Current Readings

[Meaghan Moineau]

Gergen described the human conditions as “marked by multiple selves created and re-created in multiple relational contexts.”  I suppose I never thought about it exactly like this, but to sum it up in one sentence like this, it makes complete sense.  Human beings show different sides of themselves depending on the context of a situation.  Do we ever allow another human being to know everything there is to know about us?  I doubt this is even possible.  So, to say we create and re-create multiple versions of ourselves makes complete sense.  One version of ourselves may evolve into a new self while others may be abandoned altogether.  We may create new selves to protect old selves or re-create selves to please others.

 

Hans-Georg Gadamer suggested “that our perceptions of reality are always constrained by our preconceptions or prejudices.  These preconceptions function as the ground for everything we experience, for without preconceptions new experience is meaningless.”  Our ability to understand new situations can be clouded by previous understandings of similar situations.  Everything we experience is impacted by our previous experiences.  I do not think that new experiences are meaningless without preconception, however, because I believe infants are impacted by all experiences and many of these experiences will occur with or without preconception.  I think new experiences may not have as much meaning until they can be compared to other experiences.  New experiences provide a framework for newer experiences to grow on.

 

Williams James believed that “a man has many different social selves as there are distinct groups of persons about whose opinion he cares.”  Doesn’t this imply that a man has to care about the opinion of others to have different social selves?  What if a man doesn’t care what others think of him?  Will he then only have one version of himself?  Don’t we all have multiple versions within ourselves?  The voices of reason and the voices that feel the need to challenge the voice of reason?  Is the only reason we have these voices a direct result of how we are socially accepted?  Otherwise, would we even bother to question ourselves before acting?

[James T. Hansen]

Meaghan:

Thank you for your thoughts.  What do you think?  Are we one person or are we many personas?

James T. Hansen, Ph.D.
Professor

Coordinator, Mental Health Specialization
Oakland University
Department of Counseling
450E Pawley Hall
Rochester, MI 48309

James T. Hansen website

 

 

Phone: (248) 370-3071

Email: jtha...@oakland.edu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CNS 687 Fall 2013" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cns-687-fall-2...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cns-687-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cns-687-fall-2013.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Meaghan Moineau]

I think we are many personas and the persona we choose at any given moment is contextual.

[mark kauffman]

Well said Meaghan, I enjoyed your insight!  I agree too, that we have many personas and that I am guilty of creating personas to protect myself in new or environments I am unfamiliar with..  

I feel each of these personas comes out mattering the environment one is in.  At work or in class I am one way, with my friends, I am a complete 180.  

When it comes to counseling, the personas we receive from our clients will differ greatly mattering their reasons for being there.  For example, are they court ordered, wife/husband demand them to go, or did they come simply to improve their life?  Each person is going to differ greatly and their persona they bring to session is going to greatly affect the session and outcome, again thanks Meaghan, I liked how you broke it down!

[James T. Hansen]

Mark:

Thanks for your contribution.  The question remains, though - should we think of ourselves as having an underlying true self, or are we just a bunch of social masks without a true, foundational self beneath them?

James T. Hansen, Ph.D.
Professor

Coordinator, Mental Health Specialization
Oakland University
Department of Counseling
450E Pawley Hall
Rochester, MI 48309

James T. Hansen website

 

 

Phone: (248) 370-3071

Email: jtha...@oakland.edu

[mark kauffman]

Sorry thought that was what I was getting at, its hard, I want to say we have do have "social masks" but they do in fact have an underlying truth to them, example, we put different masks on we are in different environments.  However, I see where this may not fit nor apply and therefore instead, we do do have an underlying true self.  I maybe off topic or just off base, but why can't we have both?  I feel I personally do, I am "fake" at times; which is my mask, and other times, I am just being myself, as they say "what you see is what you get!"  Not sure if that makes sense, but I feel as humans we know who we are, and we also act differently, at times without knowing it (social masks occur here).  I can think of examples for each, but can share that tomorrow night. Hope that makes a little sense.

[James T. Hansen]

Mark:

Your response absolutely makes sense - I look forward to discussing these issues tomorrow night.

James T. Hansen, Ph.D.
Professor

Coordinator, Mental Health Specialization
Oakland University
Department of Counseling
450E Pawley Hall
Rochester, MI 48309

James T. Hansen website

 

 

Phone: (248) 370-3071

Email: jtha...@oakland.edu

[Maria Mazurova]

I don't think its either one of those and to try to define human experience with two choices seems odd when it is arguably so vast in its nature (or maybe its not at all).  The point of such a question escapes me now as those things can coexist: a human can consider himself to have one "true self" that is complex, multidimensional, contradictory, and ever changing.  That might look a lot like a bunch of social masks without a true self underneath. But even if there WAS a possible "true self", how would one come to that conclusion when humans are usually too busy asking "who am I" to be able to pinpoint this "true self".

I don't know if this falls into one of those categories but here's what I think: we are who we think we are and choose to be. Some people think they will be addicts because their parents were addicts and that ends up being their truth and reality, until maybe they choose to abandon that truth as it no longer serves them.  I think people can choose at any moment in time to be anyone and anything. The pathway to change is an internal, not an external or environmental one. Even if it is argued that the environment can change us, I would say we see and choose what to take in and leave out. By accepting 100% responsibility in our lives, we have total freedom. 
That's the truth I believe in and it allows me to be as many me's as I want to be. Is there one true self I revert back to that has persisted over the course of my life? No. Just like brain cells, skin, hair, life experiences, everything is constantly recycled, reshaped, and created anew. Whatever I am writing right now will remain in this form, but it wont be me, I will be different 5 minutes from now. It only existed in that moment in time but I've already changed. I wouldn't call that a mask without a form beneath it because a mask implies concealing something. If there's no truth beneath a mask, or anything else for that matter, then the masks ARE the "truth" , bringing me back to why that question doesn't make 100% sense to me. 

--

[James T. Hansen]

Great points, Maria - I feel an exciting discussion brewing for tomorrow night...

James T. Hansen, Ph.D.
Professor

Coordinator, Mental Health Specialization
Oakland University
Department of Counseling
450E Pawley Hall
Rochester, MI 48309

James T. Hansen website

 

 

Phone: (248) 370-3071

Email: jtha...@oakland.edu

[Jeanine Gruschow]

Some musing…

“The same is true of our intimate connections in daily life, in our families, and circles of friendship; we must continuously reconstruct their nature (for example, “who we are to each other”) in order to keep them alive” (p. 49)

And here in is the power of re-narration.  If we stop reciting the same book, the same history, like a book with different options, we are able to re-write our own lives.  Yes I find the underpinnings of constructionist dialogues compelling.  Here is a way forward, a way to place, move, and reconstruct people’s truths.  Retrospectively I have reconstructed my truth multiple times; some times quickly, sometimes slowly and when I look for ‘tradition’ in my narrative, I find them there.  Relatively speaking, ‘tradition’ can in many ways be transposed with ‘explanatory system’.  There are multiple ‘traditions/explanatory systems’ that ground my narratives.  And here it gets interesting, like a series of Russian nesting dolls, our societal traditions form systems and ways of knowing.  Now I can go back and reexamine my changing narrative.  For example, I once dated a young man from Iran.  In my tradition, my social construction, he was: possessive, controlling, and abusive.  My narrative of that relationship has never been particularly pleasant.  But, if I place that narrative in his ‘tradition’ he showed me: protection and generosity… I used to describe the experience as “Here are the car keys, how much money do you need, and don’t look at another man”.  Two distinct narratives.  Now I wonder, if I grew up in Iran, would I feel that the relationship was abusive or caring?  The implication of constructionist dialog not only unsettle “between knowers and the ignorant”, it also draws lines in the sand between moral and immoral behaviors. The concept of looking at the world as a series of traditions that are historically and culturally bound on a large scale can lead to more tolerance between cultures and countries and new narrative.  And turned to the personal, the constructions of patriarchy, feminism, racism, classism can all become part of a viable cultural dialogue that is less threatening.  A major difficultiy though for me, is that most of our western world is placed firmly within a modernist construct. 

[James T. Hansen]

Jeanine:

Thank you for the interesting musings - I think that you nicely illustrated some of the ways in which life can be considered from a narrative perspective, rather than from a foundational truth perspective.  After all, life doesn't come with a story - it is just a series of events that occur.  People string together the events with a story.  However, stories do not come with events - stories are superimposed onto events by people.  People make  up stories to make sense of the world. We just call the stories "true" when we really like them.

These ideas can be tremendously freeing - we can author any story we like.  The criterion is no longer the accuracy of the story (because in postmodernism "accuracy" becomes a senseless criterion) - instead, the criterion becomes whether the story opens up new possibilities, moves us forward (in whatever direction we collectively decide that we would like to go), etc.  The same goes for stories about ourselves.

What do you think?

James T. Hansen, Ph.D.
Professor

Coordinator, Mental Health Specialization
Oakland University
Department of Counseling
450E Pawley Hall
Rochester, MI 48309

James T. Hansen website

 

 

Phone: (248) 370-3071

Email: jtha...@oakland.edu

[Jeanine Gruschow]

I think your article helps me out of my conundrum ! I like the triangulation and dialectic dialog !

Sent from my iPhone

[James T. Hansen]

I'm glad - I look forward to talking about it tonight.

James T. Hansen, Ph.D.
Professor

Coordinator, Mental Health Specialization
Oakland University
Department of Counseling
450E Pawley Hall
Rochester, MI 48309

James T. Hansen website

 

 

Phone: (248) 370-3071

Email: jtha...@oakland.edu