Search

Sociogenesis addresses a pervasive problem in psychology given by Cartesian dualism that assigns the mental an inner locus apart from material activity. Aligning ourselves to the ongoing critical discussions of interiorization in psychology, we explore the crucial notion of space by highlighting language as sociocultural and dialogical activity performed by other-oriented individuals. We discuss space in terms of the “language spacetime”, a symbolic, embodied formation of mutually positioned speaking and listening selves. This leads beyond the “inside-outside” container metaphor and allows for a reformulation of interiorization. Interiorization is conceptualized as a continuous series of different, though mutually related movements between self and other and self and self that lead to and are supported by specific formations in language activity: reversion, transposition, and decoupling. Along a short passage of a video-based interview, we trace the reversion of dialogical positions within the addressivity constellation of the two interlocutors, their interactive creation of a heterotopic spacetime, and the decoupling of one speaker's psychological activity from the concrete here-and-now and the present other by moving and acting into this new sphere. Interiorization appears as a movement at the border of past, present, and possible future(s). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article we discuss the research of the communication in the real space sociability of the work world. The actuality of the central concept of the work today is more complex because the communication is present. The research has been conducted with the triangulation of quantitative and qualitative methods, as explained in Denzin and Lincoln (2006), to explore competing visions of research contexts. The results show the contradictions between official organizational communication and the communication in the work world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My starting point is a dialogical notion of language that puts forth language activity as a dynamic process performed by subjects conceived as dialogical selves. Obviously, the language performance taking place at a specific moment is not pure momentaneity, not only unique but also well-known, it can be identified and recognized. What, then, grants the performance order and makes it non-arbitrary? To preserve the priority of the performance of language activity one has to conceive of a structuring moment other than some supra-individual system that is upstream to performance. This leads to the “in-between”: the principal assumption is that relata are constituted by an in-between, understood as a medium-generating relatedness, and thus the relata as such. Seeing language as that medium, I look at the way it functions, how it supplies forms as possibilities of generating a communicable and understandable subjectivity. Time is a key notion to this questioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]