Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper deeply appreciates the comprehensiveness of Hermans’ (2001) theory of the dialogical self, his critiquing of Western cultural assumptions that pervade psychological (and psychoanalytic) theory, his emphasizing hybridization and globalization, and his trying to move psychology toward an interdisciplinary orientation. His theory would be significantly improved if he were to adopt much more of a historical dimension in his critique of psychological theory, in the very composition of the dialogical self, and in his theory of culture and globalization. The paper also critiques how some of the very philosophical/psychological assumptions Hermans criticizes unreflectedly enter into his own theory. All of this is to add another voice and position to his theory.

Keywords

culture dialogical self globalization history hybridization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Doi, T. (1973). The anatomy of dependence.Tokyo: Kodansha International.

Doi, T. (1986). The anatomy of self: The individual versus the society.Tokyo: Kodansha International.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures.New York: Basic Books.

Hermans, H.J.M. (2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psyschology, 7(3), 243–281.

Huntington, S.P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Markus, H.R. , & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

Marsella, A. (1985). Culture, self, and disorder. In A. Marsella , G. DeVos , & F. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and American perspectives(pp. 281–308). New York: Tavistock.

Mitchell, S. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis: An integration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ramanujan, A.K. (1990). Is there an Indian way of thinking? An informal essay. In M. Marriott (Ed.), India through Hindu categories(pp. 41–58). New Delhi/London/Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

10.

Rizzuto, A. (1979). The birth of the living God:Apsychoanalytic study.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

11.

Roland, A. (1988). In search of self in India and Japan: Toward a cross-cultural psychology.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

12.

Roland, A. (1996). Cultural pluralism and psychoanalysis: The Asian and North American experience.New York/London: Routledge.

13.

Shweder, R.A. , & Bourne, E.J. (1984). Does the concept of the person vary cross-culturally? In R.A. Shweder & R.A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion(pp. 158–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Singer, M. (1972). When a great tradition modernizes:An anthropological approach to Indian civilization.New York: Praeger.

15.

Stolorow, R. , & Atwood, G. (1992). Contexts of being: The intersubjective foundations of psychological life. New York: Analytic Press.

16.

Triandis, H.C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.

17.

Wilkinson, D. (1995). Central civilizations. In S.K. Sanderson (Ed.), Civilizations and world systems: Studying world-historical change (pp. 46–74). London: Altamira Press.

Another Voice and Position: Psychoanalysis across Civilizations

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References