Relational Determination in Interpersonal and Intrapsychic Experience

Edward S. Ragsdale
{"title":"Relational Determination in Interpersonal and Intrapsychic Experience","authors":"Edward S. Ragsdale","doi":"10.2478/gth-2021-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary The task of this article is to review the principle of relational determination, as described by Solomon Asch (1952) which expands over Karl Duncker’s (1939) critique of ethical relativism. Relational determination has much to offer to the therapeutic community first with regard to interpersonal relations and social relations. My main goal is to extend this relational analysis to intrapsychic life, which may expose new potentialities for internal conflict resolution and personal integration, predicated on the cultivation of relational understanding (i.e., recognition of relational determination in organization of conscious experience). But this approach is best illustrated in its application to value differences and conflict across societies, which are typically viewed from the absolutist or relativist perspective. The principle of relationality casts doubt on elementaristic assumptions common to both (e.g., meaning constancy). Such assumptions lead to some ill-considered conclusions: of irreconcilable moral differences dividing both individuals and groups, deprived of any basis in understanding. Those views fail to consider the contexts underlying the meanings and valuations we impute. When these are taken into account, Duncker’s hypothesis of an invariant relation between meaning and value finds support. Value differences (or changes) need not represent fundamental differences in morality, but instead (factual) differences in understanding of the situation. If so, then value differences may indeed be both understandable and reconcilable. Relational determination reveals this same potentiality with regard to intrapsychic conflict, where the same presumption of irreconcilable differences must be overcome. Work by Erich Neumann provides a valuable depth psychological perspective on this inner conflict, which accords surprisingly well with the relationality principle in particular and field theory in general. From that vantage point, psychological defenses may be recognized as structural properties of yet unreconciled psychical fields. Gestalt theory’s relational view, which aligns well with Neumann’s account of a “new ethic” helps to reveal the processes by which these defensive postures might abate, as value realms that earlier dwelt in hostile opposition develop more of a conscious and respectful relation with each other, as the individual inches toward greater wholeness.","PeriodicalId":33799,"journal":{"name":"Gestalt Theory","volume":"43 1","pages":"121 - 141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gestalt Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/gth-2021-0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Summary The task of this article is to review the principle of relational determination, as described by Solomon Asch (1952) which expands over Karl Duncker’s (1939) critique of ethical relativism. Relational determination has much to offer to the therapeutic community first with regard to interpersonal relations and social relations. My main goal is to extend this relational analysis to intrapsychic life, which may expose new potentialities for internal conflict resolution and personal integration, predicated on the cultivation of relational understanding (i.e., recognition of relational determination in organization of conscious experience). But this approach is best illustrated in its application to value differences and conflict across societies, which are typically viewed from the absolutist or relativist perspective. The principle of relationality casts doubt on elementaristic assumptions common to both (e.g., meaning constancy). Such assumptions lead to some ill-considered conclusions: of irreconcilable moral differences dividing both individuals and groups, deprived of any basis in understanding. Those views fail to consider the contexts underlying the meanings and valuations we impute. When these are taken into account, Duncker’s hypothesis of an invariant relation between meaning and value finds support. Value differences (or changes) need not represent fundamental differences in morality, but instead (factual) differences in understanding of the situation. If so, then value differences may indeed be both understandable and reconcilable. Relational determination reveals this same potentiality with regard to intrapsychic conflict, where the same presumption of irreconcilable differences must be overcome. Work by Erich Neumann provides a valuable depth psychological perspective on this inner conflict, which accords surprisingly well with the relationality principle in particular and field theory in general. From that vantage point, psychological defenses may be recognized as structural properties of yet unreconciled psychical fields. Gestalt theory’s relational view, which aligns well with Neumann’s account of a “new ethic” helps to reveal the processes by which these defensive postures might abate, as value realms that earlier dwelt in hostile opposition develop more of a conscious and respectful relation with each other, as the individual inches toward greater wholeness.
人际和心理体验中的关系决定
本文的任务是回顾Solomon Asch(1952)所描述的关系决定原则,该原则扩展了Karl Duncker(1939)对道德相对主义的批判。关系决定首先在人际关系和社会关系方面可以为治疗社区提供很多。我的主要目标是将这种关系分析扩展到心理内生活,这可能会揭示内部冲突解决和个人整合的新潜力,这是基于关系理解的培养(即在意识经验的组织中认识到关系决定)。但这种方法最好地体现在它对不同社会的价值差异和冲突的应用上,这些差异和冲突通常是从绝对主义或相对主义的角度来看的。关系性原则使人们对两者共同的元素主义假设产生了怀疑(例如,意义恒定)。这样的假设导致了一些考虑不周的结论:不可调和的道德差异分裂了个人和群体,剥夺了任何理解的基础。这些观点没有考虑到我们估算的含义和估值背后的背景。当考虑到这些因素时,Duncker关于意义和价值之间不变关系的假设得到了支持。价值差异(或变化)不一定代表道德上的根本差异,而是对情况理解上的(事实上的)差异。如果是这样的话,那么价值差异可能确实是可以理解和调和的。关系决定揭示了心理冲突的同样潜力,在心理冲突中,必须克服同样的不可调和差异的假设。埃里希·诺依曼的作品为这种内心冲突提供了一个有价值的深度心理学视角,这与特别是关系性原则和一般的场论惊人地吻合。从这个有利的角度来看,心理防御可能被认为是尚未协调的心理领域的结构特征。格式塔理论的关系观与诺依曼对“新伦理”的描述非常一致,这有助于揭示这些防御姿态可能减弱的过程,因为早期处于敌对对立中的价值领域随着个人逐渐走向更大的整体性,彼此之间发展出更多有意识和尊重的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
32 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信