|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE SOUND OF IMPLICATION
|
|
|
Simone Cheli |
|
|
Centre for Research and Documentation, Institute of Constructivist Psychology, Padua, Italy
|
|
|
|
|
|
As anyone who is involved in PCP, I have always
found a recurrent but unpublished reference: Hinkle, 1965. Reading after reading
it seemed like a Zen koan, a precept saying
"try to reach the un-reachable" or a Master asking what is "the
sound of just one hand”. Many authors talked about laddering and
pyramiding techniques and so on, and all of them started from the same mysterious
reference: Hinkle, 1965. So I was hypothesizing that one hand groans the ‘sound
without sound’, and Hinkle was like a constructivist metaphor of an
un-reachable past knowledge.
However I am a very sceptical man and I like to
see things for myself. I emailed and asked Fay Fransella about Hinkle’s dissertation:
she had it! It really does exist, but inexplicably it is unpublished. Fransella
scanned the dissertation with her peculiar enthusiasm and decided to share it
with me and “everyone who wants”. That’s how I got it and started reading
‘Hinkle, 1965’.
At first I thought it was a real ‘constructivist’
writing-thinking style. It was witty, always debating all the premises and
conclusions. A pure Kellian approach, that for me means be ever-ready to
overcome and imbricate Kelly himself. The most unexpected
thing was the evident, immediate implications of this ‘viewpoint’. It seemed
like the dark side of my Kellian moon: I was no more indulging in
constructivist epistemology, I was thinking in terms of personal daily life.
That dissertation worked with all the things were happening around me. In a nutshell
‘implications’, ‘implicative dilemmas’ became a core construct, both professional
and personal one.
Hinkle ‘arrived’ when I was outlining some
group-sessions for primary and secondary school teachers. The promoters wanted
something about bullying, a bombastic, empty word that probably means: “there
is something wrong with students, they scare me”. I was very dubious. How can I
decide who is the bully and what is the proper way to deal with him/her? I
decided to shorten Hinkle's procedure and to let teachers talk. After some pyramiding
techniques, we explored constructions about self-as-a-teacher,
student-for-teacher, teacher-for-student and so on, identifying and elaborating
implicative dilemmas. When I explained core assumptions of Hinkle's dissertation,
teachers naturally chose to talk in terms of ‘I-Me’ rather than ‘They-Them’.
After a while I was taking notes, making clear who was the expert.
In the meantime I was re-construing some
stories of persons I met in Cancer Units, as psychologist and as friend. Implications
theory vividly portrays personal narratives as choices in front of illness and
death. I was seeing something that lively describes what complaints are
for cyberneticians. Patients, relatives, health-professionals, friends, we all
have the ‘right’ construction of living, suffering, dying. When it seems we’re
blind or imposing our own judgements, we’re ourselves. We often don't see what
others call dilemmas, we just live in the space of our Self.
Maybe our covert implicative dilemmas are really
the sound without sound.
| |
|
|
|
|
ABOUT
THE
AUTHOR
Simone Cheli got his degree in Clinical Psychology at the University of
Florence. He works as researcher at the Psycho-Oncology Unit, Department
of Oncology, in Florence. He is a four-year student in Psychotherapy at
the Institute of Constructivist Psychology, in Padua, Italy.
Email: simone_cheli@yahoo.it
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCE
Cheli,
S. (2010). The sound of implication. Personal
Construct Theory & Practice, 7, Supplement No 1, v-vi, 2010
(Retrieved
from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp10/cheli10.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Received: 10 Aug
2010 - Accepted: 12 Aug 2010 – Published 31 Aug 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|