the past. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 34(2), 141–150.
Valsiner, J. (2020). Hyper-generalization by the human mind: The role of sign hierarchies in meaning-making Hans-Kilian-Preis 2017. processes. In Giessen: PsychoSozial Verlag.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to my (above-mentioned) sister Sarah, who helped me to realize this paper. And for her strong I-as-a-big-sister-position. Without her, this paper would not be the same.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
None.
Ethical Approval
No need for approval as it is a theoretical article.
Informed Consent
None.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Campill, M.A. A Challenging Dialogue in the Gegenwart: The Current Meaning Generation Reflected by Emotional Awareness. Integr. psych. behav. 57, 738–757 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-023-09749-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-023-09749-0