Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Dialogical self theory and mediation. Toward a self-narrative model of conflict resolution
.pdf
5. Conclusion
The current theoretical dissertation has not aimed to address any specific problem
and as a result has had no special urge to initiate a guided research in order to prove or
disprove testable hypotheses. Rather this work can be characterized as creative and
facilitative. It represents a synthesis of psychological theory of dialogical self and
some elements of transformative theory applied to the field of mediation. As a result of
this synthesis a new experimental self-narrative model of conflict resolution has
emerged. The main motivation for conducting such an experiment is partly explained
by trends in the discursive development of the theory and practice of mediation from
purely goal-oriented towards transformative as well as partly by student's own will to
thoroughly study dialogical self theory and practice.
In the Chapter 2.1 the selected readings on mediation have been applied to the
time scale in order to monitor main discursive developments in the field of mediation.
The literature review allowed to identify that over the course of time the practitioners
and scholars changed the habitual angle from which mediation has been known to be
seen for many years, which assumes a problem-solving approach to mediation. Apart
from the fundamental debate over the purpose and benefit of mediation, that is, problemsolving vs. transformative, review showed that debates in the field have gone other
directions regarding discursive levels of analytical study of mediation, e.g. interactionalstructural level vs. legal-practical level. As well, it showed that principles of a thirdparty's neutrality as well as issues of fairness have been hotly contested by many
supporters and adversaries since their inception. In the light of these issues, in the
Chapter 2.2. there has been a revolutionary transformative model of mediation
presented, which directly has addressed the necessity of structuring the process of
mediation around the communicative interactional qualities of mediation talks. It also
addressed the problem of over-directness of mediators. The reason for a tight control
of mediation sessions has been explained by courts' directive for mediators to make
parties reach a consensus by all means. Despite this fact, the supporters of the
transformative model plead for necessity of empowering parties at increasing their
skills in dealing with conflict instead of taking over control. In the Chapter 2.3. these
61
insights have been summarized as well as it has been proposed that the change in the
attitude to mediation has given an impetus for further theoretical and practical
advancement of the field by bringing together practices from neighboring fields such
as communication studies, social sciences, psychology, therapy and counseling.
Chapter 3 presented the essence of practice and theory of the dialogical self, a
psychological concept developed by Hermans et al. It proposes that the self is composed
of multiple internal and external I-positions between which I fluctuates constantly
involved in the process of positioning, counter-positioning and repositioning. It was
suggested that for dialogical self the notions of space and time are paramount. The self is
known to have the capacity to extend itself to others, according to the basic distinction
between I, me and mine introduced by James. Using a stage metaphor, Hermans
suggested that internal I-positions enter the stage from the left, while the external Ipositions, that is, significant others, from the right. It has been proposed that I is able to
switch between these different sometimes opposed positions. To identify these positions
Hermans devised Personal Position Repertoire (PPR) method. Using the temporal
perspective, Hermans and colleagues suggested that the self is a motivated story-teller
who is keen on telling stories about significant people and events from his or her life,
that are of value, from past, present and future. The theory based on this assumption is
thus called Valuation Theory. The method for eliciting valuations and emotions
associated with them is called Self-Confrontation Method (SCM). Bearing in mind these
findings from dialogical or better to say narrative self theory and practice, the Chapter 4
elaborates on an experimental self- narrative model of conflict resolution.
Chapter 4 derived from synthesis of intra-psychological concept of narrative
self and a triadic form of dispute resolution mediation. This is where psychological
and social collide. In order to avoid confusing soul-searching, in the new experimental
model, the self is restricted to two basic I positions: I as I and I as You, where you is
the opposed conflicting party. Besides, it has been suggested a notion of personal
social space. Personal social space is a place where all person's significant others meet.
That is where also I's opponent (another conflicting party) belong. The idea behind the
setting is to invite one conflicting party to take over a perspective of the other party.
What is more important, to engage one party in constructing of conflict-story on the
62
behalf of I as You position, that is, to make assumptions about assumptions of the
other. It has already been discussed that these assumptions can be inaccurate and that
there is always a risk of taking a wrong path. In order not to mislead parties even
more, it has been suggested to avoid a construction of the third neutral position, as has
been proposed by Hermans et al, in mind of a single participant. It is rather advisable
to work on an alternative story altogether. The point behind self-narrative from an
alternative position is valid action of taking perspective of the other.
The self-narrative model of mediation is a culmination of a long theoretical
journey from the intra-personal to the inter-personal. Of course, one is to understand that
this is only a hypothetical model, that disclaims any pretence to reality or feasibility.
Regrettably, now it is hard to say whether the current model advances the field of
mediation in any particular way, since empirical observations on this account are
missing. Yet, a valuable input for mediation from the practice of narrative self is the
notion of “perspective-taking in action”, that is, perspective-taking in one's narrative.
One further asset of this work is that it made possible to appease student's own curiosity
on its own terms. Concerning the dialogical self theory, the further research should go
more into the direction of studying the self in its social context.
63
References
Auerbach, J. S. (1983). Justice without law? New-York: Oxford University Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1973). Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. Ann Arbor: Ardis. (Original work
published 1929 as Problemy tvorchestva Dostoevskogo [Problems of Dostoevsky’s Art]).
Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics (Ed. and trans. by Caryl
Emerson). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Besemer, C. (1993). Mediation: Vermittlung in Konflikten. Königsfeld. Bohm, D.
(1996). On Dialogue. New-York: Routledge.
Branco, A. U., Branco, A. L., and Madureira, A. F. (2008). Self-development and the
emergence of new I-Positions: emotions and self-dynamics. In: Studia Psychologica, 7, 23-
39.
Breidenbach, S. (1995). Mediation: Struktur, Chancen und Risiken von Vermittlung im
Konflikt. Köln: Dr. Otto Schmidt KG.
Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou: A New Translation with a Prologue 'I and You' and
notes by Walter Kaufmann. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Busch, D. (2007). Interkulturelle Mediation: Eine theoretische Grundlegung
triadischer Konfliktbearbeitung in interkulturell bedingten Kontexten (2. Auflage).
Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Bush, R. A. B., Folger; J. P. (2005). The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative
Approach to Conflict (rev.ed.). San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cast A. D., Stets, J. E. And Burke, P. J. (1999). Does the self conform to the views of
others? In: Social Psychology Quaterly, 62, 68-82.
Cooper, M. and Hermans, H. J. M. (2007). Honoring self-otherness: Alterity and the
intrapersonal. In: L. Simão and J. Valsiner (Eds.). Otherness in question: Labyrinths of the
self. Greenwich: Information Age. 305-315.
Damasio, A. (2010). Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. NewYork: Pantheon.
Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., and Patton, B. (1999). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
Without Giving In. [pdf] London: Random House Business Books. Available at:
http://6thfloor.pp.fi/fgv/gettingtoyes.pdf [Retrieved October 2012].
Folberg, J., Taylor, A. (1984). Mediation: A Comprehensive Guide to Resolving
Conflicts Without Litigation. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
64
Gaynier, L. P. (2005). Transformative Mediation: In Search of a Theory of Practice.
In: Conflict Resolution Quaterly, 22 (3), 397-408. Available at:
http://download.clib.psu.ac.th/datawebclib/e_resource/trial_database/WileyInterScienceCD/p
d f/CRQ/CRQ_3.pdf [Retrieved January 2013].
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: psychological theory and women's
development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hansen, T. (2003). The Narrative Approach to Mediation. [online article] Available at:
http://www.mediate.com/articles/hansent.cfm [Retrieved January 2013].
Haumersen, P., Liebe, F. (2005). Interkulturelle Mediation. Empirisch-analytische
Annährung an die Bedeutung von kulturellen Unterschieden. In: D. Busch and H. Schröder
(Eds.). Perspektiven Interkultureller Mediation. Grundlagentexte zur
kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Analyse triadischer Verständigung. Frankfurt/Main: Peter
Lang, 63-80.
Hermans, H. J. M. (1987). Self as an Organized System of Valuations: Toward a
Dialogue with the Person. In: Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34 (1), 10-19.
Hermans, H. J. M. (2001a). The dialogical self: toward a theory of personal and
cultural positioning. In: Culture & Psychology, 7 (3), 243-281.
Hermans, H. J. M. (2001b). The construction of a personal position repertoire:
Method and practice. In: Culture & Psychology, 7 (3), 323-366. Available at:
http://www.socsci.kun.nl/~hermans/323.pdf [Retrieved December 2012].
Hermans, H. J. M., Dimaggio, G. (Eds.) (2004). The dialogical self in psychotherapy.
Hove: Brunner-Routledge.
Hermans, H. J. M., Gieser, T. (2012). Introductory chapter: History, main tenets and
core concepts of dialogical self theory. In: H. J. M. Hermans, T. Gieser (Eds.). Handbook of
Dialogical Self Theory. New-York: Cambridge University Press. 1-22.
Hermans, H. J. M., and Hermans-Jansen, E. (1995). Self-Narratives: The
Construction of Meaning in Psychotherapy. New-York: Guilford.
Hermans, H. J. M., Hermans-Konopka, A. (2010). Dialogical Self Theory:
Positioning and Counter-Positioning in a Globalizing Society. New-York: Cambridge
University Press.
Hermans, H. J. M., Kempen, H. J. G., and van Loon, R. J. P. (1992). The Dialogical
Self: Beyond Rationalism and Individualism. In: American Psychologist, 47 (1), 23-33.
65
Irvine, Ch. (2006). Transformative Mediation: A Critique. Assignment for MSc in
Conflict Resolution and Mediation Studies, Birkbeck College, University of London.
Available at: http://charlieirvinemediation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/transformativemediation-a- critique-sep-07.pdf [Retrieved January 2013].
James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology (Vol. 1). London: Macmillan.
Jasper, C. A., Moore, H. R., Whittaker L. S., and Gillespie A. (2012). Methodological
approaches to studying the self in its social context. In: H. J. M. Hermans and T. Gieser
(Eds). The Handbook of Dialogical Self Theory. New-York: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter 18.
Kluger, A. N., Nir, D. and Kluger, Y. (2008). Personal Position Repertoire (PPR) from
a Bird's Eye View. In: Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 21 (3), 223-238. Availble at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10720530802071518 [Retrieved December
2012]
Kuusela, P. (2011). Book Review: Dialogical Self Theory. Positioning and CounterPositioning in a Globalizng Society by Hubert Hermans and Agnieszka Hermans-Konopka.
Cambridge University Press, 404 pages, 2010. In: Qualitative Sociology Review, 7 (2), 121-
124. Available at: http://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/archive_eng.php
[Retrieved June 2012]
Lambie, J. A., Marcel, A. J. (2002). Consciousness and the varieties of emotion
experience: A theoretical framework. In: Psychological Review, 109, 219-259.
Langfeldt, H.-P., Nothdurft, W. (2007). Psychologie. Grundlagen und Perspektiven
für die Soziale Arbeit. München, Basel: Ernst Reinhardt.
Lewis, M. D. (2002). The dialogical brain: contributions of emotional neurobiology to
understanding the dialogical self. In: Theory & Psychology, 12, 175-190.
McNamee, S., Gergen, K. J. (1999). Relational Responsibility: Resources for
Sustainable Dialogue. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Menkel-Meadow, C. (1995). Many ways of mediation: The Transformation of Traditions,
Ideologies, Paradigms, and Practices. In: Negotiation Journal, 11 (3), 217-242.
Minsky, M. (1985). The Society of Mind. New-York: Simon & Schuster.
Nothdurft, W. (1995a). Environmental Mediation: Insights into the Microcosm and
Outlooks for Political Implications. In: O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann (Eds.) (1995).
66
Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Springer. Ch.
15.
Nothdurft, W. (1997). Konfliktstoff. Gesprächsanalyse der Konfliktbearbeitung in
Schlichtungsgesprächen. Berlin, New-York: de Gruyter.
Nothdurft, W. (Ed.) (1995b). Streit schlichten: Gesprächsanalytische Untersuchungen
zu institutionellen Formen konsensueller Konfliktregelung. Berlin, New-York: de Gruyter.
Nothdurft, W., Spranz-Fogasy, T. (1986). Der kulturelle Kontext von Schlichtung.
Zum Stand der Schlichtungsforschung in der Rechtsanthropologie. In: Zeitschrift für
Rechtssoziologie, 1, 31-52.
Oberman, S. (2009). Style vs. Model: Why Quibble? In: Pepperdine Dispute
Resolution Law Journal, 9 (1), Article 1. Available at:
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/drlj/vol9/iss1/1/ [Retrieved January 2013].
Parsons, T. (1937). The Structure of Social Action: A Study in Social Theory with
Special Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers. New-York: McGraw-Hill.
Perls, F., Hefferline R., and Goodman P. (1951). Gestalt Theory. London: Souvenir
Press. Robertson, R. (1995). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London: Sage.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New-York: Basic Books.
Seul, R. J. (1999). How Transformative is Transformative Mediation?: A
Constructive- Developmetal Assessment. In: Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 15
(1), 135-172.
Shrauger J. S., Schoeneman T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of self-concept:
through the looking glas darkly. In: Psychological Bulletin, 86, 549-573.
Silbey, S. S. (1993). Mediation Mythology. In: Negotiation Journal, 9 (4), 349-352.
[pdf] Available at: http://web.mit.edu/ssilbey/www/pdf/meditation.pdf [Retrieved December
2012].
Silbey, S. S., Merry, S. E. (1986). Mediator Settlement Strategies. In: LAW &
POLICY, 8 (1), 7-32. [pdf] Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-
9930.1986.tb00368.x/pdf [Retrieved December 2012].
Sinclair, G. (2007). Mediation, Transformation and Consultation: A Comparative
Analysis of Conflict Resolution Models. In: Online Journal of Bahá'í Studies, 1, 445-461.
Available at: http://oj.bahaistudies.net/OJBS_1_Sinclair_Mediation.pdf [Retrieved January
2013].
67
Spencer, D., Altobelli, T. (2005). Dispute Resolution in Australia. Cases, Commentary
and Materials. Riverwood NSW: Ligare Pty Ltd. Available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation [Retrieved July 2011].
Van Gramberg, B. (2006). Managing Workplace Conflict: Alternative Dispute
Resolution in Australia. [e-book] Sydney: The Federation Press. Available at: Google Books
[Retrieved December 2012].
Whiting, R. A. (1982). The Use of Mediation as a Dispute Settlement Tool: A
Historical Review and Scientific Examination of the Role and Process of Mediation. NIDR.
Williams, M. (1997). Can't I Get No Satisfaction? Thoughts on the Promise of
Mediation. In: Mediation Quaterly, 15 (2), 143.
Winslade, J., Monk, G. (2000). Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict
Resolution. San-Francisco: Jossey Bass.
68
Appendix 1: Full list of internal and external positions proposed by Hermans
2001b: 363-364
69
Appendix 2: Full list of affective terms proposed by Hermans and Hermans-
Jansen (1995)
1. Joy (P)
2. Powerlessness (N)
3. Self-Esteem (S)
4. Anxiety (N)
5. Satisfaction (P)
6. Strength (S)
7. Shame (N)
8. Enjoyment (P)
9. Care (O)
10. Love (O)
11. Self-Alienation (N)
12. Tenderness (O)
13. Guilt (N)
14. Self-Confidence (S)
15. Loneliness (N)
16. Trust (P)
17. Inferiority (N)
18. Intimacy (O)
19. Safety (P)
20. Anger (N)
21. Pride (S)
22. Energy (P)
23. Inner calm (P)
24. Freedom (P)
Note: (P) = positive affect term; (N) = negative affect term; (S) = affect term related
to self- esteem; (O) = affect term related to desire of contact with others.
70
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]