John Shotter, Department of Communication, University of New Hampshire

 

Two kinds of responses to an >experienced difficulty=

 

ADisquiet in philosophy might be said to arise from looking at philosophy wrongly, seeing it wrong, namely as if it were divided into (infinite) longitudinal strips instead of into (finite) cross strips. This inversion of our conception produces the greatest difficulty. So we try as it were to grasp the unlimited strips and complain that it cannot be done piecemeal. To be sure it cannot, if by a piece one means an infinite longitudinal strip. But it may well be done, if one means a cross-strip. - But in that case we never get to the end of our work! - Of course not, for it has no end. (We want to replace wild conjectures and explanations by the quiet weighing of linguistic facts) (1981, no.447).

___________________________________________________________________________

 

S                     There is a tendency to treat circumstances we find bewildering or disorienting, ones which are strange and new to us, as posing a problem for us.

S                     Thus we often respond to such events by seeking a solution to them, by trying to explain them.

 

S                     There is, however, an altogether different way of responding: we can >enter into= a dialogically‑structured relationship to them, and, as we >dwell on, with, or within= them for a while, gradually gain an orientation toward them as their >inner nature= becomes familiar to us ‑ much, say, as we get to know our >way around= inside a city which is at first unfamiliar to us by exploring its highways and byways according to the different projects we try to pursue within it.

S                     In becoming familiar with something in our surroundings in this way, we come to know not just their inert, objective nature, but to know them in terms of a whole realm of possible responsive, living relations that we might have to them.

S                     We orient toward them in terms of their yet-to-be-achieved values, the (grammatical) >calls= they might exert on us to >go on= with them in one way rather than another.

S                     The development of a sensitivity to such calls is not a part of the problem-solving process.

 

S                     Below I set out some notes relevant to these two stances, these two very different ways of responsively relating ourselves to our surrounding circumstances:

 

1. PROBLEM‑SOLVING: THE CONTINUAL MONOLOGICAL REDISCOVERY OF SAMENESS

 

A sequence of steps:                                                                                                                                                                         

S                     treat the newness or strangeness as a problem to be solved

S                                     analyze it into already known elements

S                     find a pattern or order amongst them

S                     hypothesize an agency responsible for the order (call it, say, SYNERGY or some other such >stuff=)

S                     find further evidence for it

S                     enshrine it in a theory or theoretical system

S                     theories, way of thinking, become central in giving shape to our actions

S                     manipulate the strangeness (now known in terms of the theory) to produce an advantageous outcome

S                     call this >the solution= to the problem

S                     turn >to apply= the theory elsewhere

 

Properties of the process:

S                     it is a search for regularities

S                     it establishes a single order of connectedness among certain perceived aspects of one=s circumstances

S                     occasionally, >the solution= can occur to one >in a flash of insight=

S                     it works wholly within the realm of the already known to elaborate it internally

 

Effects on the self of the investigator:

S                     the SELF remains unchanged in the process

S                     we remain outside the other or otherness, we are >set over against= it

S                     we are not engaged or involved with it

S                     we acquire extra knowledge about it in the form of facts or information

S                     we gain mastery over it

 

2. ENTERING INTO A DIALOGICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH AN OTHER: BEGINNINGS AND BEGINNINGS AND BEGINNINGS, BUT NO ENDINGS

 

A sequence of steps:

S                     treat the other or otherness as still radically unknown to us

S                     >enter into= dialogically‑structured relations with it, become involved or engaged with it

S                     we must >open= ourselves to being spontaneously >moved by it

S                     relate to it responsively and responsibly ‑ this is crucial: we always know when a person is >with= us or not, whether at a party they are responsively >following= us, or whether they are looking over our shoulder to find others they want to be with

S                     this sense of contiguity, of contingency, of the other=s responses to us being contingent on our own, is very basic ‑ present even in new‑born children

S                     to >enter into= dialogically‑structured relations with another requires >tact=, >courtesy=

S                     we must not only >follow= the other, but also provide opportunities for them to >follow= us

S                     the other >calls on= us ‑ comes both to be >with= us, as well as to >call out= responses from us

S                     the other can affect us, move us ‑ their meaning for us in the responsive movements they >call out= from us

S                     we are >answerable (partially) to= their calls as they are (partially) to ours ‑ we do not reply to every aspect of their influence upon us

S                     an >it= appears between us: produced neither solely by >me= or by >you=

S                     the >it= is our it: there is poiesis at work between us ‑ the sensed creation of form

S                     the form has a shaped and vectored sense to it

S                     central to giving shape to our actions is our sensitivity or sensibility to the particular details of the other=s responsive activities

S                     as we >dwell on, with, or within= the other, there is a gradually growth of familiarity with its >inner shape=

S                     we have a sense of the value of its yet‑to‑be‑achieved aspects ‑ the prospects it offers us for >going on= with it

S                     we gain orientation, a sense of >at homeness=, we come to find our >footing=, to know our >way about= in relation to it

 

Properties of the process:

S                     Aonce‑occurrent events of Being@ are crucial ‑ single, unique events that make a difference: we talk in terms of what we are >struck by=

S                     we establish multiple, complexly ordered sense of connectedness among the perceived aspects of the other or otherness: a synopsis of trivialities

S                     our familiarity with it grows only gradually and is never finished

S                     it works at the boundaries between the radically unknown and the realm of the known to expand its boundaries

 

Effects on the self of the investigator:

S                     the SELF is changed in such encounters

S                     we become involved with, immersed in, the >inner life= of the other or otherness

S                     everything we do is partly shaped by the other in being a response to what it might do

S                     at first wholly >bewitched= by its >voice=, as our familiarity with it grows, its voice becomes one voice among the many other voices with us

S                     rather than knowledge of its nature, we gain orientation in relation to it, i.e., we grasp how to >go on= with it

S                     we never gain mastery over it ‑ others can always surprise us, no matter how familiar to us they have become