Modes of Tension Work Within The Complex Self

Culture & Psychology
http://cap.sagepub.com Modes of Tension Work within the Complex Self

Emily Abbey and Rachel Joffe Falmagne Culture Psychology 2008; 14; 95 DOI: 10.1177/1354067X07082749 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cap.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/95
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Culture & Psychology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cap.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cap.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://cap.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/14/1/95
Downloaded from http://cap.sagepub.com at CAPES on March 24, 2009
Article
Abstract As part of increased attention to the complexity of self and subjectivity, Falmagne recently presented a theory in which self is seen as constituted through the dialectic among processes at societal, local and personal (i.e., agentive) levels. The self, so constituted, can be hybrid and lled with tensions, yet it remains substantial rather than uid. Building from this perspective and related approaches, the aim of this article is to contribute to the growing understanding of self complexity by focusing on how individuals create cohesive selves and minds despite the presence of tension and contradiction. Our focus involves a detailed textual analysis of the tension work that individuals perform as they reason through contradictory beliefs. Based on these analyses, this article identies three unique strategies for creating cohesion amidst contradiction. Key Words complexity, contradiction, dialectic, mind, self, tension work
Emily Abbey
Ramapo College of New Jersey, USA
Rachel Joffe Falmagne

Clark University, USA
Modes of Tension Work within the Complex Self

In the past decades, researchers in the social sciences have given new attention to the complexity of self, gradually distancing from notions of a singular, bounded self, as ideas of social constitution, multiplicity and hybridity increasingly nd purchase. With this increased focus of attention come perspectives that conceptualize self as cohesive, despite the presence of discordant and potentially conicting aspects. Dialogical approaches, for instance, consider the self as composed of an array of relatively autonomous I-positions, and suggest that diverging, even opposed positions, are joined through dialogue (e.g., Hermans, 2001; Hermans & Kempen, 1993). From a different theoretical basis, some Chicana feminists highlight the experience of hybridity and nonbelonging, putting forth notions such as mestiza consciousness (Anzalda, 1999) to describe the experience of transcending dichotomies through profound tolerance for ambiguity.
Culture & Psychology Copyright 2008 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) http://cap.sagepub.com Vol. 14(1): 95113 [DOI: 10.1177/1354067X07082749]
Culture & Psychology 14(1)
As part of this increased attention to the complexity of self, Falmagne (2004) has argued for the need to conceptualize human functioning within a broad, societal frame of reference that draws on macro-social as well as local processes of social constitution and includes both the material and the discursive constituents of the social world. The theory formulates a systemic account in which the constitution of self results from the dialectic interplay of discursive and material processes at macro-social, local and personal levels.1 The self, so constituted, can be hybrid, lled with tensions, yet it remains substantial rather than uid. Building on this perspective and related approaches to self complexity, this article focuses on how individuals create cohesive selves despite the presence of tension and contradiction in their thinking and their personal investments. Our focus involves a detailed textual analysis of moments where individuals are reasoning through contradictions in their beliefs. We suggest that there may be an array of strategies for creating cohesion amidst contradiction as individuals carry out what we term tension work, and in this article three such modes are considered in detail.
Perspectives on Self Complexity

Falmagnes Societal Approach At the center of Falmagnes (2004) systemic account of the constitution of self and mind is the dialectic interplay of processes at three levels of analysis: societal, local and personal. Two ideas are key. First, processes at the local and the macro-social level are interdependent and complementary. In particular, various poststructural accounts in the past decades have emphasized the notion that self is a continually negotiated construction, positioned and repositioned through local discursive processes. The theory incorporates such local discursive processes but, in contrast to previous approaches, emphasizes that any local discursive positioning is itself congured by, and deployed within, processes operating at a societal level: Local negotiations of power and of subject positions take place within the macro-level material and discursive social relations . . . and are congured (though not determined) by those relations (Falmagne, 2004, p. 827). For instance, it is noted that a local, contextually situated discursive move of positioning oneself as an authority depends upon the existence of a societal-level discourse/structure of authority (i.e., based on status or expertise) to provide its meaning and legitimacy. Without such a societal-level discourse and structure, the local 96
Abbey & Falmagne Modes of Tension Work
discursive move would either be meaningless or have an entirely different meaning. Second, the constitution of self and mind results from dialectic interplay between those processes of social constitution and individual agency. While social subjects contribute to social reproduction by instantiating processes of social constitution in their subjectivity, their actions and their thinking, they are, equally, active agents who appropriate, resist, transform or modulate available societal discourses, who negotiate their social location, and who discursively co-construct their local positioning in specic situations. The person agentively constructs his/her own identity over time by appropriating, contesting or reinterpreting available discourses and positioning himself/herself in particular ways in the discursive practices in which she/he has participated (Falmagne, 2004, pp. 839840). However, this agentive work has a bounded exibility, as the persons agency is not only constructed within local and societal level processes but also constrained by the same. Because the individual is located, individual agency is, of necessity, only deployed locally, and its effect must be produced through a dialectic engagement with systemic processes that both constrain and enable those local negotiations (pp. 839840). Dialogical Approaches and Postcolonial Feminist Approaches Dialogical approaches (Hermans, 2001; Hermans & Kempen, 1993; Valsiner, 2002) are also concerned with the complexity of the self. Theorizing unity amidst multiplicity, Hermans dialogical approach combines James distinction between the self as knower (I) and the self as known (me) (James, 1890) with Bakhtins philosophical notion of dialogism (Bakhtin, 1981, 1929/1984). Metaphorically, Hermans suggests that the self is composed of an array of I-positions and remains unied as these positions, endowed with voices, dialogue with one another: The I uctuates among different, and even opposed, positions and has the capacity to imaginatively endow each position with a voice so that dialogical relations between positions can be established (Hermans, 1996, pp. 1112). In the dialogical self there can be contradictions, and different voices may disagree or even directly oppose one another, yet the self is understood to remain whole as these voices are united through dialogue. Of particular relevance, the dialogical perspective circumvents the frustration of a singular and bounded Cartesian self while maintaining a self that is substantial despite its internal heterogeneity (for a detailed discussion of this point, see Salgado & Hermans, 2005). That said, a limitation lies in the fact that societal-level processes of social 97
constitution generally have not been fully integrated into the theoretical formulation. The work of Bhatia (2002) and Bhatia and Ram (2001) offers one notable exception to this relative non-attendance: Drawing from a social-historical frame of reference, Bhatia and Ram argue that for some non-western and non-European immigrants, the close link between United States immigration laws and racist ideologies can be seen as constructive in the formation of certain I-positions (Bhatia & Ram, 2001, p. 303). In contrast to most dialogical approaches, some Chicana feminists have provided contributions to theory on self complexity that explicitly integrate societal-level processes into theory on self and subjectivity, and on that basis have offered several important theoretical constructs. For instance, as noted above, Gloria Anzalda (1999) introduces the notion of mestiza consciousness arising through experiences of simultaneously belonging and yet not belonging to various social and cultural spaces. She describes mestiza consciousness as a consciousness of the Borderlands (p. 99), as one that sees beyond dichotomies, holds a profound tolerance for ambiguity, and is held together by tension. From a similar, historicized perspective in which she theorizes the hybrid and heterogeneous self produced by the border experience of identifying with both the dominant and the marginalized social group(s), Lugones (1994/1996) introduces the notion of a curdled self. Using the metaphor of making mayonnaise, where if oil and egg yolk are mixed with haste they curdle into impure units, yolky oil and oily yolk (Lugones, 1994/1996, p. 276), Lugones points to a hybrid and heterogeneous self that dees fragmentation through an inherent curdled impurity: Curdles are distinct from one another, a distinctiveness that does not rely on homogeneity.
Toward an Account of Tension Work in a Complex Self

As here briey summarized, the past decades have seen different theoretical approaches to the complex self in which, broadly speaking, tensions are seen as generative (e.g., Josephs & Valsiner, 1998). Yet these theoretical approachesthe mestiza consciousness, the curdled self, the dialogical self or the systemic model presented hereneed further elaboration. The aim of this article is to contribute to an understanding of the strategies people employ to produce cohesion in a complex self. Building on the theoretical approaches just discussed, we examine in detail, using three mini-case studies, different ways in which individuals manage to preserve the cohesiveness of self and mind despite the presence of tensions and contradictions in their 98
thinking and their personal investments, by agentively engaging in tension work. Through in-depth textual analysis of individuals as they work through conicting beliefs in particular situations, we identify three modes of tension work: destabilizing, self-moderating and making inclusive exceptions. For this purpose, we make use of a series of interviews, conducted as part of a larger project that explored the reasoning of people considered as social agents occupying particular social locations and with particular cultural histories (Falmagne, 2003; Falmagne & Iselin, 2002). The project maintains two interlinked modes of analysis: analyses characterizing the knowledges and other resources involved in specic moments of reasoning; and, at a broader level, the construction of a prole of each participant that particularizes her in terms of her social location, her cultural history and family history, so as to provide an interpretive context for her reasoning (Falmagne, 2006a; Falmagne & Iselin, 2002). It is important to note that a participants cultural history and social location are used interpretively to understand her as a particular reasoner and to ground her moments of reasoning in her unique experience in the world, and never causally, or as a basis upon which to generalize to her social group. The same perspective and analytical strategy guide the analyses to be discussed here. In terms of the present analysis, self and mind are construed as closely intertwined and formed through the interplay of the persons agency and the forces of social constitution within her social-historical context. Self encompasses a persons modes of thinking, and thought is likewise guided by the persons sense of selfthought and affect are interlinked. The contradictions and tensions between beliefs the person encounters deeply implicate her self. Given these links between mind and self, the modes of tension work present in the persons reasoning are understood also to reect her attempts toward the achievement of a cohesive self more broadly. That said, our present focus is on the microanalysis of what the person does as she reasons through tensions and contradictions. The following sections examine case studies illustrating different modes of tension work. For each, the reader will rst nd a brief prole of the participant, particularizing her in terms of her social location, her cultural and personal history, and the salient themes that emerge from her overall approach to reasoning, a prole that reects the links between self and mind. This is followed by an in-depth, textual, consideration of the specic mode of tension work that characterized her engagement with tensions and contradictions. 99
Of the women2 in the baseline project whose transcripts were analyzed specically with the present focus, three cases have been selected for presentation below. They were selected because their reasoning displayed contradictions, and because together they illustrate interesting contrasts in the moment-by-moment mode of management of those tensions in the service of a cohesive self.
Three Modes of Tension Work

Clara Clara is a 21-year-old Caucasian woman of Jewish heritage, who was raised in an upper-middle-class community in the Northeastern United States, a community that she describes as predominantly white and protestant. Clara has always disliked the community in which she grew up, primarily because of its racial, ethnic and religious homogeneity. She notes explicitly an instance during her childhood where she and her brother were taunted for their religious afliation. Claras mother and father are married, and both teach at a private school located nearby. Clara attended this school because she found it more diverse than the public school in her hometown, and though she developed a few intensely meaningful friendships, her experience was strongly colored by a sense of being an outsider among otherwise wealthy students. Though sharing an exceptional talent in mathematics and physics with her brother, she recalls that until she scored highly on a middle school achievement test, it was only her brother who was considered competent in such areas. In her third year of a four-year college program, Clara has become interested in the social sciences, particularly sociology, though she is not clear on her future career plans. A prominent theme in Claras reasoning is a distrust of others, especially those who occupy positions of power. For Clara, this distrust is tied closely to her belief that people are easily (and at times even unknowingly) motivated in their decision making by prejudicial thinking rather than some set of basic facts. For instance, when asked about whether defendants in a criminal case should be particularized for the judge/jury deciding their fate, Clara argues that she does not trust either the judge or jury to be able to use such information fairly. She seems to fear that two people committing similar offenses may be punished differentially on the basis of their economic standing:
I dont trust them [jury members] to differentiate correctly between differences with two people who have committed the same crime. . . . Race and economic status . . . get taken into as much inuence in the courts as they do in our daily lives.
100
Another theme in Claras reasoning is her continual emphasis on the source. For Clara, dilemmas need to be understood through a careful account of the history leading up to them. For instance, when pondering how to approach laws enabling dangerous sex-offenders to live among ordinary citizens, Clara immediately begins to work backwards, asking how the penal system failed offenders in such a way that they are back in society yet remain potential threats: Why dont we take it from the beginning and see when they [offenders] came to the law in the rst place. . . . Obviously something went wrong if were now at the point where hes living in his house but hes still dangerous. Clara points out how, in her emphasis on the source, she parts ways with many of her peers, who would rather approach dilemmas a-historically: [Most people are] not looking at the source . . . because that seems like too much of a problem. Mode of Tension Work:Destabilizing As Clara encounters tensions and contradictions, she often uses a mode of tension work that can be referred to as destabilizing (Falmagne & Iselin, 2002), for her orientation is to question continually her own thinking. Seen as a process, destabilizing creates what amounts to a near constant alternation between different sides of an issue, where as one stance emerges, another immediately questions it. For instance, in the following example, Clara is discussing the issue mentioned previously, of whether a defendants personal information should be allowed into a criminal trial. As discussed above, in many ways, she does not want to allow such information to be used. At the same time, she appreciates that some personal information (e.g., whether it was a defendants rst or twenty-rst offense) could be important. Engaging with this tension by destabilizing, she argues: (Stance 1) In one way I want everything to be taken as black and white . . . and not specic to the people. She then immediately destabilizes her rst position with a second, stating: (Stance 2) I really would like every case to . . . be about that individual. Characteristic of her style of tension work, Clara moves to undermine her second position with a return to her rst position(Stance 1) Its just that I dont trust the people involved enough in our system to let [it be specic to individuals]and back to the other side: (Stance 2) But at the same time [it should be] based on the specic character of that person. And then she switches again: (Stance 1) I dont trust [the judicial system] so . . . Id rather it just treat them exactly the same. And a few lines later, back: (Stance 2) But then again, sometimes you do need to . . . really examine a person. 101
In a second example of destabilizing, Clara is considering the merit of generalizations (e.g., many women are x). She oscillates between a sense that generalizations are problematic because they rob the individual of the power to determine his or her own identity, and a sense that generalizations are necessary, to the extent that they can reveal societal-level patterns of discrimination. As in the rst example, she engages with the tension between these stances through destabilizing, arguing rst against generalizations: (Stance 1) In my ideal world, we wouldnt need to categorize people . . . because we could all just . . . do our own thing and that would be all right. Given that in her opinion, such a world does not exist (Obviously we dont live in a world like that. We never will. We never have), Clara then moves to argue that generalizations are in some ways necessary to expose societal-level patterns of discrimination: (Stance 2) We need to use them [generalizations] to reexamine the facts, the way that our society functions. Characteristically, this is not the end of her consideration, for Clara destabilizes immediately this second stance by returning to the side that is anti-generalization: (Stance 1) Even though we do see a certain generalization, its important to also notice that theres always going to be that part that doesnt function that way. She, in turn, destabilizes this stance by mentioning generalizations as a sort of necessary evil with the following example: (Stance 2) This thing about women being interrupted more than men in conversations . . . when you really do a lot of observation . . . you realize its really not because of the speed the women are talking, its because of the men that are interrupting. Clara then moves again to destabilize, returning to her rst stance and pointing out again that any generalization needs to be seen as such: (Stance 1) I just think that everything needs to be looked at as generalization and not facts, and not full . . . black and white. Destabilizing, as seen in these examples, is not a mode where one is merely playing devils advocate, but where one is adamant in ones consideration of each side. As a style of tension work, destabilizing seems to allow one to represent all of what one thinks about an issue, without having to choose only one side at the exclusion of the other. In this regard, it can be said that for Clara in these instances, it is exactly this deep connection to each side of her argument that is critical for the maintenance of cohesion, for such connection seems to assure the co-existence of both sides, as neither can dominate. Molly As will be discussed shortly, during our interview this second participant often used a strikingly different mode of engaging with tension. 102
The participant, Molly is a young Caucasian woman from the Midwestern United States, and is reluctant to further elaborate on her family history. Molly spent most of her school-age years in a predominantly working-class part of a large city where she encountered people of a variety of ethnic and class backgrounds. When Molly was 10 years old, her father, a minister for much of his life, divorced her mother. Following the divorce, her mother, who worked as a secretary, took the primary role in raising Molly and her older brother. In her second year of college, Molly has been urged by some members of her family to use her talent in the hard sciences to seek a job that would afford social mobility. Molly has decided that an interesting career is more important than a protable one, and as a double major in environmental science and biology, she thinks she might, in the future, work to preserve coastal ecosystems. For Molly, one theme that stands out during the interviews is an extreme caution toward attaching absolute certainty to knowledge claims. This caution does not seem to stem from a relativistic perspective (i.e., from a view that all knowledge claims are equally valid). Rather, it is related to her awareness that there are a great number of factors that contribute to any situation. She says: Theres . . . so many different . . . variables in the world, and . . . different things going on that inuence everything. For Molly, insofar as only a certain number of these can be considered at any given time, all knowledge claims must be somewhat tentative. On this basis, she says that while one can strongly believe in a particular claim, it is impossible to prove anything: I dont think you can ever really prove something completely. One cannot prove anything, because the addition of a previously excluded factor could potentially change such a claim. Also prominent in Mollys reasoning is an emphasis on considering power structure, and on the importance of thinking about the views of those who do not occupy positions of power (and whose opinions, for this reason, may often go ignored) as well as those who do. For instance, on the topic of global development, she is asked whether the United States should ask developing countries to preserve their natural resources as they industrialize. She agrees that they should do so, yet points out how the real problem lies in the very pressure to industrialize: Weve put a lot of pressure on . . . third world countries to like develop into what we are. Focusing on the perspective of those on the other side of the issue, she points out how, despite the fact that many developing countries actually oppose industrialization altogether, the United States often ignores this and simply assumes industrialization as the ideal. 103
Mode of Tension Work:Self-Moderating As Molly encounters tensions in her thinking, she often engages in a mode of tension work that can be described as self-moderating, because she seems to approach tension from a sort of impartial third position from which different perspectives are given consideration. Crucially, in contrast to the destabilizing mode, where there is deep engagement with both sides of an issue, in self-moderating Molly is deliberately more removed in her contemplation. In meta-cognitive reection, Molly explains that she is aware of her tendency to avoid commitment to one side of an issue in the name of the middle ground. She states: I never have my mind made up . . . I am all about the happy medium. In an initial example of the self-moderating mode, Molly is discussing whether companies can, without public consent, expose the public to chemicals that pose health risks. She says, on the one hand, that she is against such unbeknownst exposure, on the grounds that it seems to constitute a disregard for basic human rights by those in positions of power: It is really that word impose . . . I picture someone . . . being exposed to radiation without their knowledge. Yet she offers a competing claim from her perspective as a scientist: having the scientic background that I do . . . [if] someone tells me that my risk is so much . . . I can understand that better than your average person. Again, characteristic of a self-moderating mode of engagement, Molly does not support one side over the other, and in contrast to Clara, she also does not deeply commit to her contrasting viewpoints. Rather, she maintains a neutral third position, stating: I guess I am just somewhere in between. In another instance, Molly is considering genetic modication of food crops, and her dilemma is whether or not such modications should be used. On the one hand, she thinks that such modications are positive, as they help humans by increasing food production. Yet, at the same time, Molly is not certain that such modications should be made, as she appreciates that some species of insects would be adversely affected, leading to their demise. Mollys approach to this dilemma is characteristic of selfmoderating and the preservation of an impartial position in numerous ways. For one, as she reasons through the dilemma, she maintains her distance by drastically limiting her movement between each side of the issue. She begins her contemplation on the side of insects by arguing: I cant really . . . say . . . well our species is more important, because . . . our species cant exist without other species. She then offers the contrasting position, saying that some could argue 104
that humans are more important than the harmed non-human animals: But . . . ultimately from . . . the majority perspective . . . humans are more important, you know? These statements made by Molly mark the end of any movement back-and-forth, in stark contrast to the mode of destabilizing. Mollys concluding statement on this issue is also important for illustrating self-moderating and the maintenance of an impartial third position. In this statement she places an emphasis on the provisional nature of her thinking by stating: I think . . . ultimately . . . it would probably be that . . . food . . . would be produced for . . . people without any . . . thought on its effect on other species I guess. I dont know. This emphasis on the provisional nature of each view (e.g., probably) is again suggesting that she speaks from a third and distanced position, one from which there is no hard and fast commitment to a particular idea. Equally interesting is how she ends her brief consideration with the statement I dont know, which also seems suggestive of distancing. Self-moderation is a mode of tension work that characterizes much of Mollys reasoning during the interviews. Self-moderation seems to allow her to preserve a belief in many sides of an issue without having to choose, and in this regard, self-moderating is ostensibly similar to destabilizing. However, in terms of the means through which this end is achieved, self-moderating and destabilizing, as modes of tension work, are strikingly different. In a destabilizing mode, it is precisely the deep connection to each side of the argument that seems to sustain the co-existence of conicting beliefsideas are held together by that tension. In stark contrast, a self-moderating mode seems based on the distance afforded by the third neutral position, and it is that distance that provides room for conicting ideas to co-exist. Lena The third and nal participant we consider, Lena, offers yet another approach to the management of tension and contradiction. Lena is a young Caucasian woman of Jewish heritage; she was raised in an upper-middle-class family in a diverse middle-class community of a major metropolitan area of the Northeastern United States. Her mothers parents are from the Southern USA and her fathers parents emigrated from Germany, where many members of Lenas paternal lineage were interned and perished during World War II. She attended a private school that she describes as diverse but segregated by income. Her mother is the CEO of a major accounting rm and her father is an artist. In her second year in college, Lena plans to major in 105
sociology, minor in philosophy and hold a concentration in Holocaust and Gender Studies. A relativistic orientation is central to Lenas reasoning. During the interview, she points out that she believes every story can have (at least) three sides: Theres three sides to every story. Theres her side, his side, and then the truth. She continues: If two people are telling you the same story, its always going to be different. Lena places specic stress on the fact that these differences in the truth as people tell their version of the story are unintentional. For instance, regarding the differing perspectives between a police ofcer and the accused in a case involving someone driving while intoxicated, Lena points out that, as the ofcer describes to a judge his version of what happened, he will in fact be unaware that the truth will be shaped by his personal belief: Hes going to try and make it seem through his story that thats how it was . . . he wont even realize that hes doing it. Thus, it is not that individuals are knowingly shifting the truth, but that what is seen as truth and individual beliefs are one and the same. Much of Lenas reasoning is experientially based, that is, she reasons on the basis of what has happened in her life, instead of, for instance, relying on pure logical argument. As one example of such an orientation, asked what she would do if given competing medical diagnoses and competing treatment options, she states that she would begin with the least invasive of the options, even if the majority of doctors recommended the alternative treatment. Her reasoning, she explains, is based on her mothers recent breast cancer, and the fact that, while numerous doctors suggested that her mother should have a mastectomy, this assessment was shown to be mistaken and she needed a far less invasive treatment. Mode of Tension Work:Making Inclusive Exceptions As Lena encounters tensions and contradictions, a mode of tension work is discernible that can be referred to as making inclusive exceptions. Many times as Lena reasons, she forms one side of an issue the one for which she seems to have the most evidenceinto what can be thought of as her general belief. This general belief is given a dominant role over her contrasting belief, which becomes an exception. The exception does not negate the general beliefit is equally validand therefore, exists inclusively. This mode can be seen in an example in which, for the sake of discussion, Lena invents a hypothetical person who thinks all people of a certain nationality are ignorant. In her example, this prejudiced person meets up with another person, and through conversation, concludes that this new 106
acquaintance is intelligent. If it is later discovered that the new acquaintance is of the ignorant nationality, Lena states that the hypothetical person will create an exception to their general belief: Their story is then going to be All [individuals of a given background]. . . are ignorant, except for this individual. . . And thats how itll t. This exception is inclusive, insofar as it does not negate the general belief, but rather, merely functions to allow a connection between opposing ideas, making the pieces t together. As an example of making inclusive exceptions, Lena is reasoning about the death penalty. She mentions how, for most of her life, she has been strongly against this form of punishment: I was always really anti-death penalty. At the time of the interview, Lena claims she is still against the death penalty, yet she also mentions how, for the perpetrators of a then recent large-scale crime, she favors its use. Im like, nd whoever did it and just kill em. Because . . . it was so close to home, and . . . such a large-scale act that . . . they dont deserve to live. Characteristic of this mode, Lena then suggests that, in general, she is still against the death penalty, yet in this one situation, she can make an exception, and she can argue for it: I have to put a little subsection in there that says in cases of [such] large-scale acts . . . its okay. Another instance of using inclusive exceptions to engage tensions arises on the topic of her views on police ofcers. She describes personal experiences where she has seen police ofcers behave in violent and or racist ways:
I had a friend who was doing something wrong . . . he was drinking in public, but he was black with his three white friends from high school. And the cops told his three friends to go away, and then they proceeded to beat up my friend.
On this basis, she generally feels negatively about police ofcers. At the same time, recently, she has moved to a new city for college, where she says: And I also met a lot of the ofcers that work at [her college]. . . . So Im starting to know em more on a personal level, and its getting me a little bit easier with them. When asked how she resolves what seem to be two different orientations toward police ofcers, she again uses inclusive exceptions, saying: Police ofcers in general, Im hesitant around, but these ones are okay, which is still just because I know them now on a personal level. Making inclusive exceptions is yet another style of tension work. As is the case for the other two modes considered here, this mode allows the participant a way to maintain two contradictory positions at the same time, thwarting fragmentation. Yet making inclusive 107
exceptions differs from the other two modes discussed so far. In contrast to self-moderating, where the participant seems to refrain from genuinely embracing either side of an issue, making inclusive exceptions suggests commitment to each of the sides rather than neutrality, on the part of the participant. In contrast with destabilizing, making exceptions does not involve continually going back-andforth between positions, and recurrently undermining ones own thinking. Rather, in making inclusive exceptions, resolution seems to be attained by having one idea dominate permanently over the other.
The Differing Qualities of Tension Work

As argued previously, moments of contradictions need not be seen as leading inherently to fragmentation or disunity. Increasingly, some scholars are beginning to explore the notion that tensions may exist in contexts of cohesion and unity (Arner & Falmagne, 2007; Collins, 1991; Lugones, 1994/1996). Consistent with such approaches, the preceding analysis shows individuals as social agents, using unique styles of tension work to create cohesion amidst multiplicity as time unfolds. To further explore the differences between these modes of tension work, it is of interest to contrast the respective modes along the dimensions of dynamicity and dominance relations3 as well as in regard to the epistemic status of tensions each mode reects. Dynamicity Destabilizing can be argued to hold a heightened level of movement, as compared with the other two modes of tension work because in destabilizing, one continually oscillates from one side to another. Moreover, as the different sides of an issue are considered, it can be suggested that back-and-forth movement becomes more rapid and intense rather than less sothis is denitely the case for those times at which Clara is using this mode. Compared to the mode of destabilizing, self-moderating and making inclusive exceptions can be seen as substantially less dynamicthough certainly not staticmodes of engaging with tension. In self-moderating, for instance, movement occurs as consideration is given to both sides of an issue, and yet because shifting between positions is held to a minimum, this dynamicity is attenuated as compared to destabilizing. Also, each swing of perspective can be said to be of smaller range than is the case in destabilizing because in self-moderating each one originates from an impartial neutral position, rather than the opponent position as in the case of 108
destabilizing. Likewise, in making inclusive exceptions there is motion as one contemplates the various sides of an issue, yet this mode presents the least movement of the three considered here, for once the ideas are placed in relation to one anotherand one idea is held as the dominant viewthere is no subsequent reversal. Dominance Relations These modes of tension work can also be contrasted in terms of the extent to which each makes use of dominance relations to create cohesion within contradiction. For one, dominance relations seem central to the mode making inclusive exceptions, for this mode of tension work depends upon an imbalance of power between different beliefs for enabling coherency within the opposition. It can be conjectured that without this imbalance, confusion, fragmentation or disarray might result, whereas positioning one idea as an exception and in this way lessening its powerenables the meaning-making process to proceed. Likewise, dominance relations are also central to self-moderating. In self-moderating it is the power of the impartial third position over all others that seems to enable cohesion, for without such dominance of this position in respect to non-neutral commitments, fragmentation within contradiction could ensue. Dominance relations also seem to be a central component of destabilizing, though in quite a different way. In contrast to selfmoderating and making inclusive exceptionswhere dominance relations seem to be constructed and then preservedit would seem that destabilizing is actually aimed at constantly reconguring and challenging xed dominance structures, and it is precisely this imbalance that allows for cohesion within contradiction, as no single idea can emerge as more important than any other. Nurturing or Eliminating Tension It is also interesting to explore these modes in relation to the implicit perspective on tensions they reect. In a meta-theoretical discussion of the epistemic status of tensions between different theoretical frameworks, Falmagne (2006b) argues that tensions between theoretical frameworks can be attributed different meanings and functions. On one view, tension signies incompatibility and merely signals the necessity to choose between two theories, each conceptualized as being bounded. On the other view, tensions can be seen as productive and even generative: Tension indicates that there is something amiss or lacking in each of the theoretical discourses, that some constructs need to be reconceptualized with an eye toward synthesis rather than 109
entrenchment: So, tensions are best seen as grounds for transformative reconceptualization, a reconceptualization that selectively draws from those strands of theorizing that can be put at the service of a selective synthesis. Tensions are occasions for contingent, selective synthesis (Falmagne, 2006b, italics in original). Thus, on the rst view, tension is, in the end, to be eliminated. On the second view, by contrast, the goal shifts from practices that eliminate the tension, to those that are aimed at preserving it in constructive form. Along related lines, it is of interest to examine the epistemic perspective on tensions that appears to underlie the three styles of tension work considered here. Self moderating seems to be grounded in a framework in which tensions are ultimately to be eliminated. Admittedly, in self-moderating one does work within tension while considering opposing viewpoints. Yet, ultimately, this mode appears oriented toward the elimination of tension by adopting a middle ground (incidentally, for Molly, this is consistent with her broader epistemological frame which includes elements of objectivity). In contrast, the modes of destabilizing and making inclusive exceptions appear oriented toward nurturing tension. In destabilizing the value or importance of tension is highlighted in an extreme way, as this mode preserves and nurtures tension between different beliefs not only by enabling multiple perspectives to be considered at the same time, but also by leading to a constant building and rebuilding of this tension through oscillation between perspectives. So too, making inclusive exceptions conserves tension, allowing it to remain within the carefully constructed imbalance of ideas, which eliminates the necessity of choosing one idea over another.
Conclusion
As stated at the start of this article, the past decades have seen different theoretical approaches to the complex self in which, broadly speaking, tensions are seen as generative. Yet these theoretical approachesthe mestiza consciousness, the curdled self, the dialogical self or the systemic model presented hereneed further elaboration of the local processes through which tensions are negotiated. In this article, we introduce and analyze three different modes of tension work as one modest step toward an account of the unique ways in which particular individuals manage the cohesiveness of self and mind amidst tension and contradiction. The aim of this article has been to articulate analytically some of these processes, and in so doing, contribute to a detailed understanding of the agentive strategies people employ to maintain 110
cohesion. It is perhaps unnecessary to state that, as we rely upon two one-hour interviews, care must be exercised to avoid unwanted generalization about each womans overall mode of reasoning, as is always needed in studies of this nature. Rather, it is hoped that the constructs offered here can inform further research. Notions of a complex self raise new challenges for social sciences. As discussed previously, one such challenge is to nd ways of understanding how individuals construct unied selves and minds amidst an array of differing and potentially contradictory aspects. Toward this end, this article has explored the construct of tension work as a way to describe the process through which individuals manage contradiction as they work through various dilemmas. As complexity of self and mind becomes increasingly accepted within the social sciences, it seems useful to complement ongoing discussion of theoretical constructs with detailed analysis of how the person, considered interpretively in the context of his or her social location and cultural history, manages this complexity. The women discussed here, and the modes of tension work they demonstrate in their reasoning, suggest the usefulness of expanding theoretical consideration of the role of tensions as constructive, and of further exploring the intertwined relation of self and mind in this process. Notes
Preparation of this article was supported by a Spencer Foundation, Grant # 200000081 to Rachel Joffe Falmagne and by a grant from the Hiatt Fund of Clark Universitys Psychology Department to Emily Abbey. The authors are grateful to Genevieve Iselin, Irina Todorova, Eric Amsel and Jennifer Arner for constructive comments on earlier presentation of these ideas, and to the reviewers of an earlier draft for critiques and suggestions that helped improve the article. The authors would also like to thank each research participant for her candid and thoughtful discussion. 1. The term dialectic reects the assumption that processes at the macrosocial, local and personal levels are dynamically and mutually constitutive, as also are discursive and material processes, respectively. 2. This study focused on female participants for the reason that historically their voices have not been given equal attention and consideration. 3. These notions are loosely inspired by Hermans (e.g., 1996, 2001) but are used as generalized constructs, rather than in their more specic senses within dialogical self theory.
111
References
Anzalda, G. (1999). La Consciencia de la mestiza: Toward a new consciousness. In Borderlands/La frontera: The new mestiza (2nd ed., pp. 99120). San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute. Arner, J., & Falmange, J.R. (2007). Deconstructing dualisms: The both/and conceptual orientation and its variant linguistic form. Feminism & Psychology, 17, 357371. Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Ed. and Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M.M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevskys poetics (C. Emerson, Ed. and Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1929.) Bhatia, S. (2002). Acculturation, dialogical voices and the construction of the diasporic self. Theory & Psychology, 12, 5577. Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2001). Locating the dialogical self in the age of transnational migration, border crossings and disporas. Culture & Psychology, 7, 297309. Collins, P.H. (1991). Black feminist thought. New York: Routledge. Falmagne, R. Joffe. (2003). A contextual approach to the study of mind: Cognition discourse and society. Invited address, Address, University of Athens. Manuscript, Clark University. Clark University, Worcester, MA. Falmagne, R. Joffe. (2004). On the constitution of self and mind. Theory & Psychology, 14, 822845. Falmagne, R. Joffe. (2006a). The dialectic of the particular and the general. International Journal of Critical Psychology, 17, 167184. Falmagne, R. Joffe. (2006b). Subverting theoretical dualisms: Mentalism and discourse. Manuscript submitted for publication. Falmagne, R. Joffe, & Iselin, M.G. (2002). On mapping a transdisciplinary approach to reasoning. In R. Joffe Falmagne & M. Hass (Eds.), Representing reason: Feminist theory and formal Logic (pp. 133168). New York: Rowman & Littleeld. Hermans, H.J.M. (1996). Opposites in a dialogical self: Constructions as characters. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 9, 126. Hermans, H.J.M. (2001). The dialogical self: Towards a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7, 243281. Hermans, H.J.M., & Kempen, H.J.G. (1993). The dialogical self: Meaning as Movement. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Holt. Josephs, I.E., & Valsiner, J. (1998). How does autodialogue work? Miracles of meaning maintenance and circumvention strategies. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 6883. Lugones, M. (1996). Purity, impurity and separation. In B. Laslett & R.-E.B. Joeres (Eds.), The second signs reader (pp. 275296). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1994.) Salgado, J ,& Hermans, H.J.M. (2005). The return of subjectivity: From a multiplicity of selves to the dialogical self. E-Journal of Applied Clinical
112
Psychology: Clinical Section, 1(1), 313. Retrieved from: http://ojs.lib.swin.edu.au/index.php/ejap/article/viewFile/2/11 Valsiner, J. (2002). Forms of dialogical relations and semiotic autoregulation within the self. Theory & Psychology, 12, 251265.
Biographies
EMILY ABBEY is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Working from a developmental orientation and a cultural perspective, she is generally curious about the process of identity change. Recently, she has published in the journals Culture & Psychology and Estudios de Psicologia, and is co-editor of a forthcoming volume on microgenetic approaches titled, Innovating Genesis: Microgenesis and the Constructive Mind in Action (with Rainer Diriwchter, InfoAge). ADDRESS: Emily Abbey, Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mahwah, NJ, 07430, USA. [email: eabbey@ramapo.edu] RACHEL JOFFE FALMAGNE is Professor of Psychology at Clark University and President of the International Society for Theoretical Psychology. Her interests include feminist theory, critical psychology and methodological and epistemological issues for the social sciences. She has published on the gendered foundations of thought, culture and development, on the dialectic of macro-social, local and agentive elements in the social constitution of self and mind, on the politics of knowledge production, on the transdisciplinary feminist study of reasoning and personal epistemology, on critical appraisals of developmental and cognitive psychology, and on the dialectic of the particular and the general in qualitative research. Her books include Representing Reason: Feminist Theory and Formal Logic (with Marjorie Hass, Rowman & Littleeld, 2002) and Mind and Social Practice: Selected Writings by Sylvia Scribner (with Ethel Tobach and Mary Parlee, Cambridge University Press, 1997). ADDRESS: Rachel Joffe Falmagne, Psychology Department, Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, MA, 01610, USA. [email: rfalmagne@clarku.edu]
113

Modes of Tension Work Within The Complex Self

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Modes of Tension Work Within The Complex Self

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Culture & Psychology

http://cap.sagepub.com Modes of Tension Work within the Complex Self

Downloaded from http://cap.sagepub.com at CAPES on March 24, 2009

Rachel Joffe Falmagne