Search

How do ideas come into being? Our contribution takes its starting point in an observation we made in empirical data from a prior study. The data center around an instant of an academic writer’s thinking during the revision of a scientific paper. Through a detailed discourse-oriented micro-analysis, we zoom in on the writer’s thinking activity and uncover the genesis of a complex idea through a sequence of interrelated moments. These moments feature different degrees of “crystallization” of the idea; from gestures, a sketch, a short written note, oral explanations to a final spelled-out written argument. For this contribution, we re-analyze the material, asking how the idea gets formed during the thinking process and how it reaches a tangible form, which is understandable both for the thinker and for other persons. We root our analysis in a notion of language as social, embodied, and dialogical activity, drawing on concepts from Humboldt, Jakubinskij, and Vygotsky. We focus our analysis on three conceptual nodes. The first node is the ebbing and advancing of language in idea formation – observable as a trajectory through linguistically more condensed or more expanded utterance forms. The second node is the degree of objectification that the idea reaches when it is performed differently in a variety of addressivity constellations, i.e., whether and how it becomes understandable to the thinker and to others in the social sphere. Finally, the third node is the saturation of the idea through what we call intrapersonal intertextuality, i.e., its complex and dialogically related re-articulations in a sequence of formative moments. With these considerations, we articulate a clear consequence for theorizing thinking. We hold that thinking is social, embodied, and dialogically organized because it is entangled with language. Ideas come into being and become understandable and communicable to other persons only by and within their different, yet, intertextually related formations.

"Das dialogische Selbst" von Frank-M. STAEMMLER ist ein wichtiger Beitrag zu einem dialogischen Menschenbild, das von verschiedenen Seiten als Alternative zur methodologischen Individualismus formuliert wird. Der Zusammenhang zwischen einer dialogischen Theorie des Selbst und konkreten therapeutischen Techniken wird einleuchtend hergestellt; klar wird dabei, dass dialogisches Denken eine Herausforderung an tradierte Denkmuster ist. Es sabotiert die Denkfigur der "abgelösten Vorgängigkeit" (BERTAU 2015) (von "Ich", "Selbst") zugunsten des je tatsächlichen Geschehens. Allerdings können Pluralität und Dynamik, Performativität und Gegenwärtigkeit des Geschehens ihrerseits nicht beliebig sein und bloß emergent, sie erfahren vielmehr eine Struktur, ohne die sie nicht (wieder-) erkennbar wären. Wie das Verhältnis von Geschehen und Struktur zu denken ist, scheint mir eine der Kernfragen des dialogischen Denkens zu sein. Nach einer formalen Betrachtung und inhaltlichen Übersicht des Buchs diskutiere ich diese Frage entlang STAEMMLERs eigenen Ideen über zwei Themen: Pluralität und Sprache. Das Verhältnis von Geschehen und Struktur ist demnach über die sprachliche Form in der Zeit, über die Zeit, zu denken. Angeredetwerden von einem "Du", das immer auch das allgemeine "Man" (oder "Wir") stellvertritt, verleiht dem "Ich" als dialogischem Selbst Stabilität in der Vielfalt. Der Schritt zur Öffnung der Intersubjektivität ins Öffentliche wird damit als notwendiges Moment zur Überwindung des Individualismus angesehen.URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1503298, The book "Das dialogische Selbst" [Dialogical Self] by Frank-M. Staemmler (2015) is an important contribution to a dialogic view on human beingness formulated by several scholars as an alternative to methodological individualism. The connection between a dialogical theory of self and concrete therapeutic techniques is established in a convincing way, thereby emphasizing that dialogic thinking is a challenge to traditional patterns of thinking. Dialogic thinking undermines the idea of detached and preliminary self-contained entities (such as "I" or "self") in favor of actual performances. However, plurality, dynamics, and performativity within any given moment need some kind of structuring, otherwise they would not be recognizable. A core issue of dialogical thinking seems to me to be the conception of the relationship between an occurring process and its structuring. After a synopsis of the book in form and content, I discuss this issue alongside two of STAEMMLER's own ideas on the topic: plurality and language. The relationship between a process and its structuring is to be conceived by language forms across time. Being addressed by a "Thou," which always represents the "One" (or "We"), is what confers the "I" as "dialogical self" stability within plurality. I hence view opening intersubjectivity to publicness (Öffentlichkeit) as a necessary step in overcoming individualism.URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1503298, El libro "Das dialogische Selbst" [Ser dialógico] por Frank-M. STAEMMLER (2015) es una importante contribución a una visión dialógica del ser humano formulado por varios estudiosos como alternativa al individualismo metodológico. Se establece la conexión entre una teoría dialógica del yo y técnicas terapéuticas concretas de modo convincente, de tal modo que se enfatiza que el pensamiento dialógico es un desafío a los patrones tradicionales de pensamiento. El pensamiento dialógico socava la idea de entidades independientes separadas y preliminares (como "yo" o "yo mismo") en favor de acciones reales. Sin embargo, la pluralidad, dinámica y performatividad en un momento dado necesitan algún tipo de estructuración, de lo contrario, no sería reconocibles. Me parece que una cuestión central del pensamiento dialógico es la concepción de la relación entre un proceso y su estructuración. Después de un resumen del libro en su forma y contenido, discuto este tema junto a dos de las ideas de STAEMMLER sobre el tema: pluralidad y lenguaje. La relación entre un proceso y su estructura debe concebirse por formas de lenguaje a través del tiempo. Estar dirigida por un "tú", que siempre representa a "uno" (o a "nosotros"), es lo que le confiere al "yo" estabilidad dentro de la pluralidad como "yo dialógico". Por lo tanto, abrir la intersubjetividad a lo público (Öffentlichkeit) es un paso necesario para superar el individualismo.URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1503298