|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE PREFERENCE AXIS -
AMBIGUITY AND COMPLEXITY IN PERSONAL CONSTRUING
|
|
|
Mary Frances |
|
|
Leamington Spa, UK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This paper offers a simple
method for clarifying
personal meaning where there is ambiguity and dilemma, particularly at
superordinate levels of construing. I outline a potential method which
converts
a bipolar construct into a matrix for exploration when there is no
clearly
preferred pole. Some of the theoretical and practical implications are
discussed, and I suggest the addition of this method to the possible
techniques
for laddering constructs. The method is applicable in both clinical and
organisational settings, particularly in situations where no immediate
action
or decision is required.
Key
words: preference, dilemma,
ambiguity, choice, core
constructs, laddering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“...the
construct tends to force either one or other of the two alternatives.
If it
were not so, the construct would have no meaning.” (Kelly, 1955)
“Construing
is therefore not successful or even appropriate in the face of some
kinds of
experience” (Burr, 2003)
In
this paper, I propose a simple method which might be added to the PCP
technique
of laddering to explore the personal meanings of a dichotomous
construct.
Laddering has been described as “no more and no less than asking the
question
why?” (Dalton & Fransella, 1990). Descriptions of the technique
however
usually do require something more, as the person is asked to select the
preferred pole of their construct at each stage of the process.
As
described by Kelly, the two poles of our constructs are mutually
exclusive: “an
object cannot be both black and white.. .If it were not so, the
construct would
have no meaning”. In much of our literature and teaching, movement
between
poles of an existing dichotomous construct, or the inability to choose
a
preferred pole, are described as negative at worst or superficial at
best. Lack
of preference might be described as ‘over-loose construing’ or
‘implicative dilemma’,
regular movement between the poles of a construct as ‘superficial
movement’ or
‘slot-rattling’. We do, at least theoretically, see constructs as
wholes, but
at the same time we seem to put a lot of pressure on choice and the
preference
for one pole or the other, and we seem to value the relative stability
of
behaviours reflecting that preference.
In
her paper on construing ambiguity, Vivien Burr (2003) has written about
limits
of dichotomous construing, suggesting that the notion of the bipolar
construct
seems to make most sense when we apply it to the need to make a
decision and
take action, or when we view the world as a source of information.
Focussing on
art and poetry, Burr argues convincingly that the ‘solid can be fluid,
the
inanimate can be animated, the permanent can be temporary’.
While
Kelly’s assertion
that a thing cannot be both black and white may be a very practical
notion for
everyday purposes, it seems limited in relation to the complexity of
art, and
perhaps also to other aspects of experience.
During
a recently observed training session on the technique for laddering
constructs,
participants were asked in the usual way to identify the preferred
poles of
their constructs before articulating their personal significance. The
session
put great emphasis on identifying preference, and I was left wondering
whether
our superordinate constructs might lend themselves to exploration
through a
more artistic sensibility which valued ambiguity and indecision as well
as
choice. While discovering preferences is an important step in avoiding
therapist assumptions about clients’ meanings, the experience I
observed seemed
to highlight the way in which continually discriminating and evaluating
the
poles ‘as opposed to’ each other might prevent us from appreciating the
construct as a whole, and truly understanding its meaning for the
individual.
The
participant I observed was struggling with a choice between ‘being
open’ as opposed
to ‘being closed’. Their facilitator, failing twice to elicit a
preference, had
reached the stage of ‘but if you had to choose…’ Rather than sharing
the facilitator’s
determination, I found myself identifying strongly with the construer’s
dilemma.
How would I choose myself between these two interesting opposites? It
seemed to
me that it might be more fruitful to consider them in relation to each
other rather
than as opposed to each other. If I were really pushed to make a choice
I would
perhaps opt for being open, in its meanings of honesty and receptivity,
but I
would certainly feel a pang of regret at consigning being closed to the
category of ‘least preferred’, valuing as I do the hidden inner world.
The
experience left me wondering why we are so insistent on choice,
especially at
superordinate level. Why are we so determined to categorise these
values of the
heart? It suddenly felt very un-Kellyan.
In my
work with organisations and groups I am often trying to unhook what
seem to be
false opposites which have resulted in conflict. For example, a group
may be
arguing about efficiency as opposed to flexibility. Those who argue for
efficiency are instantly construed by their colleagues as moving
unhelpfully
away from a flexible approach, while those promoting flexible work
patterns are
construed automatically by others as less efficient. The contrasts have
become
embedded positions but have very little internal logic. A simple and
helpful
intervention can be to disrupt the well-rehearsed argument by
separating the
two constructs. We can then explore ‘being efficient or not’ in
relation to
‘being flexible or not’. The two axes form a matrix which allows for
more subtle
discriminations, as well as creating an area of common ground – the
acceptance
that some behaviours or methods can be both flexible and efficient, and
that
some are neither. Converting a bipolar argument into a matrix of
exploration
can be a most facilitative intervention, instantly changing the terms
of engagement.
It
may be that a similar method could enable the exploration of
significant
personal constructs. Our experience of our core values for example,
may, like
the world of art, be too ambiguous and complex to be pushed into the
selection
of a preferred pole. An implicative dilemma may be representative of a
wholistic sensibility, rather than a problem in construing,
particularly in a
context where no specific action or immediate decision is required. The
training session I observed was not the first time that I have found
myself or
others unwilling or unable to choose between the poles of our
constructs.
During the laddering process, one or two steps removed from the
construct
originally elicited, the specific context we started with no longer
seems appropriate
as a guide to choice – we are saying something much bigger here, and
more is at
stake.
As a
consequence of this experience, I have been experimenting with the
introduction
of a ‘preference axis’ as an alternative method for exploring the
personal
meanings of constructs. The addition of a dimension of ‘most
preferred/least
preferred’ allows the conversion of a dichotomous core construct into a
matrix
which might enable a more complex understanding of how the poles relate
to each
other, and how the construct actually works in the person’s system. The
French
thinker Gaston Bachelard often described himself as a ‘philosopher of
adjectives’, and introducing a matrix of preference to help us to
elicit rich
pictures of clients’ constructs may lead to our becoming philosophers
of adjectives
rather than categorisers of choice. We may find more scope for
honouring the
wholism and integrity of a construct rather than encouraging people
into dichotomous
choices which fit our theoretical assumptions, but may not fit their
reality.
As an
initial experiment, I added a preference axis to my construct of being
open vs being
closed, which revealed my meanings as:
I
immediately felt that this had given me an important understanding of
how this
construct works for me. I am left unsure of whether I have a preference
between
open and closed even when I try to contextualise the construct, and I
am not
convinced that this matters. What I have become aware of is that I
notice open
vs closed – it’s a very important construct for me. The openness and
closedness
of people, and the rhythms of openness and closedness in myself and
others, are
things I pay great attention to.
The
ABC model proposed by Tschudi (1977) recognised the potential for
paradox in bipolar
construing, proposing simple and helpful questions about the potential
disadvantages
of our preferences and the advantages of our least preferred options.
This
process often reveals a form of ‘payoff’ which makes new sense of our
dilemma
or stuckness, and can be a step towards change. The method outlined
here
perhaps elaborates Tschudi’s work a little, and may be particularly
useful in
situations where no choice or action is immediately required. Rather
than
moving towards resolution, the method encourages a sustained
propositionality,
a stance at the heart of personal construct theory, described by Kelly
as
‘uncontaminated construction’ and contrasted positively with
preemption,
rigidity, and ‘ceasing to be a scientist’.
I
have continued to experiment with the preference axis and have found it
helpful
in establishing a value-free approach to a person’s constructs. An
example
comes from a client who, exploring the many demands being made on her,
spoke
about being loving contrasted with being selfish. The use of a
preference
matrix implicitly established the potential value of both poles. She
described
her preferences as:
It is
always difficult to imagine the path not taken, but I had the sense
that the
preference matrix revealed a range of very honest responses very
quickly,
without a positive or negative evaluation attaching exclusively to
either pole.
How easy, or possible, would it have been to ‘prefer’ being selfish
over being
loving? Might an immediate declaration of preference have rendered us
less able
to consider the pleasures of selfishness, or the frustrations of being
loving?
It seemed to prevent a slide into simple or obvious choices which would
fragment the construct and potentially undermine its meaning, and it
began,
rather than resolved, a process of exploration.
In
using the axis rather than asking for preferred poles, I am trading an
emphasis
on instant but potentially superficial clarity for an acceptance of
wholism,
ambiguity and confusion, with a greater honouring of ‘it depends…’.
These and
subsequent experiments suggest that preferences within many of our core
constructs may be more fluidly held than our theory leads us to
suspect. We
inhabit the dimensions of our significant constructs, and, far from
simple
‘slot-rattling’, we weave a web of positions and pathways within the
coordinates
offered by the preference matrix.
Going
back to Bachelard to add the reference to this paper, I am both
surprised, and
at the same time not at all surprised, to find that the book falls open
at this
question:
“Shall
we repeat with the logicians that a door must be open or closed?
And
shall we find in this maxim an instrument that is really effective for
analysing human passions?”
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES
Bachelard,
G. (1958, new edition 1994). The Poetics
of Space, Beacon Press
Burr,
V. (2003). Making Sense and the Ambiguity of the Lived World, in
Chiari, G.
& Nuzzo, M.L., (eds) Psychological
Constructivism and the Social World, Milano: EPCA/FrancoAngeli
Fransella,
F. & Dalton, P. (1990). Personal Construct
Counselling in Action, London:
Sage
Kelly,
G. (1955, new edition 1991). The Psychology
of Personal Constructs, London:
Routledge
Tschudi,
F., (1977). Loaded and honest questions: a construct theory view of
symptoms
and therapy, in Bannister, D. (ed). New
Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory, London:
Academic Press |
|
|
|
|
|
ABOUT THE
AUTHOR
Mary
Frances is a facilitator working with the process if change in
individuals, groups and organisations.
Email: mary.frances@virgin.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCE
Frances, M.
(2004). The preference axis - ambiguity and complexity in personal
construing. Personal
Construct Theory & Practice,
1, 104-107
(Retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp04/frances04.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Received: 14 Oct 2004 – Accepted: 23 Dec
2004 -
Published: 30 Dec 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|