modes of tension work within the complex self

8/13/2019 Modes of Tension Work Within the Complex Self

1/20

http://cap.sagepub.com

Culture & Psychology

DOI: 10.1177/1354067X070827492008; 14; 95Culture Psychology

Emily Abbey and Rachel Joffe FalmagneModes of Tension Work within the Complex Self

http://cap.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/95The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Culture & PsychologyAdditional services and information for

http://cap.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://cap.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://cap.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/14/1/95Citations

at CAPES on March 24, 2009http://cap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cap.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://cap.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://cap.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://cap.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://cap.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://cap.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/14/1/95http://cap.sagepub.com/http://cap.sagepub.com/http://cap.sagepub.com/http://cap.sagepub.com/http://cap.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/14/1/95http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://cap.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://cap.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/20

Abstract As part of increased attention to the complexity of selfand subjectivity, Falmagne recently presented a theory in which

self is seen as constituted through the dialectic among processesat societal, local and personal (i.e., agentive) levels. The self, soconstituted, can be hybrid and filled with tensions, yet it remainssubstantial rather than fluid. Building from this perspective andrelated approaches, the aim of this article is to contribute to thegrowing understanding of self complexity by focusing on how

individuals create cohesive selves and minds despite thepresence of tension and contradiction. Our focus involves a

detailed textual analysis of the tension work that individualsperform as they reason through contradictory beliefs. Based onthese analyses, this article identifies three unique strategies for

creating cohesion amidst contradiction.

Key Words complexity, contradiction, dialectic, mind, self,tension work

Emily AbbeyRamapo College of New Jersey, USA

Rachel Joffe FalmagneClark University, USA

Modes of Tension Work within theComplex Self

In the past decades, researchers in the social sciences have given newattention to the complexity of self, gradually distancing from notionsof a singular, bounded self, as ideas of social constitution, multiplicityand hybridity increasingly find purchase. With this increased focus

of attention come perspectives that conceptualize self as cohesive,despite the presence of discordant and potentially conflicting aspects.Dialogical approaches, for instance, consider the self as composed of anarray 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 non-belonging, putting forth notions such as mestiza consciousness(Anzalda, 1999) to describe the experience of transcending

dichotomies through profound tolerance for ambiguity.

Culture & PsychologyCopyright 2008 SAGE Publications(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) http://cap.sagepub.com

Vol. 14(1): 95113 [DOI: 10.1177/1354067X07082749]

Article

http://cap.sagepub.com/http://cap.sagepub.com/http://cap.sagepub.com/


3/20

As part of this increased attention to the complexity of self,Falmagne (2004) has argued for the need to conceptualize humanfunctioning within a broad, societal frame of reference that draws on

macro-social as well as local processes of social constitution andincludes both the material and the discursive constituents of the socialworld. The theory formulates a systemic account in which the consti-tution of self results from the dialectic interplay of discursive andmaterial processes at macro-social, local and personal levels.1 The self,so constituted, can be hybrid, filled with tensions, yet it remainssubstantial rather than fluid.

Building on this perspective and related approaches to self com-plexity, this article focuses on how individuals create cohesive selves

despite the presence of tension and contradiction in their thinking andtheir personal investments. Our focus involves a detailed textualanalysis of moments where individuals are reasoning through con-tradictions in their beliefs. We suggest that there may be an array ofstrategies for creating cohesion amidst contradiction as individualscarry out what we term tension work, and in this article three suchmodes are considered in detail.

Perspectives on Self Complexity

Falmagnes Societal Approach

At the center of Falmagnes (2004) systemic account of the constitutionof self and mind is the dialectic interplay of processes at three levelsof analysis: societal, local and personal. Two ideas are key. First,processes at the local and the macro-social level are interdependentand complementary. In particular, various poststructural accounts inthe past decades have emphasized the notion that self is a continu-ally negotiated construction, positioned and repositioned throughlocal discursive processes. The theory incorporates such local discur-

sive processes but, in contrast to previous approaches, emphasizesthat any local discursive positioning is itself configured by, anddeployed within, processes operating at a societal level: Localnegotiations of power and of subject positions take place within themacro-level material and discursive social relations . . . and are con-figured (though not determined) by those relations (Falmagne, 2004,p. 827). For instance, it is noted that a local, contextually situateddiscursive move of positioning oneself as an authority depends uponthe existence of a societal-level discourse/structure of authority

(i.e., based on status or expertise) to provide its meaning and legit-imacy. Without such a societal-level discourse and structure, the local

Culture & Psychology 14(1)

96

http://cap.sagepub.com/http://cap.sagepub.com/http://cap.sagepub.com/http://cap.sagepub.com/


4/20

discursive move would either be meaningless or have an entirelydifferent meaning.

Second, the constitution of self and mind results from dialectic

interplay between those processes of social constitution and individualagency. While social subjects contribute to social reproduction byinstantiating processes of social constitution in their subjectivity, theiractions and their thinking, they are, equally, active agents who appro-priate, resist, transform or modulate available societal discourses,who negotiate their social location, and who discursively co-constructtheir local positioning in specific situations. The person agentivelyconstructs his/her own identity over time by appropriating, contestingor reinterpreting available discourses and positioning himself/herself

in particular ways in the discursive practices in which she/he hasparticipated (Falmagne, 2004, pp. 839840). However, this agentivework has a bounded flexibility, as the persons agency is not onlyconstructed within local and societal level processes but alsoconstrained by the same. Because the individual is located, individualagency is, of necessity, only deployed locally, and its effect must beproduced through a dialectic engagement with systemic processes thatboth 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 approachcombines James distinction between the self as knower (I) and the selfas known (me) (James, 1890) with Bakhtins philosophical notion ofdialogism (Bakhtin, 1981, 1929/1984). Metaphorically, Hermanssuggests that the self is composed of an array of I-positions andremains unified as these positions, endowed with voices, dialoguewith one another: The I fluctuates among different, and even opposed,

positions and has the capacity to imaginatively endow each positionwith a voice so that dialogical relations between positions can beestablished (Hermans, 1996, pp. 1112). In the dialogical self there canbe contradictions, and different voices may disagree or even directlyoppose one another, yet the self is understood to remain whole as thesevoices are united through dialogue.

Of particular relevance, the dialogical perspective circumvents thefrustration of a singular and bounded Cartesian self while maintaininga self that is substantial despite its internal heterogeneity (for a

detailed discussion of this point, see Salgado & Hermans, 2005). Thatsaid, a limitation lies in the fact that societal-level processes of social

Abbey & Falmagne Modes of Tension Work

97



5/20

constitution generally have not been fully integrated into the theoreti-cal 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 thatfor some non-western and non-European immigrants, the close linkbetween United States immigration laws and racist ideologies can beseen as constructive in the formation of certain I-positions (Bhatia &Ram, 2001, p. 303).

In contrast to most dialogical approaches, some Chicana feministshave provided contributions to theory on self complexity that explicitlyintegrate 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 thenotion of mestiza consciousness arising through experiences of simul-taneously belonging and yet not belonging to various social andcultural spaces. She describes mestiza consciousness as a consciousnessof the Borderlands (p. 99), as one that sees beyond dichotomies, holdsa profound tolerance for ambiguity, and is held together by tension.From a similar, historicized perspective in which she theorizes thehybrid and heterogeneous self produced by the border experience ofidentifying with both the dominant and the marginalized socialgroup(s), Lugones (1994/1996) introduces the notion of a curdled self.Using the metaphor of making mayonnaise, where if oil and egg yolkare mixed with haste they curdle into impure units, yolky oil and oilyyolk (Lugones, 1994/1996, p. 276), Lugones points to a hybrid andheterogeneous self that defies fragmentation through an inherentcurdled impurity: Curdles are distinct from one another, a distinctive-ness that does not rely on homogeneity.

Toward an Account of Tension Work in a Complex Self

As here briefly summarized, the past decades have seen differenttheoretical approaches to the complex self in which, broadly speaking,tensions are seen as generative (e.g., Josephs & Valsiner, 1998). Yet thesetheoretical approachesthe mestiza consciousness, the curdled self,the dialogical self or the systemic model presented hereneedfurther elaboration. The aim of this article is to contribute to an under-standing of the strategies people employ to produce cohesion in acomplex self. Building on the theoretical approaches just discussed, weexamine in detail, using three mini-case studies, different ways in

which individuals manage to preserve the cohesiveness of self andmind despite the presence of tensions and contradictions in their


98



6/20

thinking and their personal investments, by agentively engaging intension work. Through in-depth textual analysis of individuals asthey work through conflicting beliefs in particular situations, we

identify three modes of tension work: destabilizing, self-moderatingand making inclusive exceptions.

For this purpose, we make use of a series of interviews, conductedas part of a larger project that explored the reasoning of peopleconsidered as social agents occupying particular social locations andwith particular cultural histories (Falmagne, 2003; Falmagne & Iselin,2002). The project maintains two interlinked modes of analysis:analyses characterizing the knowledges and other resources involvedin specific moments of reasoning; and, at a broader level, the con-

struction of a profile of each participant that particularizes her interms of her social location, her cultural history and family history, soas to provide an interpretive context for her reasoning (Falmagne,2006a; Falmagne & Iselin, 2002). It is important to note that a partici-pants cultural history and social location are used interpretively tounderstand her as a particular reasoner and to ground her momentsof reasoning in her unique experience in the world, and nevercausally, or as a basis upon which to generalize to her social group.The same perspective and analytical strategy guide the analyses to bediscussed here.

In terms of the present analysis, self and mind are construed asclosely intertwined and formed through the interplay of the personsagency and the forces of social constitution within her social-historicalcontext. Self encompasses a persons modes of thinking, and thoughtis likewise guided by the persons sense of selfthought and affect areinterlinked. The contradictions and tensions between beliefs the personencounters deeply implicate her self. Given these links betweenmind and self, the modes of tension work present in the personsreasoning are understood also to reflect 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. Thefollowing sections examine case studies illustrating different modes oftension work. For each, the reader will first find a brief profile of theparticipant, particularizing her in terms of her social location, hercultural and personal history, and the salient themes that emerge fromher overall approach to reasoning, a profile that reflects the linksbetween self and mind. This is followed by an in-depth, textual,

consideration of the specific mode of tension work that characterizedher engagement with tensions and contradictions.


99



7/20

Of the women2 in the baseline project whose transcripts wereanalyzed specifically with the present focus, three cases have beenselected for presentation below. They were selected because their

reasoning displayed contradictions, and because together they illustrateinteresting contrasts in the moment-by-moment mode of managementof 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 wasraised in an upper-middle-class community in the Northeastern United

States, a community that she describes as predominantly white andprotestant. Clara has always disliked the community in which she grewup, primarily because of its racial, ethnic and religious homogeneity.She notes explicitly an instance during her childhood where she and herbrother were taunted for their religious affiliation. Claras mother andfather are married, and both teach at a private school located nearby.Clara attended this school because she found it more diverse than thepublic school in her hometown, and though she developed a fewintensely 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 withher brother, she recalls that until she scored highly on a middle schoolachievement test, it was only her brother who was considered com-petent in such areas. In her third year of a four-year college program,Clara has become interested in the social sciences, particularlysociology, 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 distrustis tied closely to her belief that people are easily (and at times evenunknowingly) motivated in their decision making by prejudicialthinking rather than some set of basic facts. For instance, when askedabout whether defendants in a criminal case should be particularizedfor the judge/jury deciding their fate, Clara argues that she does nottrust either the judge or jury to be able to use such information fairly.She seems to fear that two people committing similar offenses may bepunished differentially on the basis of their economic standing:

I dont trust them [jury members] to differentiate correctly between differ-ences with two people who have committed the same crime. . . . Race and

economic status . . . get taken into as much influence in the courts as theydo in our daily lives.


100



8/20

Another theme in Claras reasoning is her continual emphasis on thesource. For Clara, dilemmas need to be understood through a carefulaccount of the history leading up to them. For instance, when ponder-

ing how to approach laws enabling dangerous sex-offenders to liveamong ordinary citizens, Clara immediately begins to work back-wards, asking how the penal system failed offenders in such a way thatthey are back in society yet remain potential threats: Why dont wetake it from the beginning and see when they [offenders] came to thelaw in the first place. . . . Obviously something went wrong if werenow at the point where hes living in his house but hes still danger-ous. Clara points out how, in her emphasis on the source, she partsways with many of her peers, who would rather approach dilemmas

a-historically: [Most people are] not looking at the source . . . becausethat seems like too much of a problem.

Mode of Tension Work:Destabilizing

As Clara encounters tensions and contradictions, she often uses a modeof tension work that can be referred to as destabilizing (Falmagne &Iselin, 2002), for her orientation is to question continually her ownthinking. Seen as a process, destabilizing creates what amounts to anear constant alternation between different sides of an issue, whereas one stance emerges, another immediately questions it.

For instance, in the following example, Clara is discussing the issuementioned previously, of whether a defendants personal informationshould be allowed into a criminal trial. As discussed above, in manyways, she does not want to allow such information to be used. At thesame time, she appreciates that some personal information (e.g.,whether it was a defendants first or twenty-first offense) could beimportant. 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 specific to the people. She then immediately destabilizes

her first position with a second, stating: (Stance 2) I really would likeevery case to . . . be about that individual. Characteristic of her styleof tension work, Clara moves to undermine her second position witha return to her first position(Stance 1) Its just that I dont trust thepeople involved enough in our system to let [it be specific to indi-viduals]and back to the other side: (Stance 2) But at the same time[it should be] based on the specific character of that person. And thenshe 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 . . . reallyexamine a person.


101



9/20

In a second example of destabilizing, Clara is considering the meritof generalizations (e.g., many women are x). She oscillates between asense that generalizations are problematic because they rob the indi-

vidual of the power to determine his or her own identity, and a sensethat generalizations are necessary, to the extent that they can revealsocietal-level patterns of discrimination. As in the first example, sheengages with the tension between these stances through destabilizing,arguing first against generalizations: (Stance 1) In my ideal world, wewouldnt need to categorize people . . . because we could all just . . . doour 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 likethat. We never will. We never have), Clara then moves to argue that

generalizations are in some ways necessary to expose societal-levelpatterns of discrimination: (Stance 2) We need to use them [generaliz-ations] to reexamine the facts, the way that our society functions.Characteristically, this is not the end of her consideration, for Claradestabilizes immediately this second stance by returning to the sidethat is anti-generalization: (Stance 1) Even though we do see a certaingeneralization, its important to also notice that theres always going tobe that part that doesnt function that way. She, in turn, destabilizesthis stance by mentioning generalizations as a sort of necessary evilwith the following example: (Stance 2) This thing about women beinginterrupted more than men in conversations . . . when you really do alot of observation . . . you realize its really not because of the speed thewomen are talking, its because of the men that are interrupting. Clarathen moves again to destabilize, returning to her first stance andpointing out again that any generalization needs to be seen as such:(Stance 1) I just think that everything needs to be looked at asgeneralization and not facts, and not full . . . black and white.

Destabilizing, as seen in these examples, is not a mode where one ismerely playing devils advocate, but where one is adamant in ones

consideration of each side. As a style of tension work, destabilizingseems 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 exactlythis deep connection to each side of her argument that is critical forthe maintenance of cohesion, for such connection seems to assure theco-existence of both sides, as neither can dominate.

Molly

As will be discussed shortly, during our interview this second partici-pant often used a strikingly different mode of engaging with tension.


102



10/20

The participant, Molly is a young Caucasian woman from theMidwestern United States, and is reluctant to further elaborate on herfamily history. Molly spent most of her school-age years in a predomi-

nantly working-class part of a large city where she encountered peopleof a variety of ethnic and class backgrounds. When Molly was 10 yearsold, her father, a minister for much of his life, divorced her mother.Following the divorce, her mother, who worked as a secretary, took theprimary role in raising Molly and her older brother. In her second yearof college, Molly has been urged by some members of her family to useher talent in the hard sciences to seek a job that would afford socialmobility. Molly has decided that an interesting career is more import-ant than a profitable one, and as a double major in environmental

science and biology, she thinks she might, in the future, work topreserve coastal ecosystems.For Molly, one theme that stands out during the interviews is an

extreme caution toward attaching absolute certainty to knowledgeclaims. This caution does not seem to stem from a relativistic perspec-tive (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 offactors that contribute to any situation. She says: Theres . . . so manydifferent . . . variables in the world, and . . . different things going onthat influence everything. For Molly, insofar as only a certain numberof these can be considered at any given time, all knowledge claimsmust be somewhat tentative. On this basis, she says that while one canstrongly believe in a particular claim, it is impossible to proveanything: I dont think you can ever really prove somethingcompletely. One cannot prove anything, because the addition of apreviously excluded factor could potentially change such a claim.

Also prominent in Mollys reasoning is an emphasis on consideringpower structure, and on the importance of thinking about the views ofthose who do not occupy positions of power (and whose opinions, for

this reason, may often go ignored) as well as those who do. Forinstance, on the topic of global development, she is asked whether theUnited States should ask developing countries to preserve their naturalresources as they industrialize. She agrees that they should do so, yetpoints out how the real problem lies in the very pressure to industri-alize: Weve put a lot of pressure on . . . third world countries to likedevelop into what we are. Focusing on the perspective of those on theother side of the issue, she points out how, despite the fact that manydeveloping countries actually oppose industrialization altogether, the

United States often ignores this and simply assumes industrializationas the ideal.


103



11/20

Mode of Tension Work:Self-Moderating

As Molly encounters tensions in her thinking, she often engages in amode of tension work that can be described as self-moderating,

because she seems to approach tension from a sort of impartial thirdposition from which different perspectives are given consideration.Crucially, in contrast to the destabilizing mode, where there is deepengagement with both sides of an issue, in self-moderating Molly isdeliberately more removed in her contemplation. In meta-cognitivereflection, Molly explains that she is aware of her tendency to avoidcommitment 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 happymedium.

In an initial example of the self-moderating mode, Molly isdiscussing whether companies can, without public consent, expose thepublic to chemicals that pose health risks. She says, on the one hand,that she is against such unbeknownst exposure, on the grounds that itseems to constitute a disregard for basic human rights by those in pos-itions of power: It is really that word impose . . . I picture someone. . . being exposed to radiation without their knowledge. Yet she offersa competing claim from her perspective as a scientist: having thescientific background that I do . . . [if] someone tells me that my risk isso much . . . I can understand that better than your average person.Again, characteristic of a self-moderating mode of engagement, Mollydoes not support one side over the other, and in contrast to Clara, shealso does not deeply commit to her contrasting viewpoints. Rather, shemaintains a neutral third position, stating: I guess I am just some-where in between.

In another instance, Molly is considering genetic modification offood crops, and her dilemma is whether or not such modificationsshould be used. On the one hand, she thinks that such modificationsare positive, as they help humans by increasing food production. Yet,

at the same time, Molly is not certain that such modifications shouldbe made, as she appreciates that some species of insects would beadversely affected, leading to their demise.

Mollys approach to this dilemma is characteristic of self-moderating and the preservation of an impartial position innumerous ways. For one, as she reasons through the dilemma, shemaintains her distance by drastically limiting her movement betweeneach side of the issue. She begins her contemplation on the side ofinsects 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



12/20

that humans are more important than the harmed non-humananimals: 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 starkcontrast to the mode of destabilizing.

Mollys concluding statement on this issue is also important forillustrating self-moderating and the maintenance of an impartialthird position. In this statement she places an emphasis on theprovisional 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 Iguess. I dont know. This emphasis on the provisional nature of each

view (e.g., probably) is again suggesting that she speaks from a thirdand distanced position, one from which there is no hard and fastcommitment to a particular idea. Equally interesting is how she endsher brief consideration with the statement I dont know, which alsoseems suggestive of distancing.

Self-moderation is a mode of tension work that characterizes muchof Mollys reasoning during the interviews. Self-moderation seems toallow her to preserve a belief in many sides of an issue without havingto choose, and in this regard, self-moderating is ostensibly similar todestabilizing. However, in terms of the means through which thisend is achieved, self-moderating and destabilizing, as modes oftension work, are strikingly different. In a destabilizing mode, it isprecisely the deep connection to each side of the argument that seemsto sustain the co-existence of conflicting beliefsideas are held togetherby that tension. In stark contrast, a self-moderating mode seems basedon the distance afforded by the third neutral position, and it is thatdistance that provides room for conflicting ideas to co-exist.

Lena

The third and final participant we consider, Lena, offers yet anotherapproach to the management of tension and contradiction. Lena is ayoung Caucasian woman of Jewish heritage; she was raised in anupper-middle-class family in a diverse middle-class community of amajor metropolitan area of the Northeastern United States. Hermothers parents are from the Southern USA and her fathers parentsemigrated from Germany, where many members of Lenas paternallineage were interned and perished during World War II. She attendeda private school that she describes as diverse but segregated by

income. Her mother is the CEO of a major accounting firm and herfather is an artist. In her second year in college, Lena plans to major in


105



13/20

sociology, minor in philosophy and hold a concentration in Holocaustand Gender Studies.

A relativistic orientation is central to Lenas reasoning. During the

interview, she points out that she believes every story can have (atleast) three sides: Theres three sides to every story. Theres her side,his side, and then the truth. She continues: If two people are tellingyou the same story, its always going to be different. Lena placesspecific stress on the fact that these differences in the truth as peopletell their version of the story are unintentional. For instance, regardingthe differing perspectives between a police officer and the accused ina case involving someone driving while intoxicated, Lena points outthat, as the officer describes to a judge his version of what happened,

he will in fact be unaware that the truth will be shaped by his personalbelief: Hes going to try and make it seem through his story that thatshow it was . . . he wont even realize that hes doing it. Thus, it is notthat individuals are knowingly shifting the truth, but that what isseen as truth and individual beliefs are one and the same.

Much of Lenas reasoning is experientially based, that is, she reasonson the basis of what has happened in her life, instead of, for instance,relying on pure logical argument. As one example of such an orien-tation, asked what she would do if given competing medical diagnosesand competing treatment options, she states that she would begin withthe least invasive of the options, even if the majority of doctors recom-mended the alternative treatment. Her reasoning, she explains, is basedon her mothers recent breast cancer, and the fact that, while numerousdoctors suggested that her mother should have a mastectomy, thisassessment was shown to be mistaken and she needed a far lessinvasive 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 excep-tions. Many times as Lena reasons, she forms one side of an issuethe one for which she seems to have the most evidenceinto whatcan be thought of as her general belief. This general belief is given adominant role over her contrasting belief, which becomes an excep-tion. The exception does not negate the general beliefit is equallyvalidand therefore, exists inclusively. This mode can be seen in anexample in which, for the sake of discussion, Lena invents a hypo-thetical person who thinks all people of a certain nationality are

ignorant. In her example, this prejudiced person meets up withanother person, and through conversation, concludes that this new


106



14/20

acquaintance is intelligent. If it is later discovered that the newacquaintance is of the ignorant nationality, Lena states that the hypo-thetical 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 fit. Thisexception is inclusive, insofar as it does not negate the general belief,but rather, merely functions to allow a connection between opposingideas, making the pieces fit together.

As an example of making inclusive exceptions, Lena is reasoningabout the death penalty. She mentions how, for most of her life, she hasbeen strongly against this form of punishment: I was always reallyanti-death penalty. At the time of the interview, Lena claims she is still

against the death penalty, yet she also mentions how, for the per-petrators of a then recent large-scale crime, she favors its use. Imlike, find whoever did it and just kill em. Because . . . it was so closeto home, and . . . such a large-scale act that . . . they dont deserve tolive. Characteristic of this mode, Lena then suggests that, in general,she is still against the death penalty, yet in this one situation, she canmake an exception, and she can argue for it: I have to put a little sub-section in there that says in cases of [such] large-scale acts . . . its okay.

Another instance of using inclusive exceptions to engage tensionsarises on the topic of her views on police officers. She describespersonal experiences where she has seen police officers behave inviolent and or racist ways:

I had a friend who was doing something wrong . . . he was drinking inpublic, but he was black with his three white friends from high school. Andthe cops told his three friends to go away, and then they proceeded to beatup my friend.

On this basis, she generally feels negatively about police officers. Atthe same time, recently, she has moved to a new city for college, where

she says: And I also met a lot of the officers that work at [her college].. . . So Im starting to know em more on a personal level, and itsgetting me a little bit easier with them. When asked how she resolveswhat seem to be two different orientations toward police officers, sheagain uses inclusive exceptions, saying: Police officers in general, Imhesitant around, but these ones are okay, which is still just because Iknow 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 positionsat the same time, thwarting fragmentation. Yet making inclusive


107



15/20

exceptions differs from the other two modes discussed so far. Incontrast to self-moderating, where the participant seems to refrainfrom genuinely embracing either side of an issue, making inclusive

exceptions suggests commitment to each of the sides rather thanneutrality, on the part of the participant. In contrast with destabiliz-ing, making exceptions does not involve continually going back-and-forth between positions, and recurrently undermining ones ownthinking. Rather, in making inclusive exceptions, resolution seems tobe 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 asleading inherently to fragmentation or disunity. Increasingly, somescholars are beginning to explore the notion that tensions may exist incontexts of cohesion and unity (Arner & Falmagne, 2007; Collins, 1991;Lugones, 1994/1996). Consistent with such approaches, the precedinganalysis shows individuals as social agents, using unique styles oftension work to create cohesion amidst multiplicity as time unfolds.

To further explore the differences between these modes of tensionwork, it is of interest to contrast the respective modes along the dimen-sions of dynamicity and dominance relations3 as well as in regard tothe epistemic status of tensions each mode reflects.

Dynamicity

Destabilizing can be argued to hold a heightened level of movement,as compared with the other two modes of tension work because indestabilizing, one continually oscillates from one side to another.Moreover, as the different sides of an issue are considered, it can besuggested that back-and-forth movement becomes more rapid andintense rather than less sothis is definitely 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 lessdynamicthough certainly not staticmodes of engaging withtension. In self-moderating, for instance, movement occurs asconsideration is given to both sides of an issue, and yet becauseshifting between positions is held to a minimum, this dynamicity isattenuated as compared to destabilizing. Also, each swing of perspec-tive can be said to be of smaller range than is the case in destabilizing

because in self-moderating each one originates from an impartialneutral position, rather than the opponent position as in the case of


108



16/20

destabilizing. Likewise, in making inclusive exceptions there ismotion as one contemplates the various sides of an issue, yet this modepresents the least movement of the three considered here, for once the

ideas are placed in relation to one anotherand one idea is held as thedominant viewthere is no subsequent reversal.

Dominance Relations

These modes of tension work can also be contrasted in terms of theextent to which each makes use of dominance relations to createcohesion within contradiction. For one, dominance relations seemcentral to the mode making inclusive exceptions, for this mode oftension work depends upon an imbalance of power between different

beliefs for enabling coherency within the opposition. It can be con-jectured that without this imbalance, confusion, fragmentation ordisarray might result, whereas positioning one idea as an exceptionand in this way lessening its powerenables the meaning-makingprocess to proceed. Likewise, dominance relations are also central toself-moderating. In self-moderating it is the power of the impartialthird position over all others that seems to enable cohesion, for withoutsuch dominance of this position in respect to non-neutral commit-ments, fragmentation within contradiction could ensue.

Dominance relations also seem to be a central component ofdestabilizing, though in quite a different way. In contrast to self-moderating and making inclusive exceptionswhere dominancerelations seem to be constructed and then preservedit would seemthat destabilizing is actually aimed at constantly reconfiguring andchallenging fixed dominance structures, and it is precisely this im-balance that allows for cohesion within contradiction, as no single ideacan emerge as more important than any other.

Nurturing or Eliminating Tension

It is also interesting to explore these modes in relation to the implicitperspective on tensions they reflect. In a meta-theoretical discussion ofthe epistemic status of tensions between different theoretical frame-works, Falmagne (2006b) argues that tensions between theoreticalframeworks can be attributed different meanings and functions. Onone view, tension signifies incompatibility and merely signals thenecessity to choose between two theories, each conceptualized as beingbounded. On the other view, tensions can be seen as productive andeven generative: Tension indicates that there is something amiss or

lacking in each of the theoretical discourses, that some constructs needto be reconceptualized with an eye toward synthesis rather than


109



17/20

entrenchment: So, tensions are best seen as grounds for transformativereconceptualization, a reconceptualization that selectively draws from thosestrands 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 first view, tension is, in the end, to beeliminated. On the second view, by contrast, the goal shifts from prac-tices that eliminate the tension, to those that are aimed at preserving itin constructive form.

Along related lines, it is of interest to examine the epistemic perspec-tive on tensions that appears to underlie the three styles of tension workconsidered here. Self moderating seems to be grounded in a frame-work in which tensions are ultimately to be eliminated. Admittedly, in

self-moderating one does work within tension while consideringopposing viewpoints. Yet, ultimately, this mode appears orientedtoward the elimination of tension by adopting a middle ground (inci-dentally, for Molly, this is consistent with her broader epistemologicalframe which includes elements of objectivity).

In contrast, the modes of destabilizing and making inclusiveexceptions appear oriented toward nurturing tension. In destabiliz-ing the value or importance of tension is highlighted in an extremeway, as this mode preserves and nurtures tension between differentbeliefs not only by enabling multiple perspectives to be considered atthe same time, but also by leading to a constant building and rebuild-ing of this tension through oscillation between perspectives. So too,making inclusive exceptions conserves tension, allowing it to remainwithin the carefully constructed imbalance of ideas, which eliminatesthe 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 approachesthemestiza consciousness, the curdled self, the dialogical self or thesystemic model presented hereneed further elaboration of the localprocesses through which tensions are negotiated. In this article, weintroduce and analyze three different modes of tension work as onemodest step toward an account of the unique ways in which particularindividuals manage the cohesiveness of self and mind amidst tensionand contradiction. The aim of this article has been to articulate analyti-

cally some of these processes, and in so doing, contribute to a detailedunderstanding of the agentive strategies people employ to maintain


110



18/20

cohesion. It is perhaps unnecessary to state that, as we rely upontwo one-hour interviews, care must be exercised to avoid unwantedgeneralization about each womans overall mode of reasoning, as is

always needed in studies of this nature. Rather, it is hoped that theconstructs offered here can inform further research.

Notions of a complex self raise new challenges for social sciences. Asdiscussed previously, one such challenge is to find ways of understand-ing how individuals construct unified selves and minds amidst anarray of differing and potentially contradictory aspects. Toward thisend, this article has explored the construct of tension work as a way todescribe the process through which individuals manage contradictionas they work through various dilemmas.

As complexity of self and mind becomes increasingly acceptedwithin the social sciences, it seems useful to complement ongoingdiscussion of theoretical constructs with detailed analysis of how theperson, considered interpretively in the context of his or her sociallocation and cultural history, manages this complexity. The womendiscussed here, and the modes of tension work they demonstrate intheir reasoning, suggest the usefulness of expanding theoreticalconsideration of the role of tensions as constructive, and of furtherexploring 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 ofClark Universitys Psychology Department to Emily Abbey. The authors aregrateful to Genevieve Iselin, Irina Todorova, Eric Amsel and Jennifer Arner forconstructive comments on earlier presentation of these ideas, and to thereviewers of an earlier draft for critiques and suggestions that helped improvethe article. The authors would also like to thank each research participant forher candid and thoughtful discussion.

1. The term dialectic reflects the assumption that processes at the macro-social, 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 historicallytheir voices have not been given equal attention and consideration.

3. These notions are loosely inspired by Hermans (e.g., 1996, 2001) but areused as generalized constructs, rather than in their more specific senseswithin dialogical self theory.


111



19/20

References

Anzalda, G. (1999). La Consciencia de la mestiza: Toward a newconsciousness. 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. andTrans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original workpublished 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 oftransnational 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.), Representingreason: Feminist theory and formal Logic (pp. 133168). New York: Rowman &Littlefield.

Hermans, H.J.M. (1996). Opposites in a dialogical self: Constructions ascharacters.Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 9, 126.

Hermans, H.J.M. (2001). The dialogical self: Towards a theory of personal andcultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7, 243281.

Hermans, H.J.M., & Kempen, H.J.G. (1993). The dialogical self: Meaning asMovement. 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 PsychologyQuarterly, 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



20/20

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 atRamapo College of New Jersey. Working from a developmental orientationand a cultural perspective, she is generally curious about the process ofidentity change. Recently, she has published in the journals Culture &Psychology and Estudios de Psicologia, and is co-editor of a forthcoming volumeon microgenetic approaches titled, Innovating Genesis: Microgenesis and theConstructive Mind in Action (with Rainer Diriwchter, InfoAge). ADDRESS:

Emily Abbey, Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mahwah, NJ, 07430, USA.[email: [email protected]]

RACHEL JOFFE FALMAGNE is Professor of Psychology at Clark Universityand President of the International Society for Theoretical Psychology. Herinterests include feminist theory, critical psychology and methodological andepistemological issues for the social sciences. She has published on thegendered foundations of thought, culture and development, on the dialectic ofmacro-social, local and agentive elements in the social constitution of selfand mind, on the politics of knowledge production, on the transdisciplinaryfeminist study of reasoning and personal epistemology, on critical appraisals

of developmental and cognitive psychology, and on the dialectic of theparticular and the general in qualitative research. Her books includeRepresenting Reason: Feminist Theory and Formal Logic (with Marjorie Hass,Rowman & Littlefield, 2002) andMind and Social Practice: Selected Writings bySylvia Scribner (with Ethel Tobach and Mary Parlee, Cambridge UniversityPress, 1997). ADDRESS: Rachel Joffe Falmagne, Psychology Department,Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, MA, 01610, USA.[email: [email protected]]


113

modes of tension work within the complex self

Documents