CC BY
42
A triple model of interaction in the advisory process
Section 9. Psychology
Bobkova Marina Gennadiewna, Candidate of Psychological, associate professor, Tyumen State University, Tobolsk E-mail: margen27@mail.ru Vychuzhanina Anna Yuriewna, Candidate of Philology, associate professor, Tyumen State University, Tobolsk E-mail: doulskaya@yandex.ru
A triple model of interaction in the advisory process
Abstract: A triple model of interaction in the psychological consultation is represented in the article the theories of L. S. Vygotsky, M. M. Bahtin, A. B. Orlov, H. Hermans and H. Kempen are taken as a basis. A dialogical approach is disclosed and used as a methodological principle of the given model.
Keywords: Interaction, psychological consultation, dialogic approach, dialog, triple model of interaction.
For the last twenty years, domestic psychology has changed beyond recognition. The number of qualified psychologists has grown by a factor of ten and the overwhelming majority of them, (unlike the previous generation), is occupied not with research and teaching, but with practical psychological work. Neither is it simply a quantitative change, the social status of psychology has also changed. It is turning more and more into an independent social sphere and in this connection there are radical structural changes throughout the discipline. So the global methodological problem of modern domestic psychology consists in forming a new system of relations between psychological science and practice. Applied psychology places special emphasis on the problem of interaction, and one of the places where questions of interaction are most significant is psychological consultation.
The process of psychological consultation is complex and diverse. As A. F. Kopev remarks, “the current state of advisory practice is characterized by the great variety of scientific and theoretical ideas. Psychotherapeutic practitioners constantly introduce new methods searching for a more general view on this subject. At the same time the experience of concrete advisory work demands that these assessments can themselves be adequately judged without losing their specificity, so that they can be integrated into and scientifically compared with other experiences and their theoretical interpretations” [9, 17]. However the scientific basis of psychological consultation remains insufficiently developed.
An overview of the data and literature on psychotherapy and psychological consultation (B. D. Karvasarsky, N. N. Obo-zov, M. A. Gulina, A. F. Kopev, A. B. Orlov, V. A. Tashlykov,
G. S. Abramova, V. A. Ababkov, M. G. Bobkova et al.) shows the existence of various approaches in both the psycho-therapeutic and advisory process. In understanding all of this, the
absence of any accurate theoretical reference points can be seen. Practicing psychologists do not have any unity in understanding the distinction between psychotherapeutic and advisory activity and this creates areas of misunderstanding and uncertainty.
This non-systematic character restricts the possibilities of the psychologist’s productive interaction in working out a strategy between the practitioner and the client to solve their respective problems, whereas according to leading experts (Z. Freud, K. Rogers, R. Grinson, O. Kernberg, B. D. Karvasarsky, et al.), the quality of psycho-therapeutic interaction is one of the major factors defining the success of psychotherapy and consultation. This is the most difficult part of psychotherapeutics to describe, even in general terms and has not been developed as science in itself until relatively recently; nevertheless the efficiency of “adviser-client” system still depends on a balanced advisory interaction relationship.
Interaction between the adviser and the client began, quite rightly, to take a central place in the understanding of consultation. According to V. A. Tashlykov the quality of treatment is best when the effectiveness of consultation is highest [13]. That is why research in this area is particularly important, allowing us to understand psychological consultation as a developed process of relations and interactions between the adviser and the client.
As a methodological “tool-kit”, the interpretation of interactions in psychological consultation uses the dialogical approach. In psychology, dialogism is thought of as a resolution of conflicts. In this respect the Great Psychological Encyclopedia defines the concept, as “dialogical speech” that means a “conversation between two persons, constructed in the form of remarks. Dialogical speech between interlocutors works at a certain level suggested by them, in language that is clear for
61
Section 9. Psychology
both. Speech expresses the essence of a person and defines his typological characteristic. A correctly constructed model of dialogue allows faster and more successful results than simple conversation” [3, 136].
The problem ofdialogism is more fully discussed in M. Buber, K. Jaspers, M. M. Bakhtin, N. A. Berdjaev, S. L. Frank, U. M. Lotman et al.
In the first half of the 20th century, dialogism was seen as a new type of reflexion based on dialogue understood in philosophy as “the relation between “Self” and “Significant other” [11, 320]. The essence of dialogism as a “new type of thinking” is based on “relation”, instead of knowledge, and is guided by an embodiment of “action”, instead of remaining at a contemplative level. A valid “I” is the result of a spontaneous orientation of the person to something Other than itself [11, 320]. For K. Jaspers, dialogism (interlocutory) is a tool promoting communications, it is a means of ‘life-comprehension’. Dialogism realizes that when “Another” has an influence on “Me” the same can be said of an influence from me. Besides, Jaspers considers that dialogism is a mutual tendency of people “to find themselves”. Thus when the philosopher addresses himself to the problems of “lives of people in the world”, the role of dialogism as a function of personal history, is clearly shown. Dialogue arising between those possessing “the will to communicate”, is the necessary basis of any attempt at the unification of people. The core of dialogism is acceptance and understanding.
As M. M. Bakhtin wrote, “it is impossible to attribute a word to one speaker. The author (speaker) has his inalienable rights to use a word, but the listener also has rights, as well as the rights of people who used that word before it was found and used by the author (after all, there are no “nobody’s words”)” [1]. Besides, Bakhtin specified that the relationship between another’s statements assume a relationship with the speaker, besides that of the relation of a dialogue to its subject. J. M. Lotman says that “dialogue means asymmetry, which is expressed firstly in distinction of the semiotic structure (language) of the dialogues participants and second, in an alternate giving and receiving of ideas” [8, 268]. The dialogical approach to psychological consultation, based on the philosophical principles of dialogism was developed by Russian psychologists and psychotherapists (T. A. Florenskaya, E. T. Sokolova, N. S. Burlakova, F. E. Vasiljuk, A. F. Kopev).
T. A. Florenskaya believes that one of the features of dialogical consultation is the relationship between the person and the subject of the “live dialogue”, but not that between the object of research and influence. Such a dialogical approach “... is based on universal spiritual and moral reference points” [12, 5]. At a deep level of the understanding of human psychology — there is “a dialogue with the conscience where the spiritual “I” is shown” [14, 25].
Beyond any understanding, surpassing the possibility and comprehension of the person’s “spiritual I”, T. A. Florenskaya considers “the existent I” is the person in his present condition taking into account his limitation of experience, environment,
education and heredity. In addition “the existing I” comprises two voices “the real I” and “the ideal I”. By the first, the author means the actuality of the person him- or herself. By the second, she means an ideal image, which he or she would like to see of him- or herself. The “Spiritual I”, though, should not be the subject of psychological research, but it is necessary, that the psychologist recognises its existence a priori. In fulfilling this condition there is the possibility of “joining dialogically” his “spiritual I” with the patient’s “spiritual I”. Only then can the psychologist start to detect and describe the “existing I” of the patient, or so the author believes.
A. F. Kopyov [9] suggests considering dialogue as the moment of actualisation by clients of their original nature when they overcome the resistance and protection of their psyche. For this reason the author ascribes special emphasis to psychological conditions in which dialogue either occurs or is avoided, and also the clients dialogical intention, which is much more important than a total victory of his (the therapists) will in a consultation situation, or than the form which the self-determination of the client takes or the value of the words spoken at the time.
F. E. Vasiljuk [6] offers a classification of types of psychotherapist and client interaction, constructed along vectors of psycho-therapeutic space. He considers that the process works within the consciousness of the client, with the accent on localisation of work within the external ‘world-knowledge’; the clients inadequacy of situation image; lack of experience or self-knowledge of the internal aspects of their private world.
It is always a dialogue, but what kind of dialogue depends on the chosen “psychotechnical unit” and the role the psychotherapist plays caused by this choice, The modus operandi when conducting a dialogue can be, at any given stage, a monologue of the psychotherapist (interpretation of unconscious displays), a monologue of the client (the psychotherapist in this case is the nonverbal participant of dialogue, demonstrating trust, empathy and acceptance of the client).
We suggest considering the idea of trialogical interaction models in psychological consultation based on theories of L. S. Vygotsky about social and cultural mediation in development of mental functions; the dialogical nature of consciousness of M. M. Bakhtin; the trialogical approach in psychotherapy and A. B. Orlov’s psychological consultation and the theories of “dialogical Self” propounded by H. Hermans, and H. Kempen.
L. S. Vygotsky put forward the idea of social and cultural mediation in the development of mental functions, and noticed that this development is carried out in a dyadic communication context. The result of training is connected with the mastery of social skills and abilities which are then, in turn, used to process the internal means of personal organisation of behaviour. Activity is mediated by sign structures; the internal plan is transformed and becomes the plan for a problem resolution. The problem or solution factor in the internal plan is mediated by its own semiotic structure which in
62
A triple model of interaction in the advisory process
the course of activity replaces natural mental structures and attains an ontological status [5]. According to L. S. Vygotsky, “... there are relationships between the higher mental functions and real human relationships. I concern myself with how people concern me” [7, 142]. Interaction, according to L. S. Vygotsky is about social and cultural mediation in the development of mental functions and it is shown through internalised language structures where the person internalises social relations, and also through concrete relations which being curtailed, become intra-psychic. Therefore talking about the nature of interaction and its dynamics, it can be supposed, using the ideas of L. S. Vygotsky as a basis, that in a dialogue, the actions of one interlocutor cause specific actions and replies in another and vice versa. Thus, within the activity in which realization is carried out through co-operation with others, the latter interlocutor forms semiotic structures corresponding to this activity. These semiotic structures then undergo the process of ontogenesis and turn into structures of consciousness.
M. M. Bakhtin considers any human manifestation (even silence, inaction, or ignoring communication) to be materially dialogic. There is no dialogue a priori. M. M. Bakhtin wrote: “Two voices are the minimum of life, the minimum of being” [1, 339]. He saw everything as a dialogue. Every word is a reply to another word, coming from another person. Through words we answer somehow, we agree, we fight, we argue with or accept Another Man. Thereby opening the boundaries of the human inner world, contact with another person only happens in dialogue, authentic dialogue is being, its dialogic nature actualizes our existence.
There is a system of propositions in A. B. Orlov’s triple approach to the understanding of dialogue between the adviser and the client, which develops simultaneously the concept of the person in general psychology, and the system of concepts in the dialogical approach. His representation of the structure of a person is “the intra-psychological triad of instances” — a person, a face, a shade; and this triad goes back to A. A. Ukhtomsky’s works: a person, another as its double; another as person (interlocutor) and this became the initial idea for subsequent reasoning. Accordingly, the following proposition is a statement about triple-voice and triple-being of person — trialogue.
The concept “trialogue” means:
1) a conceptual understanding of the fundamental triplic-ity of being (as existence, structures, and systems);
2) communicative and auto-communicative structure, which can be said to possess four dimensions: inter-personal (a person — a person), intra-personal (a person — a shade), sub-personal (a shade — a shade) and trans-personal (a face — a face);
3) the real phenomenon of practical psychotherapy-consultation which includes, besides the positions of the psychologist and the patient, a third participant, the observer;
4) training procedure in psychotherapy-consultation practice.
According to this model, trialogue is a real phenomenon of practical psychotherapy-consultation and is formed by two triads of subjects of communication:
1) the psychotherapist-adviser, the imagined observer, the patient;
2) the patient, the imagined observer, the psychotherapist-adviser.
Besides this, A. B. Orlov formulates three basic ideas for his approach:
1) the idea of three territories (“I overcome not there where I outlive, and I outlive not there where I live”) [12];
2) the idea of three subjects (three internal instances - an observer, an internal client, and an internal therapist);
3) the idea of three languages (a display ofan “I” with three subjects or aspects of the personal participants in the communication which occur in three language forms: an internalised observer uses the sign language of behavior, an internalisded client uses the signals of body language and an internalised therapist uses the symbolical (figurative) language of conditions).
Thanks to the translation of the works of L. S. Vygotsky and M. M. Bakhtin the idea of dialogism has been recognised and developed in psychology outside Russia. One of the mainstream dialogical directions in psychological work is that of H. Hermans, and H. Kempen [14] with the concept of “dialogical Self”. The authors have offered three definitions of this concept:
1) it forms several “I”-positions, and “I”, depending on the situation can occupy any of the available positions;
2) each I-position occupies a limited, imagined spatio-temporal area, possessing a unique psychological maintenance which occurs because of the unique experiences of dialogue with voices of its own significant “others”;
3) it is socially created because imagined “I”-positions arise from internal dialogues mediated by society [13]. Later, each of three statements has been specified and expanded:
1а) dialogical self (DS) is made up of a set of voices, each of which is in a condition to generate its own value system of the past, the present and the future;
2а) various voices with their value systems are located at declarative level of DS functioning, and all this system experiences influences of the latent source of motives;
3а) various voices, forming the value systems within their prospects communicate in the dialogical way.
Starting from L. S. Vygotsky, M. M. Bakhtin, A. B. Orlov,
H. Hermans, and H. Kempen’s ideas, it is possible to describe and study features of interaction in psychological consultation. An additional focus of attention occurs when studying the problem of interaction between the adviser and the client because of research into features of interaction and efficiency in modern methods of psychological consultation. The triple approach to dialogue between an adviser and a client allows us to create an interaction model where positions of the co-operating parties (adviser; observer; client) combine in special ways depending on the method applied in psychological consultation. Such a model of interaction is called as the “triple interaction model”.
63
Section 9. Psychology
References:
1. Бахтин М. М. Проблема этики Достоевского. - М.: Наука, 1963. - 320 с.
2. Бахтин М. М. Эстетика словесного творчества. - М.: Искусство, 1979.
3. Большая психологическая энциклопедия. - М.: Эксмо, 2007. - 544 с.
4. Бобкова М. Г. Проблемы взаимодействия и понимания в психологическом консультировании//Вестник КГУ им. Н. А. Некрасова, серия «Педагогика. Психология. Социальная работа. Ювенология. Социокинетика». - № 4. -2009. - С. 158-161.
5. Бобкова М. Г. Методика анализа вербального взаимодействия субъектов консультационного процесса//Консуль-тативная психология и психотерапия. - 2013. - № 4. - С. 119-133.
6. Василюк Ф. Е. Уровни построения переживания и методы психологической помощи//Вопросы психологии - 1988, -№ 52 - С. 15-24.
7. Выготский Л. С. История развития ВПФ. Собр.соч. в 6-ти т. - Т. 3. - М.,1983.
8. Гончаров М. А. Атмосфера эмоциональной безопасности как фактор эмоциональных отношений и ее роль во взаимодействии психотерапевта и пациента. //Центр позитивной психотерапии. - Хабаровск, 2003. - [Электронный ресурс]. - Режим доступа: http//www.cpp khy.ru (свободный).
9. Копьев А. Ф. Психологическое консультирование: опыт диалогической интерпретации//Вопросы психологии. -1990. - № 3.
10. Лотман Ю. М. Семиосфера. - СПб.: Искусство-СПб, 2004. - 704 с.
11. Новейший философский словарь. - Мн.: Интерпрессервис; Книжный Дом, 2001. - 1280 с.
12. Орлов А. Б. Психологическое консультирование и психотерапия: триалогический подход//Вопросы психологии. -2002. - № 3.
13. Ташлыков В. А. Психология лечебного процесса. - Л.: Медицина, 1984. - 182 с.
14. Флоренская Т. А. Диалог в практической психологии: Наука о душе. - М.: Гуманит. изд. центр ВЛАДОС, - 2001, - 208 с.
15. Hermans H. The Construction and Reconstruction of a Dialogical Self. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, - 2003, -16 (2), 89-130.
16. Hermans H. J. M. & Kempen H. J. G. The dialogical Self: Meaning as movement. - San Diego: Academic Press. - 1993.
64
