#3 - 1‘ Lb: ii: r! 1.1: it- I 7?: Li 2; . . . bunt . zi...Wk.=€ 3:511. . 1:1 LSE, 2 5...}. 9.1.53.5. . ‘ . niaumumfivfgéh {can m.“ c. _ I. y 1.1 ‘ x 521:: .. I 1.1%.... , z. S ‘ A. :nqxfiauwliunus! as have! A :21 1: SI! .. It'- It 3 .0 I - 13-9113! 5) . .I . .‘flfla. . . .1... 111' i 5... 53'. 1‘. 3.9.: $.51 Bull: . 3315!}. . A ‘ .1 ‘ . ’It... .I Si§léf ,. THF‘Bts m1. LIBRARY Micmgan State Universlty This is to certify that the dissertation entitled SELF KNOWLEDGE AS DIALOGUE: A BIOGRAPHER AND HER READER presented by Polly J. Bashore has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PILD. degreein Higher. Adult, and Lifelong Learning Z/fl 234 Major professor \ / Date 4/22 fly / : i MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0— 12771 PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 6/01 cJCIRCIDatoDm.p65-p15 85‘ F KM) SELF KNOWLEDGE AS DIALOGUE: A BIOGRAPHER AND HER READER By Polly J. Bashore A DISSERTATION ubmitted to Michigan State Universit nt of the r equirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Education Administration 2001 ELF KNOWLECI Imp ~- i...“ " pa .9 intent thr earring and de «EEC Tnzs study g ABSTRACT SELF KNOWLEDGE As DIALOGUE: A BIOGRAPHER AND HER READER By Polly J. Bashore This study proposes that self learning and development are altered when the writer engages in imaginal dialogue. Central is the question of how subjective intent through dialogic writing in imaginal conversation promotes self Ieaming and development. This study, grounded in social constructivism, dialogism, and self development theory, lies the claim that through an imaginary relationship between the writer and subject, the writer learns about the self and develops. Using a case study approach, the biography, Conversations with Dvora, by Amia Lieblich, serves as the cornerstone of this research. Embedded in this analysis is an imaginal conversation between the researcher and biographer, Amia Lieblich. This study does not represent Lieblich’s ideas or beliefs, and her presence only serves the role of an imaginal partner for conversation. Concluding this study is an imaginal dialogue, with personas that represent voices of an advocate, a critic, and a skeptic examining the potential implications and contributions of this research. Copyright by Polly Jean Bashore 2001 Frs‘. as: at: bzagrapi‘y g ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to thank Amia Lieblich for her inspiration and biography Conversations with Qvora. Secondly, I would like to acknowledge those members of my dissertation committee, John Dirkx, Steve Welland, Steve Kaagan, and Chris Clark who supported me through this experimental dissertation and allowed me to “push” the envelope on what it means to truly do research. Next, I would like to thank General Motors Powertrain and my colleagues. I would not have been able to begin or finish this journey without their support. I would especially like to thank Julie Teachout-Collins, Nancy Rice, Jim Aitken, Bill Whitley, Bruce Peters, and Ken Saunders for their encouragement. iv Thzs Seam"; vacated for my a: aszects I head fr safe-c" at this one excene'ices Hatt lam frat tr SUDC‘CSEC l0 dc r hefiiabfijfy lpur rusting In less it PREFACE This Ieaming journey ended very differently than it began. I had mentally prepared for my doctoral studies, but I did not prepare myself for the emotional aspects. I heard from some that the doctoral experience is life changing. l scoffed at this characterization, comparing it to my previous educational experiences. How could this be so different? I am from the rural Midwest, born and raised in a small town 30 miles from a large city. It was a protective environment, and my parents did what they are supposed to do, raise their four children, one girl and three boys, to the best of their ability. I pursued my undergraduate education quickly and decisively, finishing in less than four years and hoping to find a job teaching high school English and journalism. After teaching in a couple of high schools, I realized that I was either too young or lacked some critical gene to tolerate the mediocrity of today’s school system. So I left teaching, fell into a job for a major corporation and soon learned that I could make money simply from being organized. l escalated into the mid-level management ranks rapidly and developed a “knack” for process documentation. Because businesses are extremely focused on reducing variation and understanding where the money goes, process facilitation became a booming business for me. I began to create flowcharts for everyone and everything. My thinking became linear, sequential, logical, and rational. Ater recewr: 99,2, move I dee: «as :“terested l". is: pressure corporate t Pasta mantam my ‘ lies a little o'ganga America. , :fier tick reads; “9.2.15 lgrew up : :5 mutant that y: has :n m, r55: a biography I Pfln AA V' it'QDIiS After receiving a Masters in general business administration, another logical move, I decided that I would obtain my Ph.D. in educational philosophy. I was interested in workplace Ieaming — how adults learn in a high-paced, high- pressure corporate environment. It was a daunting endeavor, especially since I had to maintain my full-time job, but I was convinced I could do it. All I needed was a little organization; a nice little project timeline would get me there. Academically l was an adequate student. I had to work for good grades, and grades were very important to my “type A” personality. So, I began to get 4.0’s, and I thought, “This is good.” I am not an avid reader, so the material was often thick reading. It was then that I wished I had inherited my mother‘s reading habits. I grew up on television — TV was my book. For the reader of my work, it is important that you make note of this simple point. It was in my second year that one of my professors recommended that I read a biography by Amia Lieblich, a professor from Israel. I picked up Conversations with More with the usual halfhearted sigh, another book to read. I carelessly use words like epiphany to describe moments like this. You know, the ones you remember vividly. I started reading and could not put the book down. I, the less than avid reader, longed to keep reading. I was embedded in, and captivated by, the dialogue between Amia and her fictional persona of Dvora Baron. I finished the book, and all my efforts on workplace Ieaming seemed trivial and uninteresting. I began devouring any work that focused on biography and narrative studies. I was excited, energized, and relentless. One ore :nscered a ‘r' 3&1 spasm-e a". ard way at". rises-'22.? c Tris std: AA'n‘chrtz.ian ‘5' UV 5‘, __‘ L; s_"_ , , Ft 1:: lECILN" \I‘l P~d.A_ J- : .2: “~34 $1er 59il‘atian an: One other point must be made to the reader: I was not a person that was considered a “reflective practitioner.” l dealt with issues at work and home with quick, decisive action. I never thought of myself as one who thought about who I am and why am I here. My life course focused on the here and now, with little consideration of my past or my life choices. This study is an exercise in imagination. Using the biography, Conversations with Dvora, l engage in an imaginal dialogue with the biographer, Amia Lieblich. The conversation between the biographer and me depicts no particular style, but illustrates the technique by which writers can use imagination and dialogue as a means to promote self-growth. Therefore, the conversation that ensues within this study is research embedded in imaginal dialogue, a wellspring that aims to explore how self knowledge and growth emerge when the writer engages in dialogic writing. For the reader, the dialogue between Lieblich and me drifts slightly and at times may appear undirected, but this drifting represents the nature of imaginary conversation. It exemplifies how self knowledge and growth and imaginal dialogue contribute to the development of leaders and teachers. However a word of caution is given to the reader. This study represents an exercise that can lead to a great deal of internal resistance; it exposes many self contradictions. Those conflicts can be uncomfortable to the psyche, and so i must be a responsible researcher and admit attempts to understand the self are disquieting, not always welcome to all one’s parts, yet revealing and worthy. vii This study is not intended to represent Lieblich’s ideas or beliefs. She is strictly an imaginal partner in co-construction of what it means to explore self knowledge and Ieaming through imaginal dialogue, with subjective biography representing the narrative phenomenon. viii CHAPTER ONE ANS OF STUETY Viz-AT This 8"“ :SEARCH P9: 5351;; AND Di: $0,353] COOS Understand Serf Learnt“. use of ima; SENIFICANCE GJlZih’G QUES' Probiern. F15 BACKGRODN: - THE METHOD _ . TnE PARTiCEFA S‘R'JCTURE o= CSNTEXT OF S‘ or THE F IRST l.‘ tarzounzsa ALTrtC-‘RZNG TH: Eveacsvcs . PFACTlCKFrv ' em 2 s 5 fit VOSEF‘i/ainns CHAl’TER TH Rl SRDGGM - s: I v‘éCWCAL R: “MINING THE< “LOGIC h. c» C : WTEM \v 5“! SLIP. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1 AIMS OF STUDY .................................................................................................... 2 WHAT THIS STUDY IS NOT .................................................................................... 3 RESEARCH PROBLEM AND QUESTION .................................................................... 4 SOCIAL AND DIALOGIC CONTEXT OF THE SELF ........................................................ 5 Social Constructivism ...................................................................................... 5 Understanding Methodology — Multiplicity and Dialogism ............................... 7 Self Learning and Development .................................................................... 10 Use of Imagination ........................................................................................ 12 SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................... 13 GUIDING QUESTIONS .......................................................................................... 15 Problem, Research Question, and Definitions .............................................. 16 BACKGROUND - WHY THIS BIOGRAPHY? .............................................................. 17 THE METHOD ..................................................................................................... 21 THE PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................. 24 STRUCTURE OF STUDY ....................................................................................... 25 CONTEXT OF STUDY: CONVERSATIONS WITH DVORA: AN EXPERIMENTAL BIOGRAPHY OF THE FIRST MODERN HEBREW WOMAN WRITER ............................................... 26 CHAPTER TWO: SELF KNOWLEDGE IN A BOOK ........................................ 29 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 29 SURROUNDED .................................................................................................... 32 AUTHORING THE SELF ........................................................................................ 49 EMERGENCE ...................................................................................................... 66 PRACTICALITY .................................................................................................... 73 CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 79 Observations and Issues .............................................................................. 80 CHAPTER THREE: DIALOGUE WITH THE IMAGINAL OTHER ..................... 83 DIALOGISM - SEARCHING FOR MEANING ............................................................... 83 DIALECTICAL RELATIONSHIPS .............................................................................. 97 IMAGINING THE OTHER ...................................................................................... 108 DIALOGIc RELEVANCE ...................................................................................... 130 CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 137 CHAPTER FOUR: A ROLE FOR SUBJECTIVE BIOGRAPHY ...................... 139 INTERJECTING THE SELF INTO BIOGRAPHY ......................................................... 140 CHOOSING A SUBJECT ...................................................................................... 146 BEGINNING WITH QUESTIONS ............................................................................ 152 A ROLE FOR SUBJECTIVE BIOGRAPHY ................................................................ 175 CHAPTER FIVE: IMPLICATIONS ................................................................... 182 ix INTRODUCT'C THE IIQEET“ 3: T—E Q 3537.3 3' FIRST MEET-"i scaN: MEE‘ :1“ n, : , ‘ T547..- P. ‘-: ‘ F:\A'. ME: 4’" EPILOGU E ..... APPENDIX A .. POEM FROM T. APPENDIX B... NINETEETH Eh REFERENCES INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 182 The Participants .......................................................................................... 183 THE MEETINGS ................................................................................................ 185 THE QUESTIONS .............................................................................................. 185 FIRST MEETING: THE METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 188 SECOND MEETING: SELF DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS ...................................... 211 THIRD MEETING: DIALOGIC IMPLICATIONS .......................................................... 230 FINAL MEETING: WHAT HAPPENED TO ME? ....................................................... 248 EPILOGUE ....................................................................................................... 264 APPENDIX A .................................................................................................... 271 POEM FROM TENTH ENCOUNTER: FRIENDSHIP APPENDIX B ..................................................................................... 273 NINETEETH ENCOUNTER REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 29o I TC.” H'U ‘ ~:-\ I ‘1' fa. A”I“: 2. Uv' "u/ w.’ .,o’, 5'35 j’CJ . . '"r' f'l“ I r- L- _:d'l Id ' L w a I I. It." ’ u :”_,~“It‘ I“ . CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Lieblich: What do you hope to learn? Researcher: I want to understand how you transformed in your biography Conversatigns with Qvora I want to discern how you learned about yourself while you told the story of another, and how you were able to dialogue with an imaginary partner. Lieblich: What purpose would it serve to study me? The biography was about Dvora Baron, not Amia Lieblich. Researcher: It’s not the biography so much as it is how you interacted with your subject... how you engaged in an imaginary conversation with her for the purpose of not only explaining Baron’s life but your own as well. Lieblich: So where’s the transformation? Where’s the self learning you hope to find? Researcher: It’s there... but I need to talk to you about it. This is an examination Of self knowledge and Ieaming that emerges when a writer engages in an imaginary dialogue with her subject. Self knowledge and Ieaming have been studied in a variety Of ways, but there is yet to be a study that demonstrates how adults learn through dialogue in a subjective composition. The narrative phenomenon used as the cornerstone Of this research is biographical composition. Authorities on biography describe self Ieaming and growth as an intangible benefit Of biographical writing, but that self introspection SM 5C be VECCI'SE " I!" I Itsaf'rg the So. .I re “tar as “gets-C ‘. n. ' J :.~_;a:-r-erse m 36 1’! Aims of Study The an" c‘ “”9713 ma 1 U' vsdb :It'a I mat L:.’:: l H 57: lie stony w“ i'L'. should be recorded outside the composition process (Baron & Pletsch, 1985). Inserting the self into biography remains contrary to what literary theorists maintain as “good biography? (Edel, 1984). But this research contends that biographer self knowledge and Ieaming is embedded in biography and should be studied from a theoretical perspective. Aims of Study The aim of this study is to examine the self learning transition Of biographer Amia Lieblich who composed the biography Conversations with Qy_or_a. I met Lieblich some time ago when she spoke on narrative methodology and life story writing at the university. But before that, I read her biography on Dvora Baron and became fascinated with not only the methodology by which she told Baron’s story, but also how Lieblich’s life and Ieaming emanated from the biography. In previous research I concentrated on how adults learn and develop, but through a presCribed, theoretical lens. I also became interested in life story methodology as a means for understanding the self and how the self transforms. But in discovering Lieblich’s work, I saw how biography, told in a subjective manner, illustrated self knowledge and Ieaming from a different perspective. I developed a viewpoint rooted in social constructivist and dialogic thinking and wondered, “Is there something more here within this biography, other than its experimental, unconventional manner?” :‘fl A'AAAJ. ,n r “‘Uav‘..lo e, QI‘AD‘ ,. %‘ ‘ .‘1 I I ‘Iiivch t. ‘is 5;. From two worlds - one rooted in business, the other in academia, l as the researcher Often see that these areas are at odds with each other. Through growth within my doctoral studies I learned that not everything can be explained with a flowchart, diagram, or objective formulation. I discovered that Ieaming can emerge from dialogue, intentional subjectivity, and through an emotional attachment with another. That is the backdrop Of this study — to examine how the self learns through dialogue. Therefore, this is a dialogue between two people — myself, researcher and practitioner, and Amia Lieblich, biographer and teacher. Beyond the dialogue, this study includes reflections Of the researcher and amplifications of the character Lieblich represents within my own psyche. The original intent was to uncover the self learning journey Lieblich takes as she dialogues with an imaginary Baron, but during this process I learned about myself and how this imaginal method might serve a multitude of practitioners and researchers, those interested in self inquiry and development. What this Study Is Not This research does not focus on adult learning theoretical models or examine the use Of Objectivity within biography, biographical composition technique, or biographer personal histories. This study does not examine related areas such as personal journalizing, autobiography, or discursive psychology. Although these areas have similar intent Of self exploration and self knowing, they are not related because this study concentrates on an imaginam 'Eaf'GBSPlp Jae $1.3 Thlli not its-3.. :‘a sic-grassy Ili- 4..., m .. ""‘"‘°3=‘d in 033:. L‘EOI’ICn 7- I Researt’ihe relationship between a biographer (writer) and biographical subject. Lastly, this study will not focus on biography from a literary perspective, but highlights how one biography illustrates self Ieaming and development fostered through written imaginal dialogue. Research Problem and Question Lieblich: So what is the problem you hope to study? Researcher: Traditional biographers maintain that biographers should remain as an external observer and that self Ieaming should be captured and discussed in post-biographical, introspective terms ( Young-Bruehl, 1998). Lieblich: That is only one way learning can take place through biography. Researcher: Exactly. Writers who intentionally insert themselves into biography can use the biographical subject as an imaginary partner for self knowledge and Ieaming, can’t they? For that matter, can’t a researcher do the same thing—leam through imaginal conversation? Lieblich: Yes, that’s true. But what makes this learning so different? Researcher: Doesn’t the self learning then become something that is deeply personal and internal to the compositional process? Lieblich: Yes, I believe the investment becomes highly personal; therefore, you can’t help but to learn as you write. Researcher: How then does subjective intent through dialogic writing in imaginal conversation promote self learning and development? Is there a larger application for this type of research and writing? LIEDI‘I'Ch U social and Dialog ye afiainIS, Be: ZECCTE’Ti to arch reaaemll dLSCO-v" Ina can: commit asses as the fat anal-zed” rm q .' II - ‘ v i' . S"u U 514' ‘. v SuCJCC‘i-SUD‘P Lieblich: Let us continue to explore those very questions... Social and Dialogic Context of the Self The background Of this study encompasses several perspectives. The framework used to study self development as dialogue involved a somewhat eclectic approach to theory and philosophy, working toward ensuring cohesion in the analysis. Because of the experimental nature Of the research, it was important to anchor this study in sound and credible theoretical work. As the reader will discover at the conclusion, grounding this work in theory is an important commitment Of the researcher. Primarily, social constructivist theory resides as the foundation. Secondly, the imaginal method used by Lieblich is analyzed using the following theoretical principles: multiplicity Of self, dialogism, and subject-subject philosophy. Lastly, Lieblich’s self development trajectory was mapped using subject-object development theory and recent research on the imagination as an indicator Of self development. Social Constructivism The overall foundation Of this study is based on Vygotsky’s principles Of social constructivism. In studying biography, I developed an understanding Of what Vygotsky’s work means to the construction of self knowledge and meaning making. Vygotsky, like Piaget, focused his attention on how children leam, but many of his principles on socially constructed knowledge can be applied to adults within any kind of setting. The constructivist movement advocates that self knowledge and Ieaming is about making meaning based on internal or ’ f IFO'A -" H , .443 has 8‘0 Sums A “T. Oijanlzd C U art-es In MIS' at raises on St": is 3513349 wtr cine Naaaias canoe: “CSSITJCiII’e OE‘I’E J'gafiiza‘. on. "Te Z'SCCSS on' Nan, external relationships with others. Vygotsky concentrated his efforts on how Children learn by being in the company of the “more capable other,” one who leads and guides, as a parent does for a child (Miller, 1993). Organizational mentoring and composition studies in education are two examples in which constructivism relates to this study, especially since each focuses on both leader and teacher self development as well as writing used as a means for Ieaming. Within a business environment, self Ieaming and practical Ieaming emerge when people are placed in interactive situations where they can dialogue with others, especially those who are in the “more capable” role. Nonaka’s concepts Of creating a “knowledge company” are based on this form Of constructive development in which individuals are “socialized” within the organization. “Team members create new points of view through dialogue and discussion” (Nonaka, 1991, p. 55). Pedagogically, Berthoff believes that constructivist theory is extremely valuable when applied to compositional studies, and that teachers should understand how writing serves as a process for meaning making. “I believe we can best teach the composing process by conceiving Of it as a continuum Of making meaning, by seeing writing as analogous to all those processes by which we make sense of the world” (Berthoff, 1981, p. 69). Language or writing becomes a mechanism by which we construct that self meaning. “Writing can be both a process Of translating ideas or thoughts into visible language and a process of discovering meaning through language” (Witte, 1992, p. 263). Gertie! to Ir-s sum .2; as me wane: Utae'stacdmg ME nupwu' . .UI mast so: Caz“! that tr e be ages: but thee “gr Q, ' L“ '5?“ Ed betwee- Central to this study are the self development benefits of writing in dialogue, as well as the connectivity to Lieblich’s biographical work. Understanding Methodology — Multiplicity and Dialogism Once social constructivist theory was selected as a foundation for the research, the next task was to develop a philosophical, as well as theoretical approach for studying the dialogue between the biographer and subject. This meant that the biographer needed to be examined independently from the subject, but there also needed to be a framework for understanding what transpired between the biographer and subject. Because of the subjective intent, I could not approach or analyze this biography using theory that focused on Objective, traditional philosophy. This study maintains the belief that there are multiple dimensions to the self. In other words, our self identity is made up Of multiple selves, some Of which are known, others which remain hidden from our consciousness. This study dismisses the belief in a unitary self, and subscribes to the multiplicity of selves. The self cannot exist without “the other” because it is believed that all knowledge (internal self knowledge and knowledge of the external world) is constructed based on relationships with others (Hermans & Kempen, 1993). Hermans and Kempen believe that each Of the selves represents a particular “I” position, and that as we encounter new experiences the different “I” positions emerge and enter into an internal dialogical (conversational) interaction. Through this action we construct meaning. By moving from one “I” ;' ° ' n" 23:33“ “O a .- '.;u TI ””58 Vfi’fipc “I”. V1vV» aft—3a iGWa‘r: Pic-Eli‘s 5‘ Ki BeyOFC xarersauon l ESTES? dai“ A fif‘ ' .' 4 we Itury~ c'aICLE; daifihJ‘ 7 : ass". ' ' . see, It rec I n_(+~. .I ~ 5a....n cIsmISS PA all . ' .. I voIces i" , »-\ H. I .IA .’ V '7 avg e U . DIalcgisr‘. position to another, the self views the world from different perspectives or positions. These movements allow different meanings, multiple truths, and multiple voices to emerge (Hermans & Kempen, 1993). Multiplicity of the self is critical toward understanding the manner of self development and growth if interaction between “I” positions allows for construction Of new meaning (Hermans & Kempen, 1993). Beyond multiplicity, because Lieblich’s work and this research is written in conversation, I chose dialogic theory as a means to understand what transpires between dialogic partners. Developed by Mikhail Bakhtin in the early twentieth century, dialogism emerged primarily as literary theory. Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism refers to the relationship of utterances between two or more voices. In a sense, it represents the context for language, rather than the language itself. Bakhtin dismisses the Singularity Of truth and advocates we should be listening to all voices, including those spoken internally and extemally—that is true dialogue. Dialogism also represents the _e_gy_a_liy of independent and harmonic voices (Bakhtin, 1981 ). lmplying the existence Of power insinuates that genuine dialogue is not possible. “For a dialogue to occur, at least two differing points Of view must be engaged. Anything that tries to fuse these different perspectives into one undoes the truth of dialogism” (Sampson, 1993, p. 193). Dialogism’s rejection Of power and Singularity Of truth coincide with the biographer who chooses subjectivity over Objectivity. Striving to be Objective insinuates a singular explanation for another’s life trajectory and is seen by some as a Dssis'aafier tom :3 seize-red Etta: Lasuy :1. Egg: ng 0-? 00": ”Silence. WOT! but: wmes th= arrays dissona' rah-M WI. ccflce. OOIV DAUHB Ciai’finia MW A: A a. a means for; biographer trying to assume power over his or her subject (Nadel, 1984). For clarification, although there appears to be a contradiction with dialogism representing equal voices and Vygotsky’s concept Of the “more capable other, ” it is believed that asymmetry Of power does not imply the absence Of equal voices. Lastly, dialogic theory does not represent the development Of Shared meaning or consensus. Bakhtin believes that people are in a continuing state Of imbalance, working between what he refers to as “centripetal” and “centrifugal” forces. Dialogue is not to be viewed as a means to achieve any sense Of unity, but becomes the relationship into which we enter (Sidorkin, 1999). There is always dissonance as the self constructs meaning, never unity, never complete coherence, only meaning that emerges for the purpose of sole existence (Bakhtin, 1981), (Ewald, 1993). This notion contradicts current thought on dialogue within our current business environments, which emphasizes dialogue as a means for achieving shared meaning (Senge, 1990), (Bohm, 1996). The last philosophical, theoretical concept involves Martin Buber, whose ideas on subject-subject relations are used as a means to View the dialogic relationship between the biographer and subject. The “l-Thou” (subject-subject) and the “Mt” (subject-Object) concepts are critical for understanding what is necessary to form a dialogic relationship. The “l-Thou” relationship is one that exists in the present. By interacting with the biographical subject, the biographer is treating the subject as if he or She is in the present context, rather than as an object in the past tense (l-lt) (Friedman, 1955). When a biographer enters into a traditionally defined relationship (Objective) with the subject, an “l-lt” relationship Framed. focuse _ ,4. i "‘ CG'ISTUM‘OU (Slu- Itself krc-i nej'w ‘cr COGS? Car , II «AA Anal "wc‘fileugc G- 'U (K) am deIe! eme' ragratpn ‘ar :1 Kegan's a tele‘cpmen‘. of t 3160"] Ilf'ghlgfi‘s 3’33”:ng that EA K5931. 1994. p Cigamzmg that V 533“» other, take l at.“ n ‘ '3al I. 1994 p and Object: mi;~ is formed, focused on past events, and void of the possibility Of dialogic meaning construction (Sidorkin, 1999). Self Learning and Development If self knowledge is socially constructed, and dialogue with another is the method for constructing self meaning, what is the trajectory people follow for self knowledge and growth? The premise used for these assumptions is based on adult development theory developed by Robert Kegan and the use Of imagination for development purposes (Kegan, 1994), (Watkins, 2000). Kegan's adult development theory is used to trace self learning and development Of the biographer, Lieblich. Kegan’s subject-Object relational theory highlights a subject described as “those elements Of our knowing or organizing that we are identified with, tied to, fused with, or embedded in” (Kegan, 1994, p. 32). The object represents those “elements Of our knowing or organizing that we can reflect on, handle, look at, be responsible for, relate to each other, take control Of, internalize, assimilate, or otherwise Operate on” (Kegan, 1994, p. 32). As adults develop, the connection between the subject and Object fluctuate. This subject—Object relationship establishes the basis for how meaning is constructed by the self. What was once subject becomes Object and thus the adult is able to transcend into a higher level Of development (Kegan,1994) Kegan outlines what he believes to be the five subject-Object developmental stages of the self. The first two stages focus on child 10 filament. Be: Ttug" the are c 1 l WASP" t’ at 58" PI vvavU I'm-warm. n . « digit SJ ‘y. es Uec: ' ._ IT the SUthCi 5'6 apron. sha- . an", UUWI . les ConVE{E size: wnsciousr ws‘u"~$C‘-.l0n of n- teaches thts 5,» tiff: 3 35f) ‘0 l. isms this 5‘ chard. development. Because this study centers on the adult, only stages three through five are discussed in detail. By employing Kegan’s growth stages, it is proposed that self Ieaming and development be traced by analysis Of subjective biography, especially when the writer is engaging in a dialogical conversation with the subject. Stage three in Kegan’s adult development theory is the interpersonal balance stage. “In the interpersonal balance the feelings the self gives rise to are, a priori, shared; somebody else is there from the beginning. The self becomes conversational” (Kegan, 1982, p. 95). Within stage three, or third order consciousness, the self joins with the other for the purpose of CO- construction of meaning. In a sense, the “other” serves as the definer Of the self. Kegan refers to this as being “had by the Object” (Kegan, 1994). In the fourth order consciousness, labeled by Kegan as the institutional balance stage, the self begins to display independence from the “other.” Kegan describes this shift as one in which the self moves from “I am my relationships” (third order) to “l have relationships” (Kegan, 1982, p. 100). Baxter Magolda highlights this stage, advocating that educators Should be moving students toward more “self—authorship.” The self becomes an administrator, attempting to seek equilibration, unity, and coherence. Knowledge in this stage is constructed both by connecting with others and separating from others (Baxter Magolda, 1999) The last stage, known as interindividual balance, is when the self “rebalances.” Moving from third order to fifth order consciousness represents a ll YETSIIIOD In M‘l: ) "i L": ‘1‘ L. (1') (I) (I) _) C) 3523713359 of a IbStZJiorta! 585', «were ' ' :,.a...,naI cont» :esc'bes ms a transition in which the self moves to a stage in which the “self can reflect upon, or take as Object, the regulations and purposes of a psychic administration which formerly was the subject of one’s attentions” (Kegan, 1982, p. 103). In this stage the self gains the capability to co-mingle with the Object, but maintain a distinct identity. In a sense, the self gains the knowledge to purposefully seek out centrifugal and centripetal forces that cause conflict, but is able to transcend for the purpose of altering behavior. The self “recognizes the plurality Of the institutional selves within the (interindividual) self and is thereby open to emotional conflict as an interior conversation” (Kegan, 1982, p. 106). Kegan describes this act as the ability to “give oneself up to another” (Kegan, 1982, p. 106). Use of Imagination In conjunction with Kegan’s model for self development is the use of imagination. Watkins presents a counter-argument to the typical pathological definitions of imagination to propose that self development is evident when the self is able to give imaginary characters autonomy and rich characterization (Watkins, 2000). Because this study discusses the capability of the biographer to utilize imagination to construct self meaning, so does it coincide with Watkins’ belief that the use of imagination can be an indication of rich self development: “...a high degree Of articulation of the imaginal other as well as a multiplicity Of figures will Characterize development. The more detailed the characterization of the other, the more differentiated is the characterization of the self” (Watkins, 12 “T p 114). TE Lavv F I A~ _ fl. at 39in: ogre. .. c Sizsprrenc tr 3' 101' nut p .3 Ir: me Other pa is careful to 3:5:- nagiral care a; tatsasnd :rtc a asst“. In transit: angles war. the merely. De he 00.3558 of r DEC/Id», , MI I acme: :i"-"' "Man A . W, .5) 5 . 2000, p. 114). This line Of thinking contradicts traditional psychological theories Of development and imagination which point to the unification of the self (schizophrenic treatment) as a goal for development. Watkins’ key point focuses on how multiplicity of the self — the ability to have rich, imaginal conversation with the other parts of the self — represents a higher form Of development. She is careful to distinguish this from the traditional schools of thought about imaginary conversation and theory grounded in the unitary self (Watkins, 2000). Kegan’s description Of the fifth stage Of development in which the self is able to invite conflict for the purpose Of self development and Watkins” theory Of imaginal development bring coherence to this particular study. The ability to transcend into an imaginary relationship with the biographical subject illustrates a self in transition. As the imaginal character becomes autonomous it co- mingles with the self and “presents him or herself as a specific identifiable personality. Development occurs in the dialogue between the self and other, in the process Of mutual articulation” (Watkins, 2000, p. 105) . Significance Lieblich: This theoretical framework all sounds well and good, but what relevance does it have for me, the teacher? You use a lot of academic jargon to explain what I think is a very easy concept. People learn about themselves and grow by interacting with others through dialogue. Researcher: Well yes, but it’s much more complicated than that. Lieblich: You make it complicated. What is it that you want to know? 13 Research“ R-‘flf “I In 3,, I I y ' I . T’ri an emca‘r‘ tar; ’ .. .Iner . e yo u ties“ U _ , .In for: [I'ULI’I'SPT Ueblichi p Iesearch Lieblich- now “- WaS an o D l n ‘5 STOW ort ran 8 p .esean: Lie CCHCh afar "I the 33’ P: vSear.r ethf Pa \IVSQ van in 'rOUL‘ho Uith» Researcher: I want to know how M changed as you wrote Baron’s biography. Lieblich: How do you intend to learn about my change? Researcher: I want to use Kegan’s work to understand how you moved from an empathetic relationship with Baron, who I label as the “object” to the point where you reach a higher plane in your self knowledge, where you invite the object in for dialogue, but then stand back for the purpose of understanding yourself. Lieblich: Still complicated. Are you tracing my transition? Researcher: Well yes. Do you move from Stage 3 to Stage 5? Lieblich: That sounds ridiculous, but I’ll give you room to explore it. This book was an opportunity for me to tell the story of another’s life. I wasn’t looking to grow or transition. Researcher: Are you denying that you did? Lieblich: NO, I learned a great deal about myself and how to deal with life after the death of my husband. Researcher: Then can’t this be about that self learning? Lieblich: But of what possible significance can this be for others? Researcher: By understanding how your self know/edge changed throughout the process of subjective biographical composition and dialogue with an imaginal character, don’t you think that could have some relevance to researchers or practitioners like me? 14 | Debt'zch‘ Wi . more self lea UEDI'I‘CI'I A :hgraphicai com, Research: Lieblich: What will you do—present another theory, another model that practitioners can ignore? Researcher: I don’t want to do that. I want to give them something that they enjoy reading, but can learn from. i want them to see this as another way to promote self learning and development. Lieblich: Are you talking about using the method of subjective biographical composition? Researcher: Yes, that, and also dialoging with an imaginal character. It becomes a facilitator of development in a way. Lieblich: You have me intrigued. Proceed with your questions. Guiding Questions The problem and questions emerge when examining current research on self development and Ieaming. Although literature discusses biographers who claim to have learned about themselves in the biographical composition process, there has been no discussion Of the nature of this Ieaming when the biographer inserts herself into biography. Current research lacks definition and a systematic process for adult self development and Ieaming when purposeful subjectivity, insertion Of the self, is introduced in a research context. Nowhere has literature discussed in length the phenomenon Of a writer establishing an imaginal relationship with the “other” or the subject, only to say that this is not a recommended mechanism for biography and that it de-centers the Object Of study (Edel, 1984). 15 SISS‘JSSEC In "C a persona xriersat'an pl Key to ti 3e developme- maraton irv: mm tuitipiv a SE Problem, Research Question, and Definitions Although traditional biographers and researchers maintain that the writer/researcher Should remain as an external Observer with self Ieaming discussed in post-compositional terms, writers who utilize an imaginal partner gain a personal sense of self learning that is inherent in the compositional process. How does subjective intent through dialogic writing in imaginal conversation promote self learning and development? Key to this question are the definitions Of self exploration, self Ieaming, self development, imagination, and dialogic relationship. This study on self exploration involves the ability to invite “the other” into conversation for exploring the multiple selves. It is the metaphorical act of opening up the door to see the different “I” positions Of the self. Self Ieaming then represents the ability to construct knowledge for the purpose Of development. This View Of Ieaming is grounded in Vygotsky’s view that Ieaming drives development. “The only ‘good Ieaming” is that which is in advance Of development” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 89). Within this context, self learning represents the “act” Of pursuing knowledge (meaning) of the multiplicity Of the selves and reconstructing (meaning making) the self based on that act. Self development reflects a changed self, represented in thought or action. Development constitutes a notion Of progress and change over time. The use of “imagined” becomes even more complicated when viewed as a means of self exploration, learning, and development. A term Often associated to Child development, it carries a connotation of “unreal” or disconnected from 16 Tar. Character tram the stars The la: reality. Watkins uses Henry Corbin’s (1972) word, “imaginal” because of the associated traditional definition Of imaginary as “not real” (as cited in Watkins, 2000, p. 4). In the context of this research “imaginal” is defined as the ability to develop an internal relationship between the multiple selves, whether those selves represent animated extensions Of the ego or autonomous projections with rich Characterization. This study uses the word “imaginal” to distinguish itself from the stereotypical perspective of the word “imaginary.” The last definition within the research question that is required is the phrase “dialogic relationship.” This phrase refers to the ability Of the self to not only become the addressee, but also the addressed within an imaginary conversation. “True dialogic relation is not based on verbal exchange, but rather on the autonomy Of the other and one’s Openness tO the other” (Watkins, 2000, p. 130). The ability to give the “other” voice and to be listened tO by the other is the essence Of a true dialogic relationship and has similarity to Buber‘s “l-Thou” relationship. Background - Why This Biography? Many may ask what prompted me to go in this direction for research. I first became interested in life story research when l was exposed to autobiography and biography in the classroom. I was amazed what I could learn about adult development and learning just by studying the life events and experiences Of another person. McAdams’ book, The Stories We Live Bv inspired me to conduct further research about life stories and the construction Of 17 te sic-mes {MW bog-'aahtwl acce- 1‘7 :it. If cusec‘ statement 0'. “:5ch mg" 350. szsg'aahy and 1* far, tat It was ' U ltwas a‘ was Inspired D, fisttaton was h'fi ' Shea h. discr- l '::- h. 93"” i‘ lmIIty | C I?” life stories (McAdams, 1993). I first tried life story interviewing and wrote a biographical account of anothefs life, but I found the writing awkward and difficult. I focused further studies on development and theories Of adult development, but I kept returning to life story research and found that “theorizing” about another person’s development was possible by reading a biography and then drawing comparisons between theory and life stories. It was then that it was recommended that I read Lieblich’s book Conversations wit]; DLOLQ. It was at that moment I realized the power of life story research, and l was inspired by the book to explore Lieblich’s learning through biography. My inspiration was also prompted by the honesty and emotion that Lieblich displayed in the biography, and therefore my interest in subjective biographical writing emerged. At first I decided that I would utilize Lieblich’s book as only one Of several biographies for my case study research. I developed a criteria list for the biography selection, with the central themes of intentional subjectivity and biographer presence. Although most biographies are not written with intentional subjectivity, I did manage to find one other biography where the biographer inserted himself into the biography. In the biography by Edmund Morris, the biographer becomes a fictional character who interacts with Ronald Regan during his younger years (Morris, 1999). However this method differed greatly from Lieblich’s biography in that she utilized imaginal conversation to integrate Baron’s history, quotes, and writings into an ongoing dialogue between the two 18 marten. Tnzs rra 1'79 l deeded tc LiECIIC"; s ”T tie Uc-te: 330K Shaw M: 3:3?33hers art 3'3 genre desej (I) 15719313” Lieblich 5 Ways In \ Chad”: rECOFTS?‘ 'g' . I. 3353': ‘ . 0f Mlilnr men force U33“! n' 3 PRGr Ar, women. This made Lieblich’s work unique from any other biography, and it was then I decided to center my research strictly on her work. Lieblich’s biography of Baron has not received a great deal of attention within the United States, which is surprising considering how powerful I find the book. Shaw wrote that Lieblich’s work is “an excellent example of the new biographers art” (Shaw, 1997, p. 104). Highlighting the uniqueness of method and style, Horowitz describes Lieblich’s work, both her treatment of Baron and the genre developed throughout the biography, as worthy of discussion and examination. Lieblich’s mode in this volume makes explicit what is always true of biographical writing, but which traditional biography buries: the ways in which biographical writing is always an imaginary encounter, a taking in of the other, an imaginative leap which reconstructs a life not one’s own, which then becomes informed by the imaginer’s (Horowitz, 1998, p. 364). Although book reviews discuss only briefly the methodology that Lieblich used for writing her Baron biography, it is critical that the reader understand the powerful force within the conversation between Baron and Lieblich. Horowitz’s ideas are exactly what drew me to this biography over and over. Lieblich takes the genre of biography to another level, developing the hidden voice of the biographer and integrating it with the subject. Included in this study (Appendix B) is a chapter from the biography. This is presented to illustrate to the reader how engaging the imaginal dialogue is, as well as to demonstrate the methodology she uses, integrating facts from Baron’s life with fiction. Lieblich herself included one of Baron’s short stories, “Fradl” at the end of her biography 19 2c illust'aie 8‘ Lzetésahhs was I have 5 pager. by fi'St 731 it mores-:- s Ivy .ragznal convs Lieder-.5 self l P..- ' .: 39f. lused a to illustrate Baron’s voice, which could be seen by the reader in contrast to Lieblich’s imaginal voice. This idea alone exemplifies how committed Lieblich was to remain true to her biographical subject. She takes a great risk by allowing the reader the opportunity to read Baron’s true voice, along with the voice Lieblich created for her. I have spent the past two years reading and re-reading Lieblich’s book. I began by first categorizing her learning using adult Ieaming theories as the backdrop. But what I learned through this exercise was that it wasn’t as clear- cut as I wanted it to be. The book illustrated her Ieaming, but even more than that, it represented her growth. It was then i began to look at her writing and her imaginal conversation with Dvora as a journey of self development, one in which Lieblich’s self knowledge grew as she unfolded the events of Dvora’s life for the reader. I used a third person voice when I first attempted to write about Lieblich’s book; however, I found the writing clumsy, too technical, and thick in description. I needed my writing to reach an audience of wider proportion than just the academic environment. I wanted it to reach the leaders and teachers of our culture, to help them understand themselves and how to foster their own self knowledge and growth. It was then I found myself in an imaginal conversation with Lieblich about the “right” way to understand her journey. I had little awareness at the time what I was doing. I only know that writing conversationally became an easy way to talk about what I was Ieaming. 20 lbega? Waugh Imaé'” mission 0' magma! other ' V) Imus I began this study with the sole intent of examining self development through imaginal dialogue, but strictly in a biographical context. But, what I Ieamed is that this method has a larger implication, one that can be applied to research involving the self. Perhaps that is what will remain the most significant contribution of this work—that the methodology of dialogic writing with an imaginal other can serve as a means to study the self for development and research purposes. The Method The method in this study uses a variation of Jung’s active imagination principles and Progroff’s intensive journal process (Johnson, 1986), (Progoff, 1975) . I must admit the concepts of these processes were very foreign to someone like myself, one who is not prone to a great deal of self reflection and thoughts about the multiple selves. The practitioner in me says the process sounds esoteric and not in the “real” sense meaningful. But, when I began this study I struggled to find my voice, a way to write about self Ieaming in the context of a subjective biography. I felt intimidated by the task itself. What would my business colleagues say about a person who has an imaginary conversation with a biographer? Then I began reading about active imagination, and the process became intriguing, especially since the biography written by Lieblich appeared to be centered on an imaginal relationship between the biographer and biographical 21 Liecizch's lea AIKIVE out the moor CUSJE- tf‘ls ie WE’TIOF tea 3.." Vblith if 99599 in a c subject. Was there something to this process that would aid in my exploration of Lieblich’s Ieaming? Active imagination begins with Opening the mind (some believe this to be emptying the mind) to the unconscious parts of the self (Johnson, 1986). l essentially needed to take those parts of me and give them a voice. The conscious part of me was feeling anxious and insecure with the overall study, but the unconscious continued to tell me that l have the means, the capability to pursue this Ieaming endeavor. The conscious self took on the role of the scribe, researcher, recorder, and interviewer. The unconscious self became Lieblich, a mentor, teacher, and advocate. With the unconscious taking a form, becoming Lieblich, I then began to engage in a conversation, a dialogue. I focused on the questions I had about development through dialogue within subjective biography. l utilized much of the research material I collected on self development, dialogism, imagination, and biographical composition. I also wanted to categorize the self growth, to understand what it means to move fonlvard in understanding the self. Between the conscious me and the unconscious me, represented by Lieblich, I began to wrestle with not only the questions but also the answers. In many ways the answers contradicted many of the conscious beliefs I had about myself. In order to have this dialogue with Lieblich I needed to be isolated from all the distractions of the household. I would retreat to my office many mornings and “meet” with her in my mind. The “meeting” often began with a picture of her in my mind in combination with the nagging questions I had for her. Many times 22 “0' h 38' conve'SGW therefore the re also found that anvel’satl On 54 us back to the t w. LIBBIICh. I I ok to another. men I found IT was then I fat I In all ca QUSSIEOPS. thee self develoome The questions that I wanted ard imaginal r 175‘; ma ry of I.’ frustration I e» The TIL. our conversations were interrupted by life’s daily events and mishaps, and therefore the reader may find that some of the conversations end abruptly. I also found that the dialogue often drifts occasionally as it does with many “real” conversations. In this drifting she and I would take turns as facilitator bringing us back to the unanswered questions. Also through the course of my meetings with Lieblich, I encountered points in which I stepped out of the conversation to talk to another, the reader, although it was not intentional. It primarily happened when I found myself in reflection about who I am and how I see myself, and it was then I felt the need to talk to another, rather than Lieblich. In all cases within the next three chapters I begin with a series of research questions, those that I feel need answering in order to get to the bottom of how self development occurs through imaginal dialogue with a biographical subject. The questions emerged from my two years of research and are a combination of what I wanted to know about her and her development as well as how her writing and imaginal method served her in writing this biography. The reader will find that many of the questions went unanswered, and that is revealed in some of the frustration I express in the writing. The number of encounters Lieblich and I had are numerous. Each encounter is separated by themes: self knowledge and development, imaginal dialogue, and the role of subjective biography. The separation of the imaginal encounters is purposeful but the intent is to illustrate how all three themes are fused to formulate my thinking about how self knowledge can be fostered through dialogic writing and imagination. 23 The mm exarase. along way to frame th: .rocnscious m: or — to the so: It most :3 cf‘e'ent from V). BE'SP'S writing rear-as to devs The conversation that ensues in this study represents this imaginal exercise, along with momentary conscious reflections. The imaginal method is a way to frame this study, but also reflects the content of the study itself. The unconscious me, Lieblich, becomes a stronger presence as the dialogue moves on — to the point that a void occurs when our conversation is finished. It must be made clear that the method used in this study is somewhat different from what Lieblich did within her biography. She utilized many of Baron’s writings and quotes, interviews with people who knew her, and historical records to develop Baron’s story and voice within the biography. I, as the researcher, did not utilize historical information on Lieblich or interview data to develop my imaginal conversation with her, but used primarily self development and dialogic theory as a foundation for my conversations with her. I will reiterate for the reader that Lieblich’s voice is my voice, just one that I believe has been hidden within my unconscious self. The Participants As in Lieblich’s biography, this case study is about “two women who meet in an imaginary time-space” (Lieblich, 1997p. viii). I am the first woman, one who lacks the background and training to do what is traditionally called narrative or hermeneutic analysis. I became lost in all the textual analysis definitions and methods for examining text for a typical case study. It was then that I found myself in conversation with Lieblich—not a real dialogue, but imaginal. I» met Professor Lieblich in 1999, but failed to engage in any lengthy conversation 24 sessions. A: The oz? Ania Lieblich emsalem. Li about her Baron biography. I didn’t want her to tell me the answers to all my questions. At the time I wanted to discover the answers for myself. The other woman in this dialogue represents the imaginal persona of Amia Lieblich. A Professor of Psychology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Lieblich is an expert in the area of life stories and narrative analysis. A mother of three children, all grown, she has studied the Israeli society, and is especially concerned with issues of war, military life, and the kibbutz. Years ago, Lieblich lost her husband, and her biography of Dvora Baron uncovers the suffering and pain that she felt after his death and her struggles with surviving as a single working mother in today’s society. It must be clarified that the dialogue represented in this study is rooted in my imagination. The thoughts expressed by Lieblich within the conversation presented are not meant to represent her thinking or her ideas and views on Ieaming, life, or biography. Lieblich represents an extension of my thinking and self, but she does serve as an authority and expert within this study, as well as confidant, mentor, and teacher. Structure of Study The structure of this paper is a series of imaginal conversations with Lieblich, each revolving around the following topics. The first series of encounters is a dialogue about self knowledge and Ieaming using Kegan’s theory of development as the backdrop for the conversation. The second segment discusses dialogue and imagination. The third and last series with 25 em TOCUSES earring. In all: E’SNEIS to the raga! :Ch'i'E' T537959” the . Vi‘ U) Ragnar corie' Context Of Stu Lieblich focuses on biography as a phenomenon for self knowledge and Ieaming. In all these “encounters” I am the interviewer, trying to probe for the answers to the question: How does subjective intent through dialogic writing in imaginal conversation promote self Ieaming and development? The last chapter represents the reflections of my own self Ieaming throughout the process of imaginal conversation and implications of using this methodology. Context of Study: gonversations with Dvora: an Experimental Biography of the First Modem Hebrew Woman Writer Dvora Baron was a famous Hebrew writer of short stories, but was best known for her translated works, such as Madame Bovary. She died in 1956 at the age of 69, but what was most fascinating about her life story is that she lived the last 33 years of her life in seclusion, away from society. Amia Lieblich, the biographer, never met Dvora Baron, but wrote her life story in a series of imaginal conversations with the deceased writer. Lieblich’s motivation to write Baron’s life story was based on her desire to understand how such a prolific writer could live in isolation and remain modemistic in her writing and phflosophy. In order to proceed with this analysis it is important to understand the life events of Dvora Baron who was born in 1889, in the region of Minsk. Lieblich uses Baron’s life story and events as a way to draw similarities to her own life as well as a way to seek answers to many questions she had about Baron’s life. Daughter of a rabbi, Baron struggled with being female in a male-dominated 26 may and Wit" aociesoence. L' rte and tutor demotion of ‘r* l eater of the Yo many short sto' daggf‘ter Tsip: goiernrnent to society, and witnessed a great deal of Jewish persecution in her childhood and adolescence. Leaving her hometown at the age of 15, Baron went on to study, write, and tutor. In her twenties Baron mourned the death of her father and the destruction of her hometown by the pogroms. In 1910 she served as literary editor of the Young Worker, a political newspaper in Palestine. There she wrote many short stories and met her husband Yosef, an activist and editor. Her daughter Tsipora was born in 1914, and the family was exiled by the Turkish government to Egypt in 1915. Allowed to return to Palestine in 1919, Baron suffered extreme illness and depression. However, the most devastating blow came in 1920 when her brother Benjamin, whom she idolized, suddenly died. In 1923 she and Yosef were ousted from the Young Worker by political activists and turmoil. Disillusioned and disgruntled, Baron vowed never to leave her apartment in Tel Aviv. She lived there in seclusion until the day she died with her daughter, who adopted her mother’s proclivity for isolation. Her husband died in 1937 (Lieblich, 1997). With all these events Lieblich meets with Baron twenty-four times within her imagination, almost up until the death of the aged woman. But within these twenty-four encounters, Lieblich is struggling with issues of her own mortality, loneliness, creativity, seclusion, feminism, motherhood, and loss. As Baron’s life story unfolds, so does Lieblich’s. Even though most of the biography focuses on Baron, Lieblich interjects parts of her own life story. The passages that will be used for this study strictly focus on Lieblich’s voice and reflections during her ”encounters” with Baron. Throughout the biography Lieblich pursues the 27 answers to the J | F3”) of the rec Yosef. ard her I answers to the questions she has about Baron’s life and her relationships with many of the people within her life, especially her daughter Tsipora, her husband Yosef, and her brother Benjamin (Lieblich, 1997). 28 Introduction The hose and roommates o .gnts. The “ass'ehle'is'~'ve a fast. Is clear. y-i SST-eons Who 55" knowledge ‘Mkng? l we Mm mysel‘ ”Y questions I ‘ I — —- ___ — —_ — CHAPTER TWO: SELF KNOWLEDGE IN A BOOK Introduction The house is finally quiet. After a morning of dealing with a new puppy and roommates who have odd sleeping schedules I am truly alone with my thoughts. The day always begins this way, and in the grateful solitude I am apprehensive and anxious about meeting Lieblich for our first encounter. My task is clear, yet I feel this nervousness. Will I appear to her to be a novice, someone who is undeserving of the opportunity to converse with her on her own self knowledge and growth? Am I being too prescriptive and rigid in my thinking? I want her to like me... to respect my goals and research, yet I have to remind myself that regardless of her respect I am driven to find the answers to my questions. I need to resolve this mystery of how someone sits down and converses with an imaginal partner and then miraculously learns and grows in the process. I know I am not worthy of her presence in many ways. I am certainly not as accomplished as she is, and I even envy her scholarship and writing. I am also worried about sustaining the conversation with her. In her book she has Baron say: “A good conversation finds its own proper course, like a stream flowing down a slope... If it comes up against a boulder, it bypasses it naturally and finds bedrock once again” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 13). I hope this is a “good” conversation. 29 lalwa‘i’s' ins lfoi’awe summed bl J abeu different hese meetin: ’6'» I ‘n KMEG-fi. le . Fril- in. both feet Lreblrc.1 Resea We writing ' I always wanted to be a writer, one who is able to compose music with words. As a child, I imagined the creative possibilities, but then life takes many turns. I followed a very conventional path with my schooling and work life. I am surrounded by nice things, have a nice life with very few interruptions. I haven’t experienced a great loss, and many things have come very easy for me. So what do I possibly have to bring to this meeting? My first series of encounters with Lieblich will be about self knowledge and Ieaming. In all, I have established several “meetings” with her to inquire about different facets of her biography of Dvora Baron. I am hoping through these meetings I can learn how subjective intent in biography prompts self knowledge, Ieaming and development. I guess the only way to start is to jump in with both feet and hope for the best. Lieblich: So, where would you like to begin? Researcher: I want to discuss how you learned about yourself as you were writing Dvora Baron’s biography. Lieblich: How do you propose to do this? Researcher: Are you familiar with Robert Kegan’s work on self development? Lieblich: Yes, somewhat, but I’m not sure of its relevance. Researcher: Kegan bases his work on Piaget’s principles of biological and philosophical development. He uses the term “constructive development” to describe how a human being changes from a self that is embedded in or defined 30 It," secret)" I :r'CUT ODjS‘Cf 5‘. . ' . A Jr); rap“; Cc chkl VUJ Ar MSUS ab: by society to a self that does not try to balance all the contradictions that life presents (Kegan, 1982). Lieblich: How exactly does he present this notion? Researcher: ...b y looking at subject-object relations. Lieblich: Well, I understand the phrase, but how is that relevant to me as a biographer? Researcher: When I first read Kegan’s work I was amazed by the similarities of you and Baron to that of subject-object relationships. She was your object of study, yet you didn’t seem to approach her in a traditional biographical sense. Lieblich: She became much more than an object of study. Yes, I was curious about her from a researcher standpoint, but something else happened in the process. I guess she opened a door to my soul, so to speak. Researcher: Yes... that is what I saw. Lieblich: So, what is Kegan’s view on this subject-object relationship? Researcher: Well, as adults we are often defined, or our self-identity is defined, by how we are viewed by others. Kegan describes this as “being had” by the other or the object. We have little autonomy or agency. As we grow the self becomes more autonomous and develops a sense of agency, thus throwing off the other/object. Further on some human beings develop the capability of becoming a self that has an aim of developing a sense of intimacy, inviting contradictions and allowing life’s paradoxes to exist. 31 Lieblich; it these changes CC. Researchee erlrch. v. Researche- “i'ebpment. bu.” 1??? Will? YOU, LIED/10h M 00? every QUESfjc-j Surrounded Lieblich: If Researche fluid to describe v. them or one who metaphor beca us Lieblich: 5 ’M _ ""‘EI'EStmg. wr in v . lne b’OQraph, .1. £ i. to ,3] I: r ‘0 you mr 53,4. Lieblich: That last part sounds terribly confusing. Are you proposing that these changes constitute self growth or learning? Researcher: That’s what Kegan proposes. Lieblich: What about you? What do you propose? Researcher: I think Kegan presents an interesting theory of self development, but I am unsure if it applies to you or not. That is why I wanted to talk with you. Lieblich: Well, I’ll try to answer your questions, but a word of caution... not every question has an answer. Surrounded Lieblich: Interesting tit/e. .. tell me about it. Researcher: Kegan uses the metaphor of being surrounded in amniotic fluid to describe what it is like to be a person who is defined by those around them or one who is in third order consciousness (Kegan, 1982). I love that metaphor because of its imagery more than anything. Lieblich: So you chose “Surrounded” to describe our first meeting. Interesting... why is this relevant to me? Researcher: You used the metaphor of weaving and woven thread often in the biography to describe your relationship or conversation with Baron. I want to talk to you more about that later when we discuss writing biography, but I found that metaphor similar to Kegan’s for the purpose of this discussion. 32 Lieblich. HC meeohor? Researcher Seen Keganreh hemegnalconw Lieblich, TI smdnt'IE—d with a Researcne seemed to be auxt I’Odi' thinking We Lebhsh; T beginning, but] 4' ”’7 Self Identity 0r Already I \I 9.68953th Lieblich: How do you view me when thinking about the amniotic metaphor? Researcher. You seem to be embedded within the conversation with Baron. Kegan refers to this embeddedness as being “had by the object. ” Did this imaginal conversation provide you with a safe place? Lieblich: That’s a strange description. I was comfortable when surrounded with a sense of Baron, when she and I were conversing. Researcher: Is that why her approval was so important to you? You seemed to be awfully disturbed when she was mocking you or not agreeing with your thinking. Were you letting her be the judge of your self worth? Lieblich: That’s a little harsh... her approval did mean a lot to me in the beginning, but I wouldn’t say she held the position of authority over me or that my self identity or esteem was dependent on her. Already l was offending her... I need to be more patient. Researcher: I am sorry ifl am not asking the question right. In one of your conversations with her you stated: ”My presence has been practically forgotten, I felt with quiet satisfaction” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 28). You were grateful when Baron talked and forgot about you being there. This made me think that your own self was quite diminished at this point... that you were really hidden by the other so to speak. Lieblich: l was only glad that she was feeling comfortable enough to spin her story without interruption from me. Remember this was her biography. 33 ReseaFC’ (t) ,. ‘rr’s hard for yang sfafemel .‘fv’S point. Lieblich assume the lea n'gh’i‘ghted. Researc you talked abci so badly for so. .hyseIf... I knot noon. Am I I0: Lieblich: ooh: about sor 535’ my busba Researcher: But throughout the book, especially in the beginning, you gave me the impression you wanted to disappear. You even stated early on that “it’s hard for me to feel that I exist. . (Lieblich, 1997, p. 8). That was a pretty strong statement. I couldn’t help but think that you were feeling a loss of self at this point. Lieblich: Or you could say that I wanted Baron to take center stage, to assume the lead role, and that I diminished my own presence so hers would be highlighted. Researcher: No offense, but I didn’t see that. Within this same encounter you talked about your loneliness. “I get terribly lonely. When I’m alone, I want so badly for someone to be with me” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 8). I’ve been that lonely myself... I know the feeling. It makes me question myself and doubt my own self worth. Am I lonely because others do not find me desirable? Lieblich: I am not worried about being desired. I think you could have a point about some of your logic. When this was written I was struggling with life after my husband’s death. I went through extremely lonely times. Researcher: 80 did Baron help you define who you thought you were? Did that question even make sense? I knew that Lieblich looked upon Baron as an admirable figure in history. She even began the biography describing herself as “second fiddle to Baron’s lead” (Lieblich, 1997, p. viii). But was this just a biographical ploy to bring Baron’s story to the forefront, or did she really feel that her self identity was dependent on Baron’s reactions and comments? Was she truly allowing herself to be defined by the other? 34 o'dh’t you? Lieolrcr. parts of who I test as such. Resear sne scoffed at Willi? V/ere J YOUF beliefs 5, Lieblich: I did care what she thought of me. Granted I knew that Baron was an imaginal figure, but yet I found myself looking to her for some kind of approval. Researcher: You especially wanted her to approve of your profession, didn’t you? Lieblich: Partly... my work in psychology and teaching are very important parts of who I am. By mocking my profession, she was mocking me, or at least I felt as such. Researcher: When discussing the differences between women and men, she scoffed at your characterization. Were you letting her define you at this point? Were you letting Baron’s character personify your own self doubts about your beliefs and knowledge? Lieblich: You could interpret it that way, but what person doesn’t have self doubts? Don’t you also have them? Researcher: Well of course I do... I have them more than I care to, actually. Lieblich: Like what? She was taking me off my path. I didn’t want to have this conversation with her, and I certainly didn’t feel comfortable enough to bare my soul to someone I hardly knew. Researcher: Well, for example... this conversation with you... I certainly do not feel comfortable discussing self development and growth with you. Lieblich: Why not? It’s critical for your understanding of me, isn’t it? 35 Research its more than I a Deb/ion; anjudglng you I I ma y not agree Mean your ideas Research 3‘6”? presence ar Lieblich: I 9“ 33009 footing the floor was fall. that .‘Ime, a safe Research, U‘V the last of wr a", _ .rmlng/y heCI as probe for ans Deb/[Ch ‘- ReSGarcr ’A 0:85 ,I i I afln " '9 ab . our C r-—>.. the hit? ”‘ 9r (Kg “'95 ‘ ”hot 5 y Researcher: Yes, but I know you are so much more knowledgeable about this topic than I am. I’m certainly not telling you something you don’t already know. Lieblich: So you feel inferior in that way? You certainly don’t feel that I am judging you based on what you know. I only want to challenge your thinking. I may not agree with some of your characterizations of me, but that does not mean your ideas have no merit. Researcher: If that’s true, then why did you feel uncomfortable with your own presence and knowledge in the beginning of the biography? Lieblich: Like you, Ifelt a little inferior, a little intimidated. I wasn’t exactly on strong footing from an emotional standpoint, and many times I felt as though the floor was falling out from under me. Baron’s voice gave me solace during that time, a safe place to go hide. Researcher: I kind of feel that way about you. I am extremely intimidated by the task of writing a dissertation. Not to mention, my life has been exceedingly hectic. Your company is welcome. It allows me to just vent as well as probe for answers. It’s allowing me to write. Lieblich: I’m glad it’s having that effect on you. Researcher. In all this I need to get back to my original premise. Kegan’s description of a person in the “interpersonal” stage is exactly what we’ve been talking about: one who is defined by the other or embedded within the object or the other (Kegan, 1982). Now I’m not saying that your self development had the similarity of a young adult, but didn’t you find yourself lost at this point? 36 '71 Lieblich: Lost, maybe, but I think that I was surrounded by many life changing events at the time. I not only was dealing with the loss of my husband, but was also having to provide a safe and loving environment for my children. And I suppose I was dealing with thoughts of death and haunted by my own mortality as well. That was a lot for me to handle. She was finally opening up to me. After listening to her I began to feel a great deal of sympathy for her and her losses. I didn’t want that to get in the way of my inquiry, but at the same time I needed to hear her story. Researcher: I am sorry for your loss. In all my enthusiasm I forgot that many things are still painful memories for you. Lieblich: The past is always with us. Surely you have faced similar circumstances in your life, a loss, a disappointment. Researcher: Not really. I have been fortunate. Lieblich: Then what possible feeling can you bring to this study? What emotional investment can you make? Researcher: I wasn ’t looking to make an emotional investment. Ijust wanted to inquire about your learning. Lieblich: I’m not sure you understand... perhaps you need to have greater experiences before you are able to decipher my learning. I found myself getting angry at her comment. I know I haven’t had the losses or life challenges she has had, but at the same time there is little control I have over that situation. Was she punishing me for being naive? 37 tesea’ he room Fla Let/Isl“ Researcher: I can’t give up on this, Professor Lieblich. You need to give me room. Please don’t walk away from this journey. Lieblich: I don’t think that things are ever as simple as you are making them out to be. When you learn that, maybe you’ll understand me much more than you do now. At this point I was unsure how to get our conversation back on track. Was her voice becoming too distant to maintain a connection? It was then I decided to move her toward thinking about the object of her story. Researcher: What would you consider to be the object in your thinking? Lieblich: Describe object to me. Researcher: Well, it’s the other, something that you reflect upon or possibly assimilate. The other or object in the case of interpersonal growth is the one that you may subordinate yourself to or the one who is co-constructor of your personal self. Kegan describes the differentiation as “we have object; we are subject” (Kegan, 1982, p. 32). Lieblich: I suppose you would consider Baron an object? Researcher: Wasn’t she? I mean you obviously looked for her approval. You expressed that you also were concerned about losing her voice. You must admit that she became a co-constructor for your own self story, didn’t she? Lieblich: There were many times I worried that she would leave me in our conversations. As with any imaginal partner, forcing oneself to maintain a relationship with various aspects of the other can be very intimidating. To lose 38 her may have me she was helping Research when you angen snare/y if I can ‘t I’L-BSIICII, 1937, ) wen? Lieblich; YOU before you I wanting to be DE Researcr bEfb‘v’een What's Lieblich: $399 Of What K Pesearci Lieblich; some DOIIII, no: She has It: ' .. ac Spent my he)? om Srs thl' I Deb/IQ)». her may have meant that I was losing touch with some parts of myself. And yes, she was helping me not only construct her own story, but mine as well. Researcher: You explicitly referred to losing her several times, especially when you angered Baron in the ninth encounter. You stated: “It’s my fault entirely ifl can’t hear you. Please don ’t give up on me. Don’t go away.” (Lieblich, 1 99 7, p. 99). Were you afraid of losing this self-imposed cocoon you were in? Lieblich: Don’t you also fear the same thing, that my voice will be lost to you before you can finish your task? What person goes through life without wanting to be part of another’s life, to belong to something larger? Researcher: Yes, but there’s a point at which you have to distinguish between what’s out there and what’s inside. Lieblich: So if we are not able to distinguish, does that mean we are at a stage of what Kegan cal/s “interpersonal” growth? Researcher: Ithink so. Lieblich: Be careful of generalizing too much. You need to know that, at some point, not all your research will fit into nice packages. She had a point. How did she know that I was heading in that direction? I had spent my life thinking in very logical terms, priding myself on the ability to help others think about the process. Rarely did I think about myself, and I certainly didn’t want to deal with my own “embeddedness.” Lieblich: Where do you see yourself? 39 I was start inenléewmg- Researchf me When I was born into a family 1an want to be his approval, his Lieblich; I Research: not just capable. Lieblich: I thinking of yours: Research! Lieblich; b0ill-’9 fOr other err L'I‘Ough DeflOds 0‘9 30 Quick to i,— Q n ' Sveoarry wne .r' l was startled by her question. I was supposed to be doing the interviewing. Researcher: I often see myself as being defined by the others around me. When I was a child, I looked to my father for approval. I was the only giri born into a family of boys, and I knew that my father saw me differently. Only I didn’t want to be different. I suppose I’ve spent a better part of my life looking for his approval, his confirmation that who I am is sufficient. Lieblich: Hmmm. .. is that the only place you strive for approval? Researcher: No, I do at work. I want to be seen as a capable manager— not just capable, but unique. I want to stand out. I work hard at it. Lieblich: But if you’re looking for all of that, aren’t you too embedded in thinking of yourself by how others define? Researcher: Sadly, yes. Lieblich: There ’3 nothing sad about it... we all go through parts of our life looking for others to acknowledge and accept who we are. We may also go through periods where it doesn’t matter a damn what those others think. Don’t be so quick to think we are immune to taking steps backwards in our growth, especially when life has a tendency to throw many obstacles in our path. Her words were comforting. I guess deep down I had started to become a little insecure about my own development. Where was I in Kegan’s stages? I grew fearful that I had let myself be too defined by those who surrounded me. Researcher When you first started conversing with Dvora, were you lacking a sense of belonging? 4O YOU'S'J with ya way yi fara'n [Donor I’OU w: Lieblich: l was feeling loneliness... maybe. Researcher: And in the beginning you clearly stated: “I’m looking for a hero -— something to hang on to” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 3). Would you describe yourself as desiring someone to accompany you — to be part of you and help with your struggles of loneliness and loss? Lieblich: Its not surprising that you would interpret this statement in the way you did, but could there be another possible explanation for wanting to look for a hero — something deeper? Researcher: Well, I’ve had heroes in the past. Lieblich: Why did you adopt them as heroes? Was it because you were looking for someone other than yourself to help you with your identity, to help you with your story? Researcher: I think for clarification I never found myself looking for a hero. They simply became heroes because of something they did that was admirable or desirable. Lieblich: Did your heroes have qualities you wanted in yourself? Researcher: Yes, maybe they did. Most of my heroes were those who were artistically gified, musicians and singers primarily, sometimes a writer. Lieblich: Don ’t you think that l was looking at Baron as a possible hero for the same reason? I saw something in her that I desired to have, perhaps her gift of stories. Researcher: Or maybe her deep sense of self? 41 UGO; o n “hn '. ll 5C L: :U 0 V Saga 8 \ Lieblich: Possibly. Because she had reached a higher level of thinking — beyond the self to a self that has coherence. Researcher: But, even she struggled from time to time. And even she had experiences that caused her to doubt herself. Lieblich: It’s part of being human. But Baron, especially through her stories, was able to transcend all the evil in the world and find solace in her own being. Researcher: But was this really her, or what you projected her to be? In the nineteenth encounter Baron stated: “Like your friend in the desert, I loved tranquility and clung to it as best I could. In the long days, when not a living soul came to visit, I sometimes descended—or perhaps ascended—to hidden worids. Sometimes, in the lengthening stillness, a person uncovers the perfect order that reigns in the universe and sees their own place within it” (Lieblich, 1 99 7, p. 233). It was here that I understood what Baron was to you. When in solitude she discovered a self that was at peace with who she was and her place in the world. Is this why she was your hero? She paused and looked at me rather startled. It was if my question had struck a vein that was too close to the truth. Lieblich: Are you suggesting that she was where I wanted to be or had become the person I hoped to be? Researcher: I’m just suggesting that the reason you chose her as a hero, one who would help you co-construct, or better yet, reconstruct your life was 42 because she if Obviously sift/Q Lieblich me. With aI.I t lied through tr inanine. Yet. : Researc herself In a seI: WOTSI‘W‘D somec Uebllch: in a world wher persecution 3hr afiDgefher. Ma Eventua/jy If we DESI and recon Researc Lieblich; mine. Researc- Wb F 'I’ I Cho $6)” LISb/m ShOn because she reached happiness in the solitude... something that you were obviously struggling with at the time. Lieblich: It is true... she was at peace, something I wanted to find at the time. With all that was going on in my life, there was Dvora — a woman who had lived through the pogroms and persecution, a life much more tragic than I could imagine. Yet, she discovered who she was and her place in society. Researcher: But she was a recluse. She rejected society and shut herself in a self imposed prison for 33 years. How could you admire or hero worship someone who learned about herself by removing herself from society? Lieblich: But wasn’t that the most fascinating part of this story? She lived in a world where, more than ever, a Jew was reminded of her place. In persecution she didn’t let others define who she was, but rejected them altogether. Maybe initially she went into hiding for self preservation, but eventually it was that seclusion that saved her, allowed her to understand the past and reconcile herself to it. Researcher: Thus she grew. Lieblich: Yes, if anything this story was more about her own growth than mine. Researcher: But her growth was much more obvious. Perhaps that was why I chose you to study rather than her. Lieblich: It’s just that I am flattered but at the same time cautious about your questions. I’m not as fluent as Baron about my own life. 43 Cont) ,- \- l Researcher: But, that is where you are wrong. I don’t want you to be uncomfortable with my questions, but you must admit that you began this book with the desire to find a hero, someone who could help redefine your own life. I think you truly ended up where you wanted to be. You began by surrounding yourself with Baron. You became just what you wanted to be — her confidant, her friend. In exchange she took you on a wonderful journey. She really helped you learn about yourself, or maybe rediscover yourself. Wasn’t that why you worried when you were losing contact with her? It was almost as if you were losing your husband all over again. Lieblich: Your words strike me deeply. .. I’m not sure that it is wise to continue. Researcher: I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to be too probing. Can I ask another question that may make this conversation easier for you? Lieblich: Yes. Researcher: I struggled with why you had such trouble with Baron lea ving home at such an early age. Lieblich: I did... it made me want to put my arms around my own children and protect them. Researcher: In the writing, you continued to struggle with her early independence. Quoting you, “Would my own parents have let me leave home at fifteen to make my own way in the world, far from their supervision? I asked myself, and immediately rejected the possibility as absurd. And there, in Dvora ’8 youth, it would have been all that much more dangerous: a girl among men, a 44 fwa” myEU’ est” gmme U 00me (1‘5 leave. He CUTSEI'I‘ VI Ithoughf t loneliness. pmwdhgfl Jew among gentiles, when distances were greater and communication so much more uncertain. What could explain the motivation of parents as devoted as hers if not for a sense of utter despair, an awareness that there was no future at all in the old way of life?” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 79). Lieblich: I did struggle first, with why she would want to leave the comforts and surroundings of home, and secondly, why her parents let her leave. Researcher: See, I believe the reason you struggled was because you yourself were looking to be embedded in something similar to your parents’ care. I thought to myself while reading this that you saw that as a way to escape the loneliness. Was that why you were so worried about losing Baron? Was she providing for you a sense of security, a sense of belonging? Lieblich: When you look at it through your eyes, I suppose there is some validity to your thinking, but at the same time I was living through this story, I also had to provide that same sense of security for my own children. Here I was, a single mother, searching for some sense of self, as well as trying to nurture my own children. Researcher: But you stated later that It was your children who helped you stay alive after your husband’s death, even though losing him caused you to fall into a “pit” as you put it. Lieblich: Even though the self struggles and gives off a reflection of what others may think and feel, there are still adult obligations that prompt me to become a caretaker. 45 gnterDefSOflai xnstructo r. t to your childre more self-aoth. LIED/7CD .' many times var Researcher: It’s so odd that parenting was what caused you to rise above the pain you were feeling. It actually sounded like taking care of your children sustained your self growth. Kegan talks about how the demands of our lives can either sustain or cause us to transcend into higher levels of development. These “life events” can either be the catalyst or the bridge to a higher order, or be the ones that keep you in a particular stage of growth. He especially questions whether the third stage of growth, the one we’re talking about has a “goodness of fit” with the mental demands of modern life as an adult (Kegan, 1982). Lieblich: Are we talking about parenting? Researcher: Yes, I think part of you, part of your self was dabbling in the interpersonal transition, the one that made you look to Baron as your co- oonstructor, but you were also at another level, dealing with being a single parent to your children. It was your children that continued to bring you back into a more self-authoring world. Lieblich: This was what I tried to explain to you earlier — that people many times vacillate among the levels of growth. Didn’t you notice that thoughts about my children often ended my encounters with Baron? It was when I needed to assume self control that I emerged from my dream with her, and my children were somewhat the prompt to that emergence. Researcher: I did notice that you ended many encounters with memories or concerns for your children, but now I think I understand why. A very substantial part of you needed Baron to explore that object-defined self. When she was your co-author you could escape the controls you had to maintain In the 46 outer world. taren care 0.: Debit: torso long? Herqu Involved In 02, similarity to m Pesea: WWII whe mine? Vt/hy n‘ to“ I've wen? Researr Studying. You ”’9. I was Ofte the MO Of I’Ou Lieblich. 000? think we I Chuck il‘ves. I knew having the Se: a'E‘KES‘LIOn. outer world. She was your escape to a previous feeling... one in which you were taken care of and even mentored through. Lieblich: Why did you just move in with two other people after living alone for so long? Her question kind of surprised me, especially considering we were so involved in our previous thoughts. How did she know that I was drawing similarity to her life, especially when we were so different. Researcher: Well, I guess you could say I wanted to be part of some kind of family, where I could not only be a caretaker, but also be taken care of. Lieblich: So then why do you need me to discuss this transformation of mine? Why not have the conversations with someone else, perhaps someone youlhmewflh? Researcher: Because I want to get to know you. You are the one I am studying. You and your relationship with Baron have some special meaning for me. I was often mesmerized with the writing — to the point at which I could see the two of you talking together. Lieblich: Did you come looking for me, or was it really you? You see, I don’t think we are as different as you think. I chuckled to myself at her statement. I was reminded of her biography in which she constantly compared herself to Baron and wrote about their similar lives. I knew she and I had very little in common, but it amused me to think of us having the same needs in this regard. Then suddenly she asked another question. 47 Deb. Rese interperson. event that IE From stage the-gen. 198 [deb/.1: Rese l/CUr'S-Blf. On In a sense of fremendCUS ll appearedfo F ”W yer re, Lieblich: What makes a person emerge from this interpersonal stage? Research: Kegan calls it a bridge in which the self moves from an interpersonal self to an institutional self. Basically, when the self encounters an event that Is significant, it acts as a bridge to the next stage of development. From stage three to four, the self essential/y emerges from the embeddedness (Kegan, 1982). Lieblich: And how would you characterize my bridge? Researcher: Well, I think two life events really caused you to confront yourself. One, I think the loss of your husband took you from feeling embedded in a sense of security and belonging into a chaotic state in which you felt tremendous loss and discomfort. At the same time, you encountered Baron who appeared to provide you with some form of sanctuary, a safe place where you grieved yet felt a sense of belonging. Your life had many similarities to Baron’s, and you used those as a way to form a bond, a kinship with her character. She, in turn, challenged your thinking, like a self-imposed obstacle. Lieblich: Well, you’ve been really thinking about this, haven’t you? I have studied you for two years Amia... I only wish you knew how much I wanted to understand you. Researcher: Am I on track? Lieblich: I think what you say may be on track. My confrontation with Baron does kind of catapult me into a different place, one where I felt my self emerging, like from a deep sleep. Where does this so-called bridge lead? Researcher: To the next stage... according to Kegan. 48 Pese CO." .SCIOUSNE as an orgaq' facet v .S of yo u LIED/I: WWI??? State Authoring the Self Researcher: I think that, of all the stages of growth Kegan discusses, this one is the most easily defined. Lieblich: How so? Researcher: Kegan describes the fourth stage or fourth order consciousness as the self-authoring stage or institutional self. Imagine yourself as an organization in which you are the administrator running all the various facets of your life. That’s the image that this stage conjures in my mind. Lieblich: Okay... where does this apply to my so-called self knowledge or growth? Researcher: Essentially you become the author of who you are. You are no longer authored by those who surround you, but assume the authority to “coordinate, integrate, act upon, or invent values, beliefs, convictions, generalizations, ideals, abstractions, interpersonal loyalties, and lntrapersonal states” (Kegan, 1994, p. 185). You define who you are, and are not so much defined by your social surroundings. You are the “maker” of your inner self, not the “experiencer” (Baxter Magolda, 1999). Lieblich: I definitely see myself within this description. Researcher: Where? How? Lieblich: I consider myself to be one who likes to be in control of my inner self. Researcher: Yes, but really you move far beyond this stage as well. Lieblich: Continue with your characterization. 49 Researd’ extremely 51’0'05 your ‘self’ to me Lieblich; Researcl about how offer to :ed the sImII. LIED/ICfI‘ Researc you: re, your 5 psychology. Lieblich; Identity” Within Researc SIWIIanfjes to E authorship the Lieblich Researcher: This stage, or maybe better yet this part of yourself was extremely strong in the biography. I sensed that many times you were asserting your “self” to maintain some kind of control. Was that true? Lieblich: Give me an example. Researcher: Well, when we were discussing stage three I was reminded about how often you compared yourself with Baron. It was as if many times, you forced the similarities into the writing. Lieblich: But that’s not true! I saw many similarities between her and me. Researcher: Yes, but there were also vast differences between the two of you; i. e., your sense of feminism, your views on marriage, children, spirituality, psychology. Lieblich: Those are parts of my life in which I have formulated a kind of “identity” within. Researcher: Well, that’s what I mean. There were times in which your similarities to Baron defined who you were and other times it was your self authorship that defined who you were. Lieblich: Do you remember the conversation between us in which Baron was talking about her failed relationship with Ben-Eliezer, the man she first loved? Researcher: Yes, I recall that. That was where you made the statement: “Here I am, an adult woman with her own children and her own life. It’s far too late for me to let any man be the master of my spirit” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 130). I loved that line. 50 Indepen way: 5 make 0. marntau OIQF UIVVLISS [Kn-.3 villa Lieblich: Why? Researcher: Because I saw a determination in that statement, an independence of sorts that said you were in control of your destiny. Your sense of agency to control emerged. You also seemed determined to define your “self identity’ when you expressed your feminist and psychological views. Lieblich: So do you believe that this best represents a self authoring self? Researcher: Yes, it’s when you exerted independence rather than dependence on another. Some authorities on self authorship describe it this way: “Self authorship means believing that one can construct knowledge claims, make one ’s own inner psychological life, and regulate relationships with others to maintain one ’s own identity’ (Baxter Magolda, 1999, p. 39). Lieblich: That’s a complicated quote. Can you break it down so we can discuss each component? First, what does it mean for someone to construct knowledge claims? Researcher: Do you believe knowledge is constructed in a context? Lieblich: In what other ways can you construct knowledge? Researcher: Well, you could believe that knowledge is certain, taking on a positivist view. Or, you could believe that some people are authorities in certain areas, and that knowledge comes strictly from another. Lastly is contextual knowing in which knowledge is constructed based on lived experiences. I think you subscribe to the latter, don’t you? Lieblich: Yes, ldo. Where do you see this expressed? 51 Pesea fourth annive. horns blasting nome. gomg I Were you hin Deb/Isl Early and late she finds ther that she had. knowledge en beyond the pr hernasr. and and preSem it Resear the Diesranj’ S Deb/[cl Researcher: You talked early in the book when you were confronting the fourth anniversary of your husband’s death. You state: “Cars gal/oped by, their horns blasting me forward, pinning me with their headlights. People coming home, going out. And the past is still always with us” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 18). Were you hinting that our experiences are part of who we are, what we know? Lieblich: Yes. Baron herself said: “Time is not so straight and simple. Early and late roam freely within us, and knowledge takes her tools wherever she finds them” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 207). Baron knew that her memories were all that she had, and through those reflections and memories of lived experiences knowledge emerged. That may be why she was able to continue her self growth beyond the point at which she shut her outer door to the world. Her context was her past, and in solitude she learned who she was and was able to bring her past and present together. Researcher: So, even though she did not interact with a social world in the present, she used her lived experiences as a source of growth? Lieblich: Source of growth. .. hmmm. That’s an interesting way to put it. In the quietness of her surroundings, she began to play back the past. As it played, her present self interacted with the past. It was then she was able to see herself in a larger context. Researcher: I can kind of understand it. Lieblich: Tell me how. Researcher: I found myself doing a lot of writing this week, but often there were many distractions in the house. Only when I was truly alone was I able to 52 gear you. 566 Y Ios.‘ you. rang your firs. oooess Wher felt a tyne of se Lieblich Ehofy. Resear: tn'asn’t wthi Infernal social beblicr Pesea' List/1cr ”’9 with the e hear you, see you, talk to you. In the quiet there was your voice. In the chaos ! lost you. Lieblich: ltoo write from solitude. Researcher: Yes! In the book you talked about it. While talking about writing your first real story you mentioned how isolated you were during the process. When you were finished, your character was left on the page and you felt a type of separation. Lieblich: It was when the character was no longer with me that I felt empty. Researcher: But it was only In true solitude that your knowing emerged. It wasn’t within a typical “social” environment. The environment was a kind of internal social environment. Lieblich: Are you trying to label it? Researcher: Yes. Lieblich: Not necessary. If knowledge is created in a social context, then live with the explanation that there are many definitions of “social. ” So, what about the other parts of this self-authorship stage? What does it mean to “author one ’s inner psychological life”? Researcher: This one is confusing for me. I know that we start out by acting on impulses and that we eventually begin to recognize the parts of the self that are enduring qualities (Baxter Magolda, 1999). To go from recognition to authoring is where I am confused. ! think it means that we reach a point at which 53 “we. define C hem. self Identity 5 ousehes. M beblc Resea helefs With df Deb/IO! owwhad Resear “we” define our beliefs and values for ourselves, without letting others define them. Lieblich: How is that different than what we talked about in interpersonal transition? Researcher: Well, this is really the next step after that. Rather than our self identity as a culmination of what others think, we formulate our identity for ourselves. We decide who we are and what we belief in. Lieblich: Where do you see that in the biography? Researcher: I see it in many places. You often defined your values and beliefs with descriptive words — you used “feminism” for example. Lieblich: Yes, I do see myself as a feminist. Those are the values I believe in, adhere to. Researcher: But Baron scoffed at many of your feminist descriptions. She laughed when you tried to distinguish the ethical decisions of men versus women -- that “men act with justice and women, compassion” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 61). Do you really believe that? Lieblich: I thought there was some truth In it, but Baron thought it was ridiculous. See, she did not like it when I made such clear-cut distinctions. Researcher: But didn’t she do it herself when she talked about the exploitation of women by men? Lieblich: Yes, but then her past dictated many of her beliefs in this regard. She saw that oppression. Researcher: Have you seen that oppression? 54 F654. such occre playing il‘lfl‘ Liebl Rese that. Iwanf treated EQue hand :0 see push the e m am submittrn Lieblich: ! don’t know what woman has not. Baron specifically highlighted that “a woman was supposed to fulfill her obligation to her husband by giving him her body as well, if only in order to continue the family and the nation” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 263). Researcher: It sounds so desperate and hopeless. I am not familiar with such oppression. ! only know that being a female in the workplace means playing with the boys or standing apart. Lieblich: Why would you choose to play? Researcher: Because to stand apart means exclusion, and I refuse to do that. I want to be included. Look, I’m not saying that men and women are treated equally, but to dwell on it only permits powerlessness. On the other hand, to see yourself as a part of the whole enables you to pursue change, to push the envelope. If! admit I have less capability because of my sex, it means I am submitting to the dominant culture. I’ve made change happen because I ignore the norm and poke fun at those who have decided that gender makes a difference. Lieblich: So then do you see yourself as a feminist? Researcher: No, I don’t identify myself that way. lam a woman who works, and I do the best I can. It’s not something that ! use to define me. Lieblich: But don ’t you find that women and the relationships you have with women are special? Baron said: “friendship between women... often departs from the usual lines of class and education, as if womanhood itself provided a basis for companionship” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 292). 55 Rese sire truly be Uebi': Pese relationships workpiece, executive ra, Dab/It all kinds whe 55mg 18 whe Resea Lleb/ic 9.9363 frOrn ‘Sub Sun S‘lSI‘Em that re UGbIIc) Researcher: So, even though she made fun of your feminist comments, she truly believed in the uniqueness of womanhood? Lieblich: Yes, because her past continued to define how she saw her sex. Researcher: I’m not sure that ! subscribe to the uniqueness of these relationships. I even find myself more comfortable with men, especially in the workplace. Women often have a hidden agenda, especially in many of the executive ranks. Lieblich: Aren’t you generalizing again? You are going to find people of all kinds where you work. How you see yourself and think about yourself in that setting is what’s important. Researcher: Thus defining one ’s own inner psychological life, huh? Lieblich: Yes. What is the last part of self authorship... the interpersonal? Researcher: This is a little clearer than the last one. This is where you go from “subsuming one ’s own view to that of significant others, to developing a system that regulates interpersonal relationships” (Baxter Magolda, 1999, p. 39). Lieblich: Do you see this transition in the book? Researcher: Very much so. Let’s take the example of spirituality, which is part of a belief system that defines who we are... our self identity. In the beginning of the biography, you had trouble understanding Baron’s sense of Jewishness, didn’t you? Lieblich: Let’s just say I didn’t have the same sense of self that she did in spiritual matters. 56 Resean anc' Gentiles r you here for yI behlicr. Resear whafhaopene to your mind a your lack of se fhmhdher W" (Lieblich erllcf. Resear ”75136 of ,V0 U “Swen. Ueblr'cl Resea ang or 'g UGO/I: Resea- In, fell abo U Mien YOU [6 Researcher: You appeared awkward when you asked her if rich Jews and Gentiles pose the same threat for the poorer Jews. She became angry with you here for your naiveté, didn’t she? Lieblich: Yes, there was a brief gap, awkwardness, like you describe it. Researcher: It became clearer when she asked you: “When I tell you what happened to me, a Jewish woman living alone among gentiles, what comes to your mind as a native Israeli?” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 110). Your thoughts admit to your lack of self definition in this regard: “About myself among gentiles. .. feeling the miniature wise woman recede to her usual hiding place and Dvora swim into view” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 110). That was a very powerful statement. Lieblich: How so? Researcher: In the previous passages you talked about the wise woman inside of you as being someone who speaks to you when you look for strength or answers. Lieblich: I suppose you could say that she is a part of the self! conjure up for internal conversation and guidance. Researcher: So when the wise woman receded — was this the self receding or “subsuming” to Dvora, the other, the object? Lieblich: That’s quite a leap in thinking. Researcher: I disagree. It’s when you finally were able to “regulate" how you felt about your spirituality with what Baron lived through as a Jew. That’s when you reached the self authorship stage — when you were comfortable with it. 57 (1.) YC’L Lieblich: But you are wrong in that ! never reached that stage in regard to my sense of Jewishness. I always deferred to her in that sense. That’s because that was not what I used to define myself, unlike my feminism or my profession. Researcher: So when you said: “distinguishing between Jews and gentiles — even the word “gentile” is not part of my vocabulary —— was entirely marginal to my life as an Israeli, ” this meant you didn’t define yourself in the manner she did (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 111)? Lieblich: Yes. I struggled with her characterization of her self identity here. With all that surrounded her in terms of being a Jew, she saw herself as an Israeli first and foremost. But then how could I get into a disagreement with her on this part of her self authorship when I didn’t identify myself in any spiritual terms? I always felt inferior to those who had a strong sense of spirituality. Then, as If she was reading my thoughts, she turned the question on me. Lieblich: And how about you... where do you see yourself in terms of your spiritual self? Researcher: ! feel very awkward about it. I too defer to others in defining me and my spiritual beliefs. My family, for the most part, are very strong believers in Christianity, and define themselves as “Christians.” But for me, I just don’t. Lieblich: How does it make you feel? Researcher: I try to feel what they do, or say what is appropriate, but deep down I feel like I’m missing that same sense of self that they have. 58 U809: Cbntbetoo your family 5 represents t! Resee been: Resea wrote music i ifl-en there ca Ueb/rc, RESSa b10graphy' ha LIED/{c Resea Lieblich: Are you missing something or is it not part of your self definition? Don’t be too harsh on yourself. You should not always define yourself by how your family sees you. Isn’t that what we’ve been talking about? Self authorship represents those belief systems you have composed for yourself. Researcher: It’s funny you would use the word “compose.” Lieblich: Why? Researcher: Because I see this stage as a musical composition. When I wrote music as a child, I used parts that were familiar, from some other tune, but then there came a point where the music became all my own creation. Lieblich: Interesting analogy. Researcher: So would you say that your profession, especially in this biography, has a self authoring component? Lieblich: My profession as a psychologist defines a M of who I am. Researcher: Even though Baron made fun of some of your diagnoses, you remained pretty firm on your capability here. Lieblich: Yes, she wanted me to remember that artistic writers have more insight to the soul than psychologists or medical professionals. Researcher: But you didn’t define yourself in terms of your artistic creativity. You really didn’t describe yourself as an artist, did you? Lieblich: I wouldn’t say that “artist” was part of my self description. Researcher: But she wanted you to see yourself that way. .. didn’t she? Or better yet, you wanted to see yourself that way. Lieblich: What do you mean? 59 Reseé (neuron. 195 W have a II UebIIC was. Resea else could l0 Was It both. for | knr Interludes shI stones beca'. like an IndepI books. But it play anymore LiebI'Ic War. but wt Researcher: Baron said to you: “Well, you are a born storyteller, Amia” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 142). Several times in the biography she reminded you that you have a narrative gift; yet, you didn’t see yourself this way? Lieblich: Not really... she was a storyteller. I was not as gifted as she was. Researcher: But just to add credence to her views, I think you are. How else could you have written such a beautiful book? Was it admiration or envy I felt for her accomplishment? Maybe a little of both, for I knew I had no such gift. I couldn’t write the wonderful narrative interludes she could — I just didn’t have the ability. As a child, I wrote short stories because being a writer was part of a fantasy I wanted to live. It seemed like an independent, gilded world... to write and have others want to read your books. But then I stopped writing, like many of the childhood games I just didn’t play anymore. Lieblich: As time has gone by l have begun to see myself more as a writer, but when l composed this story I wasn’t feeling especially accomplished. Researcher: You talked about your difficulty in getting published. Is this why you didn’t see yourself as an artist? Lieblich: Partly. Researcher: But when you think about it, publishing is just another way in which others are defining you, not you defining yourself. Publishing is an acceptance of what others think. Isn’t it? Lieblich: Yes. 60 Rese defining hoI Ue'oi. Hert explore. lw apart of her charged the LIED/I: growth? Resee When {he Se]. embedded Ir Deb/i: Resea alossoime transition? ( 108mg Bamn Debit I Pose ‘3“, lur'ang abo Researcher: So if others don’t publish your work, that is not necessarily defining how you see yourself, is It — as a writer I mean? Lieblich: Yes. Her brief responses told me that this was an area that she didn’t want to explore. I wanted to ask more about how she saw herself as a writer. Was that a part of herself she had not reconciled or come to terms with? Then she quickly changed the topic. Lieblich: What causes a person to go beyond the self authoring stage of growth? Researcher: Well, it’s another bridge to growth as Kegan describes. It’s when the self reaches another crisis of sorts. In the self authorship stage we are embedded in autonomy rather than in the object (Kegan, 1982). Lieblich: Embedded in autonomy? Researcher: It’s when you begin to experience a loss of self, rather than a loss of the object. Do you remember when we were discussing interpersonal transition? You experienced many times during the biography that you were losing Baron, her voice. The bridge to moving beyond self authorship is a loss of self, a loss of personal agency. Lieblich: I’m not sure where I experienced this. Researcher: Oh, but this is expressed many times throughout the story of you and Baron. You first addressed it in the thirteenth encounter when you were talking about the similarities between yourself and Baron. You stated: “I would 61 hnbmd It was then I lie'oii were similar remain a on Rese LIED/I Rese Llebi'; Rese SI’ECII'ICaIIyI aIain into In {Lieblich, 19 Lie-oh {C 991 SUCke dealing with Ease Used the me Heb/II the 50nd Ill wOU/d be Io have to make sure we didn’t become a little too similar” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 143). It was then that I felt you were fearful of losing your self in the story. Lieblich: I didn’t want this story to be about me, but her. I knew that we were similar, but our similarities should not take center stage. I wanted her to remain a unique individual. Researcher: What about you? Lieblich: What do you mean, what about me? Researcher: Weren’t you afraid that you wouldn’t stay a unique self? Lieblich: Partly. Researcher: Let’s go on with this. In the sixteenth encounter, you specifically told yourself: “It’s not an easy thing, Amia, to be drawn again and again into her sad and saddening world; so you run away, running for your life” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 186). You were frightened here, weren’t you? Lieblich: Because Baron had such a torturous life, I certainly didn’t need to get sucked into her torment. I had my own tormented life at that time. I was dealing with my own tragedy. Researcher: Yes, but were you afraid of losing yourself in this story? You used the metaphor “whirlpool” to describe being sucked into her worfd. Lieblich: l was many times cautious. Because of our likeness, because of the bond that was created between the two of us, I always had a fear that I would be lost in who she was. Researcher: So often, you ended your encounters with thoughts of losing the self. Very late in the book, the nineteenth encounter, you left her house 62 humid: who/6' about 5 heard. find the them it abou: hurriedly, and said “as if escaping from some trap that had nearly swallowed me whole” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 237). Were you scared? Lieblich: Scared is probably not the appropriate word. We were talking about creative men, and I felt a loss for those women whose stories were never heard. I was thinking about solitude and the torment many artists go through to find their creative spirit. And then, I thought of my children. What happens to them when lam gone? Researcher: Were you worried about your own mortality? Lieblich: Maybe. What one of us doesn’t worry about death and the ones we leave behind? Researcher: Or were you worried about your seclusion at this point... about how you were becoming like the artists Beethoven, Goya, Baron? Lieblich: I can’t really say for sure. I know that I needed to get away from Baron, her world, at this point. I needed to ask her more about this, but she became very uncomfortable. Was I reaching a point in our conversation to push her further? Lieblich: There’s no doubt that I continued to relate my wortd to Baron’s. When these worlds became too entangled, I needed to go away, to find a safe place. That safe place was with my family. Researcher: I could say that this was where your sense of agency allowed you to separate from her. Maybe your children served as a catalyst for that. But self preservation also kept you apart from her. Either way, this loss of autonomy, I think, really propelled you to the next stage of growth. 63 “W $23.44, U W3". 3 f S S < ‘3 l (n (1) $3143. Lieblich: Again you try to take every passage and place it in your neat categories. You need to learn to let things be as they are. Researcher: I’m just trying to find evidence of your growth in this story. What’s wrong with that? Lieblich: lfl were to tell you that growth is not always forward, what would you say to that? What ifl told you that life’s obstacles continue to make us fluctuate between many stages of being? Researcher: Well, I think that’s true, but in this space, or in your space with Baron, you experienced a change, didn’t you? Lieblich: No doubt I did, but that change may not be as nicely described as you want it to be. I became extremely frustrated with her at this point. I didn’t like where she was going. I was exploring her, and she wasn’t letting me turn over every rock to find the answers to my questions. So what if Kegan’s theory didn’t fit her growth entirely? I wasn’t about to proclaim it as the only theory describing her transformation. I just wanted to see if she believed that my interpretations were accurate. That’s what frustrates me about many of those who are so open ended with their thinking. I don’t like loose ends. I want closure. Lieblich: Where are you? Researcher: I’m still here, contemplating your ideas. Lieblich: You don’t like things that are not always what they seem to be, do you? 64 Re: don't see Lie Re am. Researcher: I don’t like going where there is no map. And I certainly don’t see myself as spontaneous with my thinking as you are. Lieblich: Then you need to learn. Researcher: Learn what? I’ve made it just fine where I am. This is who I am. Lieblich: But who you will remain? Do you remember when Baron read the letter written by Rilke: “Have patience with everything unresolved in your heart, and try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a foreign language. Be happy about your growth, in which of course, you can’t take anyone with, and be gentle with those you leave behind” (as cited in Lieblich, 1997, p. 289). I wondered then about who was being left behind, her or me. In a way it was both of us. I was leaving her behind, a part of myself that I joined with to make sense of my gn’ef. And yet, another part of me was being left behind as well — the part that kept looking for all the answers, the self that wanted all the control. So when will you learn to leave the parts of you behind and be grateful you had them? Okay, this was getting too strange... too close. I needed a break. She didn’t know me, and I certainly didn’t want her challenging my every idea. Granted, I entered into this interview to learn, but about her. She made me feel as if I didn’t have credibility in my questioning. I had to keep reminding myself she was only one person, someone who didn’t necessarily have all the answers. Then there is me... I don’t have all the answers either. 65 EmergencI Ate back on. Us directions know:- dg: transcend fact read" 188ng he perspecti Cauld l le Lil R: Li R ’ Wants.» 3”"795 wt Emergence After our last meeting I wanted to get things back on track... whatever back on track means in this case. Our last conversation had gone in many directions. I knew that l was coming to the end of our exploration of self knowledge and growth, but I needed to find out if she really felt she had transcended self authorship and reached that next phase of growth. Did she in fact reach a point in her story of Baron at which she became comfortable with losing her agency and saw her relationship with Baron from a different perspective? Was she finally learning to love the questions without answers? Could I Ieam that as well? Lieblich: Are you feeling better today? Researcher: I didn’t realize I wasn’t feeling well yesterday. Lieblich: You seemed uncomfortable with our last conversation. Researcher: l was just frustrated, I guess. You weren’t telling me all that I wanted to hear. Lieblich: I’m sorry ifl didn’t follow your path, but then I have one way, and you another. Researcher: It’s hard for me to realize that sometimes. Lieblich: What? Researcher: That we all don’t have the same path. I get angry many times when people disappoint me. I made a joke the other day that if it wasn’t for people, I would really like my job as a manager. Lieblich: That’s a strange thing to say. Why would you say that? 66 uncomf: always 1 the diffs 50:73ch Siege tr Researcher: Because I don’t understand some of the actions people take. They don ’t always say or do what I predict. Lieblich: But isn’t that the wonderful part of being amongst the human race — the unpredictability, the uniqueness? What really makes you so uncomfortable with the best part of being human? Researcher: I’m used to my own way. I know who lam, and I’m not always tolerant of those who are different. Lieblich: You need to surrender some of your “own way” and learn to love the differences. Researcher: I guess I ’m not as mature as I thought. I was being sarcastic at this point. I tried to understand, but I just couldn’t accept her “world of difference is rosY’ mentality. Lieblich: So, what is the last stage you wanted to talk about? Researcher: Kegan describes it as the “interindividual” stage or fifth order consciousness. In this stage you actually co-mingle with the object. Whereas in stage three there was a fusion with the object in which it acted as co-constructor of yourself, this stage says that you bring the self that you authored in stage four into a co—existence with your object. You see yourself and the other as unique (Kegan, 1982). Lieblich: Let me understand this more clearly. When I first began interacting with Baron, she was defining me. When I worried about losing her, I Was concerned about losing her as the object that was helping me reconstruct. When I began to assert the “me” into the picture, I began to show that l was a 67 l' ~l . Mr» It bl‘Gt story COI 31 5mm you'pr «Ki. r we “L'vw' i’er yr; 10 U dl self that had uniqueness and agency. I worried then about losing me. As the story continued I finally saw that we could stand together, as equals. Researcher: Yes! That’s great! I couldn’t have said it any better! Lieblich: Where do you see us, standing together, but separate? Researcher: The best example I can find was in the twenty-second encounter. You purposefully inquired about her reclusiveness. You asserted your professional researcher identity and engaged in a conversation with her about why she remained shut in her house for 33 years. The two of you exchanged dialogue that was on equal footing. She gave your ideas credence, but you also did the same for her. You still admired her, but you saw her differently. When you were struggling with your own identity or losing yourself to her you tn'ed so hard to maintain distinction, to “administrate. ” In this chapter, you didn’t take offense to her comments. You permitted her to interact with you as a colleague in the mystery. Lieblich: I was so determined at the onset of this book to discover all the answers... to discover why she made the choices she did about her seclusion and her daughter Tsipora. Researcher: But you didn’t find all the answers, did you? Lieblich: Nor will you. l tried to ignore her comment, but I couldn’t help but have this nagging Sensation in the back of my mind that she was right. Researcher: When Baron said: “I thought that you are my best friend, deSpite the age difference... You have become a very important person in my 68 world, Amia. You have the ability to listen, a rare quality’ (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 291). Was this when you realized that Baron had become a part of yourself that wasn’t defining you or taking over? She became a self within your identity with whom you finally could engage in a relationship. Didn’t your reference to listening mean that you were finally able to listen to a part of yourself that helped you make sense of your own life? Lieblich: Are you suggesting that I reached a point at which I was at peace with the different parts of myself? Researcher: Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Many refer to this as a point of equilibrium, a re—balanced self which represents a transformed self. Lieblich: I’m not comfortable with equilibrium or balance. I’m not sure we ever discover balance as many would propose. I think that when we pursue differences or conflict we are always attempting to find balance, but that it only leads to further dis-equilibrium. I may have resolved my many selves — those that represent Baron and those that represent my authored self. Researcher: This is really hard for me to understand. Lieblich: This is what I know about Kegan’s theory: That we are constantly dealing with the tensions between what others want us to be and what we want ourselves to be. That means we will always be in a state of flux — no matter how you would like to make this a linear process. As we go back and farm, a new sense of self emerges, one that will understand life’s obstacles a little differently than before. We take our past with us at all times, but how we See those memories is a direct reflection of the new self that has emerged from 69 the wreckage of previous strife. . .be gentle with those you leave behind.” Those left behind are parts of you. Her words sounded so poetic and beautiful, yet haunting. I wanted to understand how a self emerges from all of this — the memories, the pain, the unanswered questions. How could I possibly know what she was talking about? Lieblich: Can I ask you a question? Researcher: Sure. Lieblich: Tell me about your relationships. Researcher: Which ones? Lieblich: Those with whom you were closest. Researcher: Well, what comes to mind is a relationship I had several years ago. I was head over heels in love... would do anything to please the other. Lieblich: Would you say that you were consumed with the other? Researcher: Yes, most definitely. I guess you could say I had lost a great deal of myself. Lieblich: What happened? Researcher: We finally parted. We tried to remain friends, but the memories were too painful. I walked away, but had no sense of who I was. I began to make my own decisions once again, to assert myself. I eventually fell in love again, but it was different. Lieblich: How? 70 UQIQ J5 h 6553* tour tr same "IES é IOU? SC INC ._( 6 ’70:! r!( Researcher: I found someone who I didn’t idolize, but saw as different, unique. I could be me, yet I guess we kind of joined together. .. Lieblich: This makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t it? Researcher: I don’t like talking about me, my feelings. Lieblich: Ifl told you that the reason you were able to enter into another, healthier, whole relationship was because you had moved from stage three, to four to five what would you say? Researcher: I’d say that sounds a little ridiculous. Lieblich: But do you deny that, in fact, your journey was somewhat the same? Researcher: But I didn’t suffer the loss you did. Lieblich: Why is your loss any different than mine? My husband died, yes, and there was no way to bring him back, but you lost your first love, didn’t you? Could you have taken that relationship back to what it was? Researcher: No, there was no returning to what was, the past. Lieblich: And there wasn’t a way for me to do that either. The point is, what is past is gone. Take with you what is left of who you are. You were determined after that to find that part of yourself that had a voice again, weren’t you? Researcher: Very determined. Lieblich: And when you found it, what happened next? You discovered someone else, but not in the same way. Imagine that the someone is inside... another part of yourself. What happens? 71 Researcher: l emerge as another? Lieblich: Why do you ask a question here? Is that what you think? Researcher: Yes. Lieblich: Do you always have peace within yourself? Researcher: No. In fact, sometimes I think I have more moments of imbalance than of peace. Lieblich: Then I think I’ve made my point. Just because you are able to open the multiple parts of the self for internal dialogue, doesn’t mean that you have re-balanced. You’ve just recognize the differences. You acknowledge it and embrace it. It won’t always make sense, and it certainly won’t always be pleasing, but it’s always there for you to talk to. Researcher: Like you? Lieblich: Perhaps, but then you may not always need me either. I may also become part of your past and be left behind. Researcher: Then I promise to be gentle with you as well. She laughed. I think maybe she was beginning to see me differently, as a colleague, perhaps. How I wished she would see me that way. But for now, I let our first set of meetings end. In all, it had taken much longer than I thought it would. I still felt uncomfortable, but I could hear her voice so much clearer than before. I needed to make sure to stay focused the next time, but I enjoyed bantering back-and-forth with her. It would be another week before I talked with her again. I hoped the energy from our last confrontation carried over to the next. I wanted to ask her about how any of this self knowledge and growth could 72 be useful to a practitioner. That was a question that had been bothering me since I started studying Lieblich’s biography. How could my reader use our talks as a way to teach, or a way to work? I was probably getting ahead of myself, but without some clarification I was afraid this was going to be a useless exercise, of little value to the outside world. I couldn’t bear the thought. Practicality The week had passed, and I had been thinking about my previous conversation with Lieblich. Many things were discussed at our last meeting. I was surprised at how much I opened up to her. In a way, she was beginning to become a larger presence in my life. I had thought of her often as the week progressed with its usual drudgery. Many things happened at work, and I was thrown in many different directions as I tried to ensure that a new reorganization of my department took place properly. Taking me by surprise, Lieblich was especially happy to see me for our next meeting. Lieblich: And how was your week? Researcher: Same old stuff. Lieblich: That’s a strange response. Didn’t anything new happen? Researcher: Yes, I’m reorganizing my department, and the company is hoping that my group’s service is improved by my ideas. Lieblich: That sounds challenging. Researcher: Daunting may be a better way to describe it. I think some are waiting for me to fall. 73 E) 353“ v 05 v: Lieblich: Why would you say that? Researcher: Because that’s the way it works sometimes. Those who often have new ideas are often intimidated by others who believe they have the better solutions. Lieblich: Sounds complicated. Researcher: Believe me, complicated, yes... kind of scary, definitely. Lieblich: Why would you be scared? Researcher: Because I think my reputation is a little on the line with this plan. Lieblich: You’ll do the best you can, I’m sure. Researcher: But will it be enough? That’s what I’m worried about. You know I was thinking about our talk last week and wondering what all this self knowledge and growth has to do with work... or with teaching, for that matter. Lieblich: That’s a good question. I could tell you that many would find little or no relevance in your ideas. Researcher: There’s another fear of mine to add to the plate. It’s a good point. What exactly does this conversation of ours do for those leaders and teachers out there? Lieblich: Well, what did you want them to learn from our discussion? Researcher: I wanted them to understand your self knowledge and the development transition that took place as you wrote Baron ’s biography. 74 heph 9r’9F/C toml in" lat-(SI r~ o- J‘ (D 7' ‘B .w “we V ire? Oil/n Lieblich: That’s all well and good, but really, how would that be relevant to the practitioner out there, someone who is dealing with issues like yours everyday? Researcher: Well, I’m first reminded of some of Howard Gardner’s work from his book Leading Minds. In his discussion of the stories leaders tell, he talks about leaders understanding themselves (Gardner, 1995). Lieblich: How so? Researcher: He believes that a “leader must know her own mind, including her own changing thoughts, values, and strategies. For that reason, it is important that the leader find the time and the means for reflecting, or assuming distance from the battle or the mission” (Gardner, 1995, p. 36). Lieblich: How is this relevant to my self learning? Researcher: One of the things they don ’t teach you in corporate America is how to know thyself. We discuss business gurus like Senge, Argyris, and Drucker who talk about reflecting, etc., but we really don’t know how to look for leaders who have this capability for self analysis. Lieblich: I think the same can be said for teachers. What teacher takes the time to understand the self? With all the demands of teaching today, there is little time to reflect on the self. Researcher: Parker Palmer has written a great deal on that topic hasn’t he? Lieblich: Yes, he’s a very gifted writer. He has said that “when I forget my own inner multiplicity and my own long and continuing journey toward selfhood, 75 my 8x; and u (N my expectations of students become excessive and unreal” (Palmer, 1998, p. 24). Researcher: So, the extent to which we are integrated, know the self, and understand the multiplicity of selfliood drives how we respond to others? Lieblich: Exactly. Let’s take your new job challenge for example. You already are letting others define who you will be in the quest for improvement. But, you know yourself, your capability, your ability to be responsive, yet maintain integrity in the workplace. I could make a case that, as the pressure continues, you will slip to a self that is defined by others. Or perhaps you will maintain self authorship in order to preserve the autonomy. That may become a mistake because you could isolate yourself from your employees as well as your peers. Regardless, you need to be aware of you -— who you are —— what you are becoming. Researcher: But how do I tell others about this progression of the self without sounding a little crazy or too academic? You know practitioners are sometimes very critical of “self examination” articles and books. Lieblich: But those that are critical do not understand, do they? Again, what would say to them? Researcher: That understanding of the self and self growth is what gives us the capability of meeting our needs as life changes. It’s not the solution to life, but a better way for us to understand our place in it. It drives our reactions to others, and it also allows us to understand those around us, their reactions, their responses. 76 Re: where Gill: weird I kn COH‘lEfsafr really Irste, and autoni Lieblich: What about the others around us? Researcher: Ifl am unable to understand myself, then I cannot see where others are. Let’s say for example I am letting others define me... how would I know who I am? If! am in a stage of self-authorship, how do I invite a conversation with an employee about the difficulties they are facing? How can I really listen when I am forcing my own agency, stuck on maintaining distance and autonomy? How can I really dialogue with them? Lieblich: Those are good questions. As teachers we often don’t take the time to understand ourselves. As a result, we don’t or can’t understand our own students. They are not all alike, yet we treat them alike, don’t we? Researcher: Yes, often. Was that why you used the metaphor of “factory for education” in the biography (Lieblich, 1997, p. 50)? Lieblich: Yes. Researcher: That implied a “one size fits al ”metaphor. Lieblich: I believe the hardest thing for teachers or leaders for that matter, is to remember the world of difference. Sameness is easy; difference is difficult. And for all our trying, we don’t seem to remember that simple point. Researcher: But realistically, ifl don’t know or understand myself, then how could I even see the differences in others? Lieblich: Exactly. We are stuck in our own mud. Researcher: l have to chuckle at that phrase. For every good leader at work there are countless others I would describe as being “stuck” as you say. Lieblich: And how is the interaction they have with their employees? 77 sway it you set what a teaohe door c under toe pr them. Researcher: What interaction? Those that maintain the distance or who sway with the wind don’t have the interaction. But then, every once in a while, you see someone who reaches out to others and touches people. Lieblich: With all that we’ve been talking about, you must understand that what allowed me to invite Baron into conversation is exactly what allows our teachers and leaders to invite “in” their students and employees. It’s really a door of vulnerability and rich reward. But you can’t do that if you do not understand the many selves that are present in us. Researcher: Are you telling me that you think there is something here for the practitioner like me? Lieblich: I think that if they can see my growth, they may take a look at themselves. I couldn’t help but feel my heart jump at the thought that maybe, just maybe, this work is useful. I was reminded of that familiar phrase: “seeing is believing.” Could tracing Lieblich’s transition serve as a model for others? Lieblich: You’re thinking that your work is not in vain, aren’t you? Researcher: Yes, how did you know? Lieblich: Look, for every person that reads your work you may reach one, or maybe two. But remember, people are different. It may resonate for some, but be prepared that others may reject it. Researcher: I’ll take one, but I’d like two. 78 Lieo moment of week that 1 Chapter 2 Lieblich laughed out loud. I knew that our time was short, but to have a moment of laughter was just what I needed. I had been under such pressure all week that the conversation became a sanctuary. Chapter 2 Summary Chapter 2 concentrated on comparing Kegan’s development theory (stages three, four, and five) to portions of Lieblich’s biographical work that reflect developmental evidence. Many may argue that this interpretation was simply that — one person’s interpretation of Lieblich’s voice within the biography. However, the dialogic aspect of this chapter allowed existence of multiple explanations for Lieblich’s self development transformation. Highlights of the conversation are summarized and glaring questions remained. Beginning with Kegan’s interpersonal stage, or third order consciousness (stage three), Lieblich often described her concern and feared loss of Baron’s voice and presence. This interpretation was evident in the dialogue along with how she introduced Baron as her hero. The reader understood early on that Lieblich finds Baron important and Baron’s approval was often sought by Lieblich. But another explanation is that Lieblich wanted to ensure her biographical subject remained at the center of the biography. By losing Lieblich in the story, Baron’s character became dominant. Mapping the self authorship, or fourth order stage to Lieblich’s character was much more straightfonrvard in the interpretation. It was in this stage that Lieblich’s professional and personal views came to the forefront of the 79 discussn Lieblich Liebiich spiritual myself d: developr. discussion. Feminism became both a point of identification and conflict between Lieblich and Baron, and strangely enough, this conflict continued between Lieblich and me, something I did not anticipate. How I see myself within a spiritual realm also dominated parts of this dialogue, with both Lieblich and myself demonstrating feelings of spiritual inadequacy. I am uncertain whether the mapping that occurred on the fifth stage of development (interindividual) was in~depth enough to come to any conclusion. It was apparent that inviting conflict became much more comfortable for Lieblich, especially illustrated in twenty-second encounter, where the two women openly discussed Baron’s source of reclusiveness. However, I am uncertain if there were enough explicit examples in Lieblich’s writing that were representative of fifth order consciousness. The chapter ended with a dialogue on the practicality or use of understanding development stages. Perhaps the most interesting point of this section is that teachers and leaders need to understand themselves, and listen to the multiplicity of voices. From a practical standpoint, this may be the hardest concept to teach with this research. Can my method of imaginal dialogue be enough to teach others about self development? Observations and Issues First, i found the dialogue between Lieblich and myself somewhat awkward and forced. Perhaps the reason for this is that l was theory mapping and trying to be too prescriptive in the dialogue. Part of my intention was to 80 illustrate ti to Kegan's track.” with of developr not anticipe reader inste recognize rt The r 5613‘ and my the multiplier Of deVEIOpmé POSlIl-Ons! ISn m1:5:"7-79TSOF153j illustrate the dialogue; the other was to show Lieblich’s growth and its similarity to Kegan’s development theory. I did notice how often the conversation got “off track,” which was surprising to me. The dialogue shifted from the primary topic of development theory when Lieblich asked me a question, which I was usually not anticipating. The other striking moment was when I began to talk to the reader instead of Lieblich. I did not plan on this type of dialogue, nor did I recognize it at first. The most startling issues in this chapter deal with the multiplicity of the self and my own views and self perceptions. One question is: By subscribing to the multiplicity of the self, is it possible that persons really are at multiple levels of development simultaneously? In other words, if we are made up of multiple “I” positions, isn’t it feasible that one particular “I” position could be at an interpersonal level of development and another “I” position embedded in autonomy? Many times, I felt that Lieblich found herself at these two particular points simultaneously. One minute she worried about losing Baron’s voice or Baron’s respect, the next segment she was concerned about losing her own autonomy. It was then I began to see development not as linear and not back and forth, but rather as coexisting on multiple levels, just as “l” positions do within a person’s consciousness. lf multiplicity of development within a self exists, does self growth occur because of engagement between “I” positions? Secondly, I was a little surprised when discussing leaders with Lieblich, that l grouped Senge, Argyris, and Drucker in the same category of business process authorities. In dialoging with Lieblich, were those just the first people 81 who cam made me really do skeptical organizat. The confidencl the dialog: However, I CatEQer‘ I WI’IEn l thoL 0f Obstacle ’maginal pa who came to mind, or did I see similarities in the popular business literature that made me group them together? I have studied each one of them somewhat, but really do not have a working knowledge of all their ideas. Or, have I just become skeptical of most business or organizational literature that discusses organizational Ieaming and leadership? The last important point in this chapter was my apparent lack of confidence with my writing. I was especially surprised and disheartened to see the dialogue on my inadequacy and frailties from an academic perspective. However, I was not surprised to see that I wanted everything to fit in a nice neat category. My linear thinking remained dominant in my personality. But, just when I thought I had everything mapped to perfection, Lieblich threw some kind of obstacle in my way. Another part of me was somewhat relieved that my imaginal partner wanted to get a little reckless, and take a few risks with the potential explanations. 82 CH My tit and out of e which she is react to thos Such an integ fearful her vc and maybe e Our ne her about he: Dvora Bar0n important fOr make Baron s readmg a ficti me \ to be lc fOSte’ SUch a lUst a Convers Dial°9i8m ~ 8 p‘eSean Story Of Baron. CHAPTER THREE: DIALOGUE WITH THE IMAGINAL OTHER My time seems so brief in which I can interact with Lieblich. She fades in and out of existence in my mind. The key is to capture those inner moments in which she is in the present and alive. I often think of her and how she would react to those “life events” I am facing each and every day. She is becoming such an integral part of me, and that scares me a little. At the same time, I am fearful her voice will be lost forever. I think that is why I want her to know me, and maybe even like me. Our next time together was so important to my research. I wanted to ask her about her views on dialogue and imagination. Because her biography of Dvora Baron centered on the conversation between the two women, it was important for me to understand what this dialogue represents. How did she make Baron sound so alive in her conversational writing? I often forgot I was reading a fictional biography, and that was perhaps what made it so intriguing to me —- to be lost in the dialogue. However, even more than that, how did she foster such a dialogue with an imaginal character? What made this more than just a conversation between two people? Dialogism - Searching for Meaning Researcher: What made you choose conversation as a way to tell the story of Baron? 83 Lleb/r. closely with I became very conversation Process. Resea Llebllcl Resear Bakhtin, H15 v your book. Lieblich Researc thump/e truths Ueb/lch; Researc Wop/e are able meaning, fOr the 7981). Lieblich: I thought I made it clear in the foreword. I began to identify so closely with Baron and her life story. Through that identification, her voice became very clear and distinct from my own. I then found myself having conversations with her. She became a very real person to me through this process. Researcher: But it was more than just a conversation, wasn’t it? Lieblich: What do you mean? Researcher: I have been reading a great deal on the literary theorist Bakhtin. His writings on dialogism struck a chord with me when l was reading your book. Lieblich: Why would his work apply to my own? Researcher: Well, his ideas on dialogism focus on the existence of multiple truths. Lieblich: Sounds like a typical postmodernist. Researcher: Yes, but it’s much more than that. Through true dialogue, people are able to expose their thoughts, but not for the purpose of any shared meaning, for the simple purpose of letting the multiplicity of voices exist (Bakhtin, 1981). Lieblich: So he would not subscribe to shared meaning between two people? Researcher: Maybe not, and that is why I find his work difficult to understand. If you subscribe to the notion that there is no possibility of shared 84 meaning betwee with others? Lieblich: believe that we similarities in Cu meaning. Researci Lieblich: through Conver; meaning, men I p~esearc, and Space. Lieblich; meaning between people, what allows us to find common bonds or agreement with others? Lieblich: Maybe the commonality exists within the dialogue itself. If you believe that we each construct meaning that is individual, then we may find similarities in our meanings and thinking, but we never truly share identical meaning. Researcher: If that’s true, why dialogue at all? Lieblich: Because the magic is in the dialogue itself. If you believe that, through conversation or dialogue as you put it, we are able to construct individual meaning, then it is important we find that time and space for just such a dialogue. Researcher: I am reminded of Virginia Woolfe’s description of that time and space. Lieblich: What does she say? Researcher: She describes it as “moving from entanglement in the ‘cotton wool of daily life’ to ‘moments of being’ (as cited in Sidorkin, 1999, p. 1 7). Lieblich: Interesting description. I feel like that is just what happened to me as I began to interact with Baron. I removed myself from that cotton wool, or my everyday life, in order to find a time and space in which Baron and I could interact with each other. Researcher: Were you aware this was happening? Lieblich: Partially, but sometimes the conversation just took over, and she and l were somewhere else, another place, another time. 85 Resee chronotypes. only through Lreb/IC simplistic. W Resea based on dial uamo Co"Versation , She Was. in fa Resear took a Charactt ConSVUCtlng m abow your OWr UGb/lch; realize th e t? Researcl %%fiaWMB b She Was part of UGO/ref). Researcher: Bakhtin refers to these time-space moments as chronotypes. He says, “every entry into the sphere of meaning is accomplished only through the gates of the chronotype” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 84). Lieblich: Sounds a little complicated. You need to keep this more simplistic. What is it about Bakhtin’s work that speaks to you? Researcher: His work concentrates on how social reality is constructed based on dialogue that occurs between two people (Clark & Holquist, 1984). Lieblich: But ifl can play devil’s advocate for a moment, how could the conversation I had with Dvora be a dialogue when she really was not present? She was, in fact, just a persona within my imagination. Researcher: But you invited her to be in the present, didn’t you? You took a character from the past and elevated her to the present for the purpose of constructing meaning about her life. But she also helped you construct meaning about your own life. That is what Bakhtin would calla true dialogue. Lieblich: But this was really a dialogue between parts of me. You do realize that? Researcher: Yes, but I think you eventually took Baron’s life story and gave it a voice, one that was both yours and hers. Look, I do believe that she became someone with great autonomy and richness in character, but in the end she was part of you, part of your self. Lieblich: So what would Bakhtin say about this story? Was it really dialogue? 86 Researcher: Because his work is so difficult to understand, I’m not sure. I do like his notion of multiplicity of voices, and I do subscribe to the ideas about multiple truths. In the end you never did really resolve your larger questions. It was Baron’s voice that gave truth to a multitude of explanations for her reclusiveness. Maybe there was no one reason, no one truth. Lieblich: Or maybe I just chose not to tell it. Researcher: I don’t believe that. I think you gave all the possible explanations for her life, but in the end, who knows why someone makes the choices they do? You can only suppose. I do know that, as the two of you talked, there was a back-and-forth movement in the writing. I’ve read about how people move between “I” positions (Hermans & Kempen, 1993). Lieblich: “I” positions? Researcher: In a sense, Baron occupied a particular “I” position, a part of yourself. Even though parts of you assumed the life history of Dvora Baron, she also was another dimension of your self — a dimension you chose to interact with. I think it represented your attempt to instill some kind of coherence in your chaotic life. Lieblich: How do you know what my life is like? If! understand what you’re saying here, you can never know me, even if we interact through dialogue. lf singularity of truth is not possible, then how do we ever come to any shared meaning? Researcher: But if that is true, then how is it people talk about dialogue as something that promotes shared meaning, common ground? 87 Lieblich: I Research dialogue for the r can move towar: lEIIinor & Gerarc Lieblich; matter what yoi come from drift dialogue serve to Construct n Resee between the Lleb; the mUltipl e"(ts-Trial. and belie die/0Q Lie means Lieblich: Who says that? Researcher: Many of the books I’ve read on leadership talk about dialogue for the purpose of shared meaning. Through shared meaning, people can move toward shared understanding to serve the organization (Senge, 1990) (Ellinor & Gerard, 1998) (Schein, 1999). Lieblich: I don ’t believe in shared meaning. Meaning is individual. No matter what you and I do or what dialogue you have with another, you each come from different perspectives, different memories, different lives. The dialogue serves you, but it can’t serve the organization as you say. It allows you to construct meaning. That is something that is personal, not shared. Researcher: But then what does it mean when the dialogue is internal, between the multiple selves that construct our being? Lieblich: That dialogue is different. As we engage in conversation with the multiplicity of our selves, it serves those selves. Meaning stays within. It isn’t external. I’m not saying that people can’t find common ground in their thinking and beliefs. Cultures are built on shared understanding of some sort. But to dialogue with another person for the purpose of achieving shared understanding means dialogue implies a singularity of truth or meaning. “Dialogue that is being used for something ceases to be dialogue” (Sidorkin, 1999, p. 15). Researcher: Then it is spontaneous? Lieblich: Yes, remember Woolfe’s statement, you must escape the “cotton wool of everyday life. ” That is what I did... I escaped and found someone with which to interact in an imaginary space and time. I didn’t use dialogue for 88 shared undersfa' questions. and 5‘ the truth. But ml dismvered me. finding me. Researci dialogical teact Lieblich Reseai the idea that . something w But then 810 book about Somehow l Liet having all shared understanding. Mind you, I did go in search of the answers to many questions, and some may argue that I did utilize a particular dialogic style to find the truth. But in the end, that’s not what happened. Through the dialogue, I discovered me. It wasn’t planned, nor was it orchestrated for the purpose of finding me. Researcher: I am reminded of Sidorkin’s criticism of Burbules’ work on dialogical teaching. Lieblich: Why? Researcher: Sidorkin is critical because Burbules originally professes to the idea that dialogue is the end, not the means to an end. “Dialogue is not something we do or use; it is a relation that we enter into” (Burbules, 1993, p. xii). But then Sidorkin says that, although Burbules makes these claims, he wrote a book about how to gs; dialogue for teaching and learning (Sidorkin, 1999). Somehow I have trouble seeing dialogue as the end and not the means. Lieblich: Let me ask you something. What is this dialogue you and I are having all about? Researcher: It’s a way for me to understand you and how you were able to write Baron’s biography. Lieblich: What else? Researcher: Well, I guess I could also say that it’s about discovering how you grew and learned about yourself through imaginal conversation. Lieblich: But what about you and me? Researcher: What about us? 89 Lieblich: Researcr I here chosen to g is me moving be LJebllChj “3"”? I? as a me Researc that you and l , Lieblich RESEar Uebhc Lieblich: Who am I to you? Researcher: I guess you’re a little piece of me, some part of myself that I have chosen to get to know. I subscribe to the idea that the dialogue between us is me moving between the multiple parts of who I am. Lieblich: But would Bakhtin or Sidorkin call this dialogue? Aren’t you just using it as a means to an end? Researcher: Partly yes, which doesn’t make me happy. I’d like to believe that you and l are engaged in true dialogue. Lieblich: Are we exposing the multiplicity of meaning here? Researcher: Yes. Lieblich: And are we permitting multiple explanations for what happened to me and to you? Researcher: Yes. Lieblich: Do not be so rigid as to take Sidorkin’s writing as gospel. Dialogue is an interaction of two persons, two “I” positions. Remember our previous conversation on self knowledge and development? In Kegan’s mind, the ability to invite the other in - to dialogue and interact — is what illustrates self growth (Kegan, 1982). Now, you may be using this to grow. You may be using it to illustrate how learning matures. But in the end, you dialogue for the richness of the dialogue and to learn about yourself. I don’t believe there can be dialogue without any purpose, even if the purpose is to dialogue. That would be like saying that we have no relations with others for any purpose. Dialogue serves as a means and an end. 90 Research myself and havrr dalogue? Lieblich: taken the time to past reflections l forefront. YOU I able to convers US Construct m utterances bet to Construct rr. meaning aboi meaning! YOL ”Urge/f: anc ReSe. L’lfi‘b/l Regs like if m a Re make me fl do they alt inaneS me Researcher: So if this is about me moving between different parts of myself and having a purpose of self learning, it doesn’t negate the possibility of dialogue? Lieblich: Exactly. I believe there are parts of you that you haven ’t ever taken the time to understand. You’ve considered them more as memories or past reflections. But through this conversation, I see you bringing them to the forefront. You may call them “Lieblich,” but really it is you. The fact that you’re able to converse with the various parts of yourself illustrates how dialogue helps us construct meaning. Bakhtin is very clear in his work. Dialogue is about utterances between people or selves (Bakhtin, 1981). Those utterances allow us to construct meaning. You may have started out with the intent of constructing meaning about my life, my learning, but ultimately this is about you, your meaning, your life. For the first time in your life, you are letting another part of yourself, another “I” position, take the lead. That scares you, doesn’t it? Researcher: Yes. Lieblich: Why? Researcher: Because I struggle to accept help from others. I always feel like it makes me lose control. I like being the administrator of my own life. You make me feel uncomfortable about myself. I don’t always like your answers, nor do they always make sense. I also don’t care to be consoled or counseled. It makes me feel too needy. 91 l Lieblich: i Dialogic theory i: helping you CO-C Researcl Lieblich Researc wouldn’t he (i: Liebhci complicated Resea They seem t human bein IS the “l-lt. .-, OUr ’ea/m. When We . diaboUe. Lieblich: But I am another part of you, and Baron was another part of me. Dialogic theory is about co—construction of meaning. You know that. I am only helping you co-construct. Researcher: Was that what Baron did for you? Lieblich: Yes, of course. Researcher: Buber would describe this as an “I- Thou” relationship, wouldn’t he (Friedman, 1955)? Lieblich: Well, I’ve read some of Bubefs work. Like Bakhtin’s, it is also complicated. Were they colleagues? Researcher: No. You wouldn’t know it by reading some of their work. They seem to support each other’s views on dialogism. Buber believes that human beings have two kinds of relationships: One is the “l-Thou” and the other is the “Mt. ” lMthin an “I- Thou” relationship, we actually are inviting the other into our realm. We see ourselves as subject, and we also see the other as subject. When we are in a subject-subject relationship, we can truly be engaged in dialogue. Wrthin an “l-Ir’ relationship, dialogue cannot happen (Friedman, 1955). Lieblich: This sounds a lot like subject-object relational theory again. Researcher: There are some similarities. But using your biography, I could make a case that the subject of the story was you and you as Baron. In that case it represented a perfectly good example of a subject-subject relationship. Lieblich: What would be contrary to this approach? 92 Research. oistudy. She w: Lieblich: Research It“ or subjectcb nature” (Friedn cause and rea Baron in an “t Lieblic “I'Thou” rela Rese With her as Lreb he bellevG: th e past. Re. lwof) Lie re‘Iat’ons ideas. Researcher: I could also say that Baron was nothing more than an object of study. She was your biographical subject, nothing more. Lieblich: You don’t believe that, do you? Researcher: l ’m not sure. Buber states causality involves the world of “l- lt” or subject-object relations. That is the search for the “scientific ordering of nature” (Friedman, 1955, p. 65). Throughout Baron’s story you were looking for cause and reasoning. This leads me to believe that you did, in effect, place Baron in an “object” frame of reference. Lieblich: But what allowed me to see how Baron was my object was the “I- Thou” relationship I established with her. Researcher: Do you mean that, because you established a relationship with her as a partner of sorts, you were allowed to look for the “I-lt?” Lieblich: I think that ifl understand Buber’s theory of knowledge correctly, he believes that the “I-Thou” is in the present and allows man to view the “l-lt” of the past. Researcher: So what you’re saying is that you alternated between the two? Lieblich: In a way. I think that man y philosophers and scientists, for that matter, would have trouble with this characterization, but I think the dialogical relations I established with Baron as a character allowed the “l-lt” formation of ideas. Researcher: Sidorkin describes it very much this same way. He describes Buber’s interpretation of “I- Thou” as the relations centered in the 93 present. The ‘l. entering into a o present, but he' the past. but he. Lieblich Kegan’s devero does that have Researo discussing dial You needed to experiencing y focus 0“ What| in the present I Lieblich Resear and watched I IOU, she Was present. The “l-lt” is an experience centered in the past (Sidorkin, 1999). By entering into a dialogical relationship with Baron, you brought her into the present, but her history, her life became the “Hi” in your biography. Her life was the past, but her presence was in your present. This sounds convoluted. Lieblich: Especially when you consider our previous conversation about Kegan’s development approach. If at the end of stage four I throw off the object, does that have relevance to subject-object in Buber’s terms? Researcher: I’ve thought about that a lot. Here’s what I think. When discussing dialogic relationships, I do believe Buber’s “l- Thou” has relevance. You needed to see Baron in the present, to experience her, just like I am experiencing you now. But, recognize that some parts of this conversation will focus on what was. When you and I are truly in a dialogical sphere, we are both in the present and constructing meaning about our past experiences or events. Lieblich: Can you give me a better example of this? Researcher: When you saw Baron as separate, when you stood back and watched and admired her as a hero or related to how much she was “like” you, she was your object. But, when you saw her as part of you or part of your emotional well-being and present space, she was your subject. I think you started out very much with the intent of treating her like an object of study, but you discovered that in the end, she was another part of yourself who felt the effects of loss and loneliness. Ultimately you looked fonivard to this dialogue. Lieblich: Am I that for you? 94 you this week Liebl'iCl my self devei Resea wondering w) ‘i‘v’hat would Researcher: Yes. I actually found myself verbalizing a discussion with you this week. Lieblich: Why is that? Aren’t I just an object of study? You want to trace my self development or growth. So how could I be anything but an object? Researcher: But you’ve become much more than that. I find myself wondering what you would do in many situations. “Am I making the right move”? “What would Lieblich say’? I want to be with you more so I can ask the questions. Lieblich: But I am with you, don’t you know that? There was no doubt that l was beginning to feel Lieblich with me as I went through my everyday life. It gave me a sense of comfort. But through the course of our conversation, I couldn’t quite hone in on this idea of dialogue and how it was different than conversation. I decided then to express my lack of understanding. Researcher: Through all of this, I still don’t know how to explain Bakhtin’s ideas about dialogue and Bubers notion of “l-Thou” to someone else. Lieblich: Have you ever prayed? Her question startled me. Researcher: Yes, there are moments when l have found myself in prayer. Lieblich: To whom are you talking? Researcher: I suppose I’m talking to God, trying to reach some kind of understanding about a situation or maybe a problem I’m having. 95 Ueblioh I “Thou." That s; when you pray God sees you ‘ you invite him . Resear: Lieblich IOU are able tc able to Daniel; diaIOgue_ The Common. Resea envimnmem Ueb/ic Rese diaiggUe Wit isn’t eaSy, Ueb. ObViOUsly s Lieblich: That one-on-one relationship with God is what Buber refers to as “Thou.” That spiritual sense of someone else, perhaps greater than you. But when you pray, you are also opening yourself to someone else. You know that God sees you for what you are, knows your faults, sees your weaknesses, yet you invite him into conversation with you. Researcher: But I’ve always struggled with opening that door. Lieblich: That is because you haven’t understood what it means. When you are able to open that door for someone else, to let them in, then you are able to participate in true dialogue with another. There’s no other purpose but to dialogue. That’s what Bakhtin is saying. Dialogue is rare. Conversation is common. Researcher: But the word dialogue has become so over-used in today’s environment. “Let’s dialogue” or “we need to engage in some real dialogue. ” Lieblich: Phrases come and go. Researcher: What you’re saying is we seldom allow ourselves to truly dialogue with another. Opening ourselves up and inviting the other in certainly isn’t easy. Lieblich: If it was easy, we probably would know each other better. You obviously subscribe to the idea of multiple selves, don’t you? Researcher: Yes. Lieblich: Do you believe we can have inner dialogues with the multiple parts of the self? Researcher: I believe that it happens, but maybe not consciously. 96 Lieblich: meaning? Researcr external thers , construct is has Ueblich Researcr Lieblich: Researc Lieblich: Dialectical Rel Researc Understanding LIII-3.51m; Lieblicl SimiiaiiiIES C meaning (Ba. d- . this? Lieblich: And through those inner dialogues, are we not constructing meaning? Researcher: Yes, I think that is how we construct most meaning. I think external others give us ideas and beliefs, but in the end, the meaning we construct is based on those inner dialogues. Lieblich: Then what does my book represent? Researcher: A dialogue between two selves? Lieblich: But what about Baron? Researcher: She’s you; she’s her? Lieblich: Exactly... Dialectical Relationships Researcher: So if dialogue is not about coming to a common understanding, what is its purpose? Lieblich: To expose the differences and similarities, but not to resolve the differences. Researcher: Then why dialogue at all? Lieblich: To allow yourself to construct meaning from differences and similarities. Dialogue is about multi-voicedness, not synthesis, not common meaning (Bakhtin, 1981). Researcher: You stated in your foreword that you considered this a dialectical relationship between the writer and the subject. Why did you call it this? 97 Ueblich was able to cor Researc Lieblich E emerged as I ti conversation. things I wante, many times) b Reseai yourself in 0p Uebnc Rese. that WOrd. l He rejected Synl‘hesjsn l the DioceS The Intern (Bakhtin, ‘ Lie fOroeS Of syringes“ ended ti F. Lieblich: When I saw the similarities and the differences between us, I was able to construct her story around much of that material. Researcher: Were you really that prescribed? Lieblich: Let’s just say the similarities and differences between us emerged as I told her life story. I dealt with them as they became present in our conversation. As her story unfolded, so did the issues that I didn’t understand or things I wanted to know more about. I disagreed with her decisions and choices many times, but I also understood that her history drove her to those choices. Researcher: I looked for those areas in the book where you found yourself in opposition with her story. Lieblich: You must look for similarities and differences. Researcher: How do you define dialectical? Bakhtin didn’t approve of that word. He saw dialectics as monologic, absence of voice (Bakhtin, 1981). He rejected dialectics as a term because it emphasized a “thesis-antithesis- synthesis” model (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 31). For Bakhtin, dialogue is the process of centripetal (forces of unity) and centrifugal (forces of differences). The interplay between the two is ongoing. Synthesis is the absence of dialogue (Bakhtin, 1981). Lieblich: lagree with this characterization. Several times, lmoved from forces of unity to forces of difference. Although I may have been looking for that synthesis, most times it was not possible, especially when you look at how I ended the book. Researcher: You mean your reference to the riddle that remains? 98 Lieblich: hilly That’s wt. uncovering the . Researcr forces was key dialectics. “To i are socially COr Montgomery, . Should make I Lieblicl dialogue oroc Resee differenCe? UGO/it Re Se her da “Qote Contrad/Ctof Lieu/i her, p‘e‘Se YOU? YOU 0. Lieb/lc Lieblich: There was no synthesis. I would never understand Baron’s life fully. That’s what made the dialogue so rich. The interchange allowed for uncovering the forces, didn’t it? Researcher: Yes. Using dialogue to represent centripetal and centrifugal forces was key. Baxter and Montgomery refer to this motion as relational- dialectics. “To commit to a relational-dialectics view is to accept that individuals are socially constructed in the ongoing interplay of unity and difference” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 47). Does that mean that, from a writer’s perspective, we should make this interplay explicit? Lieblich: I don’t think I started out with any such intent. It emerged in the dialogue process. Researcher: Can we talk about some of those points of unity and difl'erence? Lieblich: Yes. Researcher: We’ve discussed Baron’s reclusiveness and how she raised her daughter. Those issues represented issues that were extremely contradictory for you. I saw those as forces of difference between you and her. Lieblich: I suppose those were central to much of my conversation with her. Researcher: But, you also struggled with her views of psychology, didn’t you? You often characterized her as critical of modern psychology. Lieblich: In encounter six, I began discussing this with her. 99 Resear: psychological choices and thl Lieblich Reseai stated: “The They use a < Wlfh justice . y0u. We re Lie: truths of h the hUma Re looking 3 her pla y dialeCfic YOur 0 WI L Researcher: In the dialogue, you would always “throw out” your psychological beliefs or knowledge hoping to pinpoint the 93 explanation for her choices and thoughts. Lieblich: I tried, but very unsuccessfully. Researcher: We talked about this passage earlier, but to reiterate, you stated: “There’s research comparing the ethical decisions of men and women. They use a different terminology, but basically it seems that men prefer to act with justice and women, compassion” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 61 ). She laughed at you. Were you so unsure of yourself here? Lieblich: I think, in general, Baron hated these characterizations as single truths of human existence. Note that she came back to what the writer knows of the human soul, and that was greater than all of what psychology teaches us. Researcher: Were you feeling doubts about your profession? When looking at the dialectical relationship between yourself and Baron, you often had her play the role of spiritual being and yourself as the scientific. Was that the dialectic you intended to establish, and was this point of opposition playing in your own mind? In other words, did you find this battle residing within yourself? Lieblich: I truly think she would have scoffed at my diagnostic nature. Things weren’t so cut and dried for her. She was not a scientist, nor did she believe in any ultimate truth. Researcher: In the seventh encounter you asked her directly: “But why do you reject psychology so utterly and absolutely?” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 73). Her response was: “Psychological insight is a personal matter to me, like 100 compassion. T soul, in their na 1997. p. 73). l. choices, werenl Lieblich Resear bind Person. Lieblic she have tru Rese yourself as ‘ referEnCe ir Capability a Co"fronraric Lie b That mUtUa 0f meaniné S1”"l/Eirities address bc compassion. To teach psychology to a person who is not a psychologist in their soul, in their nature, is like prescribing spectacles for a blind person” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 73). It was there that you were questioning yourself and your life choices, weren’t you? Lieblich: Why do you ask that? Researcher: because you asked her if she saw you that way, as a blind person. But she disagreed. What if she had agreed with you? Lieblich: Interesting question, but if she had seen me as blind, how could she have trusted me? Her character had to believe in me, believe in my choices. Researcher: So through the initiation of this dialogue, you had to establish yourself as legitimate, didn’t you? You had to place yourself in a frame of reference in which Baron would bond to you in some way. Now, I know fictional capability allows for this, but what if you had established the dialogue as more confrontational? Lieblich: There is a mutuality that should be established with your subject. That mutuality must be a foundation for the dialogue that allows for construction of meaning. If Baron had seen me as confrontational or an anti-character, the similarities of our lives would never have been possible. Dialectics has to address both for a relationship to exist. Focus on the relationship. Researcher: You placed Baron in a teasing role about your profession. Did you believe that allowed you to see yourself as human first, and scientist second? 101 Lieblich: Possibly. In encounter eight, she mocked me and associated me with Freud. l of course see myself as a Gestalt scientist, but humor is important. In this conversation, many emotions were explored. The psychological dialectic vein allowed me to poke fun at myself as well as those who are more positivist in their approach to research. Researcher: So, was Baron your postmodern counterpart? Did she represent all those subjective feelings you had about research and truth ? Lieblich: Yes. I think she was a voice for the postmodern thinker — one who believes meaning is constructed through social context. Researcher: You continued your role as diagnostician in encounter nine, trying to label her illness with a clinical diagnosis of “endogenous depression.” I believe you said: “There were people whose world went dark for entirely internal, psychological reasons — even when the sun was shining outside. But these thoughts provided little in the way of a resolution” (Lieblich, 1 99 7, p. 97). It was here that you almost lost her. Lieblich: How so? Researcher: You began to ask her about suicide. She lashed out at you for your characterization. The clinical you almost lost her voice, didn’t it? Lieblich: I began to see the psychologist in me as an obstacle to comprehending her despair. I wanted so desperately to understand her alienation and persecution that I didn’t see her soul, only diagnostic meanings for her thoughts. It was then I acknowledged that, no matter how many facts I hold in my head to diagnose people and their actions, I could never truly know 102 another human being. She told me that — that was the riddle she spoke of so often. The dialogue was a plane in which we carefully exposed our differences and similarities, but there was no synthesis of meaning. Researcher: She teased you later in the eleventh encounter, but I almost got the sense you were teasing yourself. Lieblich: I conceded after her statement: “You are the psychologist and will have to supply an explanation, she teased. Is it because negative things made a stronger impression on a young mind than positive ones? Or perhaps the consciousness wishes to eject from itself precisely the most distressing images and voices through writing them down?” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 123). I knew then that any diagnosis I would offer would be insufficient. Researcher: That was one of the few places that I recognized you talking and not Baron. It sounded too scientific for Baron. Lieblich: Maybe, but through this act of dialogue, the voices acted both independently and dependently. I’m not sure it was as simple as you believed it to be. Dialogue often represented a melding of the voices. Researcher: Doesn’t this destroy the dialogic nature of the conversation? Melding of two voices into one contradicts dialogic philosophy. Lieblich: But if there is never a coming together, then how can there be separation? You can’t have one without the other. Multiple voices should never imply the inability to have a singular voice at certain points in time. Without multiple meanings that are never shared, we wouldn’t have the ability to 103 understand anything between ourselves. Our voices were independent and dependent. That was what allowed for differences and sameness. Researcher: You often took your self—doubts and played them against Baron throughout the dialogue, didn’t you? Was this intentional? Lieblich: Everyone has them. Why not use my dialogue with Baron to explore the reasons for those doubts? Researcher: Through those doubts about your profession, you displayed a lack of confidence. What was Baron’s role? Lieblich: She supported my doubts and in some cases dismissed them as foolish. Researcher: So your own issues with isolation, writing, psychology, religion, and marriage served as a means to establish this dialectical relationship? They weren’t Baron’s issues, but your own. I think that was important. Didn’t this begin to place you as the central figure in the story? Lieblich: This was a story of two women and the relationship that existed between them. The dialogue served as method and metaphor, representing the relationship. My self-doubts acted as “conversational pieces” within the story, but that didn’t mean they had no validity to the overall story of us. Researcher: So your own self-doubts represented those inner centrifugal forces, the forces of difference within. I guess this didn’t dismiss the capability to have the forces of unity either. Lieblich: They were both at play, inside me, between us, even within Baron. 104 Researcher: When I tried to interpret the writing, your self identity, including your professional and personal self, was used as a catalyst to incite dialogue with Baron? Lieblich: When speaking dialogical/y, I compared who I am to howl see the subject. That balancing act allowed for both voices to emerge, hers and mine. Now let me ask you a question. Y Researcher: Sure. Lieblich: How do you resolve the differences between your academic and professional worlds? Researcher: What do you mean? Lieblich: We’ve been talking this whole time about how I used my persona in comparison to Baron’s to get at the dialectical issues between us. How do you confront your own dialectical issues? Don’t you also have doubts about who you are and what you’re supposed to be? Researcher: I suppose. I often see things at work that disturb me. Lieblich: Like what? Researcher: Well, I become irritated when people are treated as commodities and not people. The academic in me says that we, as leaders, are not seeing people for who they are, where they are in terms of their self growth and capability. Lieblich: Playing the corporate leader, I would say that we can’t possibly account for all the differences amongst the employees. There has to be 105 emphasis on commonality for the sake of coherence. Without that, you would have chaos. Researcher: But to foster dialogue, the forces of unity and the forces of difference must be allowed to play out. Yes, differences of thought and meaning may emerge, but, in the end, won ’t people do what they do based on those meaning constructions? Lieblich: But again, won’t some employees go their own separate way — contrary to the corporate direction? Researcher: But what if their way is better? We never let them take a risk; we never want to take the risk. Lieblich: We’re talking about others. What about you? Researcher: I see the differences and the similarities, and l have to walk away. Lieblich: So you let them exist. Researcher: l have to. Ifl tried to resolve them I would probably go crazy, or get fired. Lieblich: Are you compromising? Researcher: Maybe. I think that is the inner battle I feel in the workplace. I try to make sense of what’s around me, but I ’m not sure that’s possible. Lieblich: Isn’t that what I did with Baron’s story, my own story? No matter how much you try to tie up all the loose ends, there will be more. We’ve been talking about relationships and the dialectical issues that emerge in true dialogue. In the end they just are. To search for resolve is what keeps the dialogue going 106 within you, within me. Whatever meaning emerges between that interplay continues to evolve and change. Researcher: I never thought of my dialectical issues in such a way. Are they always in opposition? Lieblich: I wouldn’t say that dialectical paths are always in opposition, only that they co-exist. Each of us has personal issues within us that either have unity or difference. They’re not mutually exclusive. Just know that all the different voices of our multiple selves do not always have unity. Researcher: That’s probably why Bakhtin rejects the word dialectical so often. I think he thought of what you describe as dialogic — he liked the metaphor of musical composition when describing the multi-voices of composition. There are separate parts, but all are based on a single theme (Bakhtin, 1981). Lieblich: I was able to take my memories and her past — what they meant for both of us, and bring them to the present. Researcher: So where does this leave us in regards to your dialogue with Baron? What did it mean to you? Lieblich: Early on I believed this conversation would be about the struggle between competing paths and choices — those dialectical issues that emerge between people. My hypothesis was that self-identity emerges and is constructed as a result of the struggle between those issues. Researcher: And now? 107 Lieblich: I’m not so sure competing dialectical issues alone are the source of identity construction, but that the “back-and-forth” is what allows them to remain separate and together. Researcher: Then your dialogue with Baron represented that interplay of competing and alike voices, but there was no overall ending? Lieblich: There couldn’t be. That would have implied silence, and silence implied a lack of dialogue. I learned from her about me. But I didn’t Ieam all about me. I was able to learn about her life, but not able to truly understand it. And, that was okay. Researcher: And what about for yourself? Lieblich: I guess you could say that I was able to confront my doubts and fears through this act of dialogic composition. Our dialogue gave me the mechanism to construct or make sense of my loneliness, even though I still live with it. It doesn’t go away, and that was the most important point. I was given another view, and that view has been incorporated into my memories. How about you? Researcher: I guess my academic life brought my views about work into conflict, and there it will remain. Lieblich: Precisely. Imagining the Other Throughout my dialogue with Lieblich, I became fascinated with the reality of Baron’s character. If I hadn’t read the foreword, would I have known that 108 Baron was long dead before Lieblich wrote her biography? One of the most fascinating aspects of her book was the imaginal method she used. But it was beyond a matter of style. It was about how imaginal characters emerged with a sense of richness and autonomy. Watkins talks about this type of character and its representation of self development. In discussing the capability of persons to develop imaginal dialogue she states: “It is in this addressing and being addressed in relationship that self-knowledge arises” (Watkins, 2000, p. 129). l was attracted to Watkins’ work on imaginal dialogue, and I wanted to know how to use imagination for the purpose of self growth. I must admit, I was extremely skeptical of imaginal dialogue or the development of imaginal characters, but Watkins’ book helped clarify the differences between using the imagination for growth versus typical imaginary relationships. I had read Jung’s work on active imagination, but its complexity and jargon made it thick reading. It was important that I understood clearly how Lieblich developed Baron’s character because it was that development that permitted Lieblich to grow in the process. I had to know why and how it all worked. Researcher: Our time is so short. I feel like I’m running a race. Lieblich: But we have all the time in the world. What causes your anxiety? Researcher: lime pressures, I guess. There’s so much going on right now, and I don’t want to shortcut any of this time with you. 109 Lieblich: Like I said, we have all the time in worid. Where would you like to go today? Researcher: Imagination. Lieblich: Some say I have too much of that! Researcher: I’m beginning to think I do too. You should see the looks I get when I describe my research. Lieblich: Some still say that about my book. I have to ignore it all. Researcher: l have to ask... What enabled you to create Baron in such a way that she stands out as an independent character? Lieblich: Let me turn this question to you. How do you see me? Researcher: Well, wheneverl want to talk to you, I first en vision your face. Because we’ve met, I at least have some kind of visual representation of how you look and some of your mannerisms. Lieblich: Okay, so you see me, and where does your mind go ? Researcher: It goes to questions I want to ask. My search for answers is what takes me into a dialogue with you. I think about myself and howl would answer the question, and then I think about how you would respond. Lieblich: But you don’t really know me do you? Researcher: No, but I’d like to know you, and maybe that’s where my motivation comes from. Lieblich: Or perhaps you want to know yourself. You see, for me, Baron was a historical figure of larger-than-Iife proportions. I both envied her abilities and yet pitied her. I also looked to her as my guide on my journey. 110 Researcher: But I certainly don’t pity you. I feel envious because I wish parts of your life were my own. I wish I had your writing capability. I certainly do not have the academic accomplishments you do, but I wish I did. Lieblich: How do you keep us together? I kept Baron with me by visualizing a metaphor. Researcher: Are you talking about the references to weaving or woven thread? Lieblich: Yes, I saw our lives woven together like two strands of thread. Researcher. Why did you choose those metaphors as a way to describe your relationship with Baron? Lieblich: I needed an image when I brought her forward in my consciousness. I thought of fabric and weaving. By considering this image, I was able to bring her on an even plane with my dialogue. I needed to create a partnership with her. By thinking of fabric and its intertwining nature, I was able to imagine her as there with me, part of me. Researcher: Chodorow discusses Jung’s reference to women ’3 use of images. In the Ta vistock Lectures, Jung explicitly says, “women sometimes do weaving” (as cited in Chodorow, 1997, p. 146). Did you know about this? Is that where you received your idea for the weaving metaphor? Lieblich: I don’t recall where that image came from. But I do know that I needed Baron to become as close to me as she could in order to talk with her. I needed to be intertwined with her thoughts, passions, and feelings. That was howl chose to imagine our collaboration. 111 Researcher: When the two of you became a weaving, weren’t you stronger than when you were separate or individual? Lieblich: Yes, the two of us became one, stronger than when we were separate. With multiple voices, our story became stronger, more coherent. We came together to create multiple questions, multiple meanings. By weaving, the two of us became linked in voice and meaning. Researcher: Did the metaphor help you illustrate the concept of socially constructed knowledge? Lieblich: You give me too much credit. I wanted Dvora with me. I wanted her voice to be on an equal plane with mine. That was what weaving represented. Yes, we worked together to make sense of our lives. That was the outcome. But it certainly wasn’t part of my thinking at the time. I needed her with me. I didn’t need to watch her, but be with her. Researcher: In the third encounter, you described Baron, but then departed to use a second metaphor that was confusing. Lieblich: Why confusing? Researcher: From the chapter: “Even now your eyes are amazingly beautiful, I thought, careful not to disturb the delicate embroidery of our common dream” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 21). Lieblich: Yes I remember this. Researcher: You truly were enamored by her, weren’t you? Lieblich: Yes, there was a part of me that found her very beautiful. 112 Researcher: Why embroidery? I think of embroidery in more of a negative term. I think of it as embellishment, overdone, ornamental. I was troubled by your use. Lieblich: Was this not an imaginary conversation? Researcher: Well yes, but do you consider it to be an embellishment? Lieblich: Maybe in some ways it was. Maybe I became uncertain of my technique. Maybe this uncertainty brought me to use this metaphor. But embroidery also reminds me of beauty and creation. It is the act of creating, like writing. Do we not embroider with our words and our stories? Do we not embellish in our storytelling? Is it not like McAdams suggests that our myths are our own creation, how we see our story unfolding (McAdams, 1993)? I don’t think that you should look at the use of embroidery as anything more than it was. It was embellishment. It was Baron’s myth, and my own... howl saw her and myself. Researcher: We all embellish then, don’t we? Lieblich: If you believe that we are all mythmakers, yes. Don’t forget that stories are fold for the purpose of sharing with others that part of us that either holds meaning or needs meaning. Embroidery represents our ability to weave our own story, but in a way that allows ourselves to make sense and others to make sense. It is ornamental at times, but that is how we see ourselves or maybe how we want others to see us. Researcher: So do metaphors give meaning a physical representation of feeling and thought? 113 Lieblich: They represent a picture. They represented how I saw my partnership with Baron. This was a story of two women, not just one. How else could I express my relationship to my subject? These images gave the picture meaning. Researcher: Later, in the sixth encounter, you used the metaphor of delicate fabric. I believe this was your statement: “While I was still searching for the words that could mend the delicate fabric that had momentarily ripped between us, I saw her face return to its dreamlike expression, and her beautiful voice sang out into the room again” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 65). Why such a vivid description? What were you feeling there? Lieblich: I often found myself not worthy of my Jewishness. Here was Dvora, who understood so much more about persecution and prejudice. And there was I “a boorish Israeli” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 64). I felt as though I was losing her at that moment because I could not understand, or she saw I could not understand. It was at this moment that the conversation between the two of us became disconnected. Had I offended her? I was fearful that I had acted ignorant/y, not understanding the relationship between the Jews and gentiles. Had I ignored my history? I had become part of a culture that was a conglomerate of difference. Yet she wanted me to understand myself as a Jew and the importance of our unique heritage. It was then that I felt that fabric that we had created together was ripped. We, for that moment, became separated. Researcher: Were you afraid that this difference between you had destroyed your relationship with her? 114 Lieblich: I was afraid that, however much I tried, I couldn’t understand what it was like to be her, and I wanted so desperately to understand, to be part of it. Researcher: Was that why you asked yourself: “But is there ever, I continued to myself, true communication between people, however similar their worlds” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 65)? Did you feel that the ripped fabric metaphor represented this notion of true communication? Lieblich: There is always sharing, but not always true communication. Regardless of how much I share my life and thoughts with you, they will not necessarily yield meaning to you or anyone else. I haven’t lived your life or you mine and therefore, there will always be moments when I don’t understand you or you me. The fabric is not always interwoven. Researcher: Yes, but is it as delicate as you say here? Lieblich: Communication between people is always considered a delicate fabric. My experiences and your experiences will continue to create a delicacy amongst the meanings we construct. If we ignore this delicacy, don’t we also ignore the different meanings we potentially can create together? Researcher: In your sixth encounter you stated: “In the end it will be you who shows from whence cometh our comfort, I said, and knew that she [Baron] understood, and that the rip I had felt between us earlier had been seamlessly and magically repaired” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 68). You wrote as if you were relieved at this moment. What caused your relief? Lieblich: It was relief but also understanding between the two of us. 115 Researcher: What kind of understanding? Lieblich: I began to understand what she meant by persecution. As she talked about leaving her home to find a place where she and her brother could be safe, I compared it to what it is to be a woman, growing up against the same prejudices. Researcher: Was that why you were so emotional when you looked out the window to see the little girls playing? Lieblich: They were so carefree, much like Baron felt as a child. Yet, the reality of living in the Shetl became a source of pain for her. I saw those little girls growing up to find the path not so open. It was Baron’s image of the pain and torture of being a Jew that made me think about myself as a woman and the lives of many women who strive to become part of the whole. Researcher: So why Baron as the source of comfort? Lieblich: Did she not overcome the anguish of torture and persecution to look for better times? It was her hope that gave me hope. This was my comfort, and her life was a symbol of that pursuit for something better. When the seam was repaired our meaning, although from separate context, became shared. Researcher: You continued to use your metaphors throughout the story. There are many more references in your writing. Was this how you kept your two stories together within your imagination? Lieblich: Yes, in a way, although I am not sure it was as conscious of an effort as you may think. The images of fabric continued as I kept our partnership going. The metaphors were used to keep coherence between the two of us. 116 Researcher: Was the metaphor essential to your imaginal relationship with Baron? Lieblich: Anyone who tells the story of another or of themselves, I believe, must maintain an image of some kind. That image may change as the writer is enlightened. Perhaps that metaphor changes as the writer changes, as her perceptions of her subject changes. But for me, the fabric metaphor represented so much more than shared understanding. It was how I envisioned our relationship together. Researcher: In the tenth encounter, you shared one of your favorite poems with Baron (referenced in Appendix A). In that poem the metaphor of “ornamental stitches” was used. Was this on purpose? Why this poem? Lieblich: I wanted to share with Baron something that had meaning for me. I was haping that it would somehow become meaningful for her too, although our meanings may have been different. Researcher: It took your conversation with her into a different direction, did it not? Lieblich: Yes, the poem became a way for her to ask me questions. Researcher: Why here? What prompted this line of dialogue between the two of you? Lieblich: The poem held special meaning for me. She wanted to know why, or maybe I wanted to know why. Researcher: She asked you to talk about whom you go to for advice. Were you surprised at your answer? 117 Lieblich: Yes, partially, because she drew out the voice of the “wise old woman” inside of me. Researcher: I can’t help but think about Jung when you make this reference. Was this your intent? Lieblich: I am very familiar with Jung and yes, I do think that when llook for wisdom I consult that wise old woman inside of me. Researcher: What I know of Jung says that the animus, a masculine figure or archetype for women, represents wisdom and strength (Johnson, 1986). Was Baron this part of your unconscious you were looking for? Did she represent the wise old woman for you? Lieblich: In many ways she did. Through the course of our relationship, I began to think of her in this way. Although she was a feminine character, she became a masculine image as well. Perhaps it was because of the loss of my husband that I was missing this voice. I am not sure. But I do know that I began to ask her those questions that required wisdom and strength... things I felt were missing in my life at that point. Researcher: So what purpose did the poem serve in this encounter? Lieblich: It was a way for me to introduce my thoughts, my desires, and myself. It was a way for me to introduce that wise old woman. Remember in the poem: “Look at the wisdom of old age, hard and so feminine: at the happiness of small ornamental stitches, nothing wild, the most delicate contact with other people’s days, a few sentences here and there” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 107). I think I wanted Baron to understand how I saw her, although I never voiced that 118 explicitly. She had the wisdom, and her contact with me represented that small ornamental stitching, delicate and brief. Researcher: You began to change your use of your metaphors, especially that of embroidery, when referring to storytelling. In the seventeenth encounter, it became very explicit: “I enjoyed describing landscapes in my stories she [Baron] replied, for me it was embroidery, embroidery with words” (Lieblich, 1 99 7, p. 200), and later you wrote: “Artists collect the sparks of being: they see, remember, imagine, and then weave a picture, a tale, a piece of embroidery. The imagination, like the sun, shines not only on the fortunate but also on the lowly and oppressed, somehow weaving together the ripped fabric of their lives” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 201). These passages referred directly to the imagination. Can you tell me about them? Lieblich: Well if you recall, Baron was telling about her friend’s sister Basya, who created wonderful works of art with her embroideries. Those embroideries became a symbol for many in the Shetl. They represented true beauty and “brought eternal spring to the sooty rooms of the women of the town” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 201). Baron’s description of Basya was one in which the artist used the imagination to remember and capture the beauty of history, not just the terror. Researcher: But I don’t understand. What is an artist? What is their responsibility? Lieblich: With imagination, we can conjure any image. We can give meaning through embroideries or stories, can’t we? We do it not just for 119 ourselves, but for others, so they may remember or think for themselves. Isn’t art something that is shared with others? Is it any different than what we’ve been talking about? Wasn’t the metaphor part of the landscape I created in this story? By its very existence, didn’t it create meaning for you, others, and me? That is what it means to be an artist, to create and spark meaning construction with words, a painting, or dance. We embroider for the purpose of creating multiple meaning, multiple myths. Don’t forget we also are preserving our own view of history here, so others may interpret it. The embroidery is never ending, story upon story. Researcher: I feel a little out of my league here. Lieblich: Why, because you are trying to understand what you yourself are creating? Aren’t you trying to understand me? Researcher: Well yes, of course, but somehow I still think I am incommensurate in comparison. Lieblich: Perhaps you need to give yourself more time. Our story is far from over. Ask me more. Researcher: Okay. I have only two more questions about your use of metaphors. In the twenty-third encounter Baron said: “It was a great pleasure for me when you stayed the night at my house. You remember howl said that you were lonely; there is nothing wrong with that. But it is easier for a man, apparently, to live in true solitude; we women weave threads between ourselves and those around us” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 291). You responded by saying: “That’s exactly how it is with my friends and me, spreading a fine strong network, 120 I said, a spider’s web, which actually is very sturdy” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 291). Do you believe that women really weave threads between ourselves? Lieblich: Yes, I do. I think that that is why I later used the metaphor of a spider’s web. It is a strong network, as I stated in the book. Researcher: What makes this bond so strong? Lieblich: I think that is based on the idea that we, as women, have to remain connected, to try and make meaning through our voices. Researcher: Do you reject man’s capability to do the same? Lieblich: I think it is very different for men. I think they see themselves as individuals and less reliant on a network of support and shared meaning, but this is not to say that I reject the possibility. Researcher: In the ending of Baron’s and your own story, you said: “I tried to draw another sentence from my memory, to console myself; and only in the car, on the way home, did her beloved voice sing in my ears, only to me: ‘Thanks to these embroideries an eternal spring began to bloom’” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 320). I loved this ending! Lieblich: Why? Researcher: Because I struggled many times in the book with your own sorrow and loss, as well as Baron’s. This story was truly about dealing with loss, whether that of people or history. In this sentence I found hope. The use of spring brought an image of new beginnings, and it was important to me that you found yourself wanting to venture out again. I also liked your use of embroideries here because it changed the metaphor from one of embellishment, 121 to one of beauty. By melding the two of you through your biographical composition you were able to make sense and find a direction. That became important to me, as it did to you too, right? Lieblich: Yes, for the first time I did see a new beginning. It was this relationship, embellished though it may be, that allowed me to reconstruct my life. .. to find something else to care about. Isn’t that what this whole discussion of metaphors has been about? I used them not only for myself as a writer, but also for myself as a person. They allowed me to give a voice to my images inside. That is their power in composition. Researcher: I think I understand so much more then I did before. For you, the imaginal process involved conjuring a metaphor that kept Baron ’s image in front of you. Lieblich: Partially. What keeps me in front of you? Researcher: The need to learn more. Perhaps my desire keeps your image in front of me. I’m not sure. Lieblich: We ’ve been discussing much about me, but what about your wise old woman? She chuckled and smiled. Was this a set-up? I somehow gathered from her look of amusement that she was as curious about me as I was her. What could she possibly Ieam from me? Researcher: When I read the passage about your wise old woman inside, I thought of my grandma... much like you did. I identified with many of the words spoken by you. 122 Lieblich: Why? Researcher: My grandma was a very important person in my life, especially in my childhood. She lived next door, and when I would argue with my parents, especially my dad, I would run to her house. Lieblich: What was her world like? Researcher: It was a sanctuary, very much like my time with you — although, I don’t really see you as a “wise old woman. ” Lieblich: Can you see your grandmother? Researcher: Yes. She’s standing in her kitchen cooking. She loved to cook. And as she cooked she talked about her memories, her past. I was extremely curious about her as a little girl. She spent the first 10 years of her life in Czechoslovakia, and then came to America like many of the immigrants in the early 1900’s. It fascinated me. Lieblich: And is she gone now? Researcher: Yes, but she’s still here inside me. Maybe she guides me; maybe she doesn’t. Lieblich: Do you ever talk with her? Researcher: I wish I could, but I’ve never taken the time. I wonder what she would think of me now. Would I still run to her? I still miss her even though she ’5 been gone for almost 12 years. Lieblich: You see, imagination is first about the image, whether expressed metaphorically or by visualizing a face or memory. That is how you can begin. Researcher: But where do you go from there? 123 Lieblich: You mentioned you were fascinated with Watkins’ work on the imaginal other. Tell me more about that. Researcher: Basically she has linked the creation of imaginal characters to the level of self development. Lieblich: But we’ve already discussed your views on development. Researcher: Yes, but Watkins integrated the ability to use imagination as an indicator of a person ’3 development. She highlights that those persons who are able to develop imaginal others, extensions of the self that have high degrees of animation, articulation of psychological properties, and specifications of character and identity are, in fact, developing a greater sense of self (Watkins, 2000). Lieblich: So basically, the richer my imaginal other, the greater sense of selfl have? Researcher: And the best part of this is that dialogue with the imaginal other acts as a mediator or facilitator. Lieblich: You do sound a little excited about this. Researcher: Before, I wasn’t sure of my direction. Her work added a great deal of clarity for me. Lieblich: How does this tie into our previous discussion of dialogue? Researcher: Actually, Watkins talks about Buber’s ideas of “I- Thou”. She primarily refers to the back-and-forth nature of moving from “I-It” to “l- Thou. ” When we allow the other parts of ourselves to speak, we can address the other and be addressed by the other. 124 Lieblich: This sounds terribly confusing... layman’s terms please. Researcher: The more you have the capability to let the imaginal other speak, the more you get to know the self. As the imaginal other gains in autonomy, you incorporate those parts of the self into your overall being. You can begin to pay attention to those parts of the self that you have ignored. Imagination becomes like a house-warming party — a get-to-know-you type of thing. Lieblich: Okay... I think that visual was simplistic enough, but what best describes the imaginal other? Researcher: Watkins lays out a description of a well developed imaginal other. Of course, you know how much I like lists... this worked well for me. Lieblich: As it should. Researcher: Basically the first characteristic is that the imaginal other initiates action and/or dialogue. Lieblich: Well, I would have to say that Baron certainly did enough initiating within her story. Researcher: Right. An example would be... encounter fourteen. Lieblich: Why this one? Researcher: Because, until this point, whenever you walked into Baron’s apartment she was lying on a sofa, waiting for your arrival, waiting for you to ask the questions, waiting for your prompting. But, in this chapter, she actually got up and came to the door to let you in. She was an invalid who had very little use of her legs, yet she let you in this time. I found that interesting. 125 Lieblich: Very good... I’m not sure that was intentional. Researcher: Maybe not, but it did strike me as odd. Lieblich: What’s the next characteristic? Researcher: The character begins to express psychological properties, “implying a self-consciousness” (Watkins, 2000, p. 11 7). Lieblich: And your example. . .? Researcher: Well, what about in the seventeenth encounter? Bamn described herself as a writer. “I never achieved the result I wanted in my writing; but which artist is ever satisfied? She said. At first I was just an apprentice to the craft of writing. It took me many years to find my true voice, and since then I have stood my ground without further influence by others” (Lieblich, 1 99 7, p. 205). This seems to suggest that your imaginal character had the presence of consciousness to realize her limitations, or was this you? Lieblich: I think she realized that artistic satisfaction is hard to grasp. It is certainly that way with me also. I never saw myself as a writer so I definitely understood this lack of satisfaction, but then again I never saw my ability as artistic. Lieblich probably had already recognized my inability to express myself completely and succinctly; yet she did not seem to mind. Researcher: The third characteristic of a fully developed imaginal other is the ability to see the character from both internal and external points of view. I think I saw this most at the ending of the twenty-fourth encounter. Dvora was 126 looking at the end of her life with all its ebbs and tides, yet the reader saw her through her eyes as well: Baron: “It’s not bad to die, Amia, certainly not at my age. Life and death are like seasons, coming and going in turn, like the waves of that Jaffa beach of yours. As when the rains rage until no one can leave the house. And then one day the snow falls persistently, until the puddles and mounds of garbage are covered and the sky brightens. Amia: I see her drawing deep into herself before my eyes; and along with it growing and expanding in perfect clarity, eyes radiant and wise. Was she finally achieving the precious balance between consciousness and the unconscious—past, present, and future like the river of life itself? She was turning her back on us and toward her own garden, now at the end of her journey” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 319). Lieblich sighed as I finished this passage. Perhaps she was thinking about Baron, maybe her husband. Who is to know? I do know it took a long time for her to speak after I finished reading it. I felt her real pain for the first time since we started meeting, and I knew that I too dreaded the moments in my life when I would know the anguish she felt about dying and the inevitable existence we live. Researcher: Would you like to stOp for the day? Lieblich: No... I’m just remembering the moments of time passed. I . . . just needed a moment to think about your analysis. Researcher: Do you understand why I saw Baron from both her own view and yours as well in this passage? Lieblich: I can understand how you saw Baron’s ending days from both her own and my perspective. The reader could interpret different meanings 127 based on the dialogue. Either way you certainly saw Baron as an autonomous character here, with me as the onlooker peering in on her ending days. What is the last characteristic of an imaginal character? I could sense she needed to move quickly through this. I think that as time has gone on, this dialogue had started to cause her to relive memories she did not want to recall... on the other hand, maybe it was therapeutic. Researcher: Simply put the other has a distinct, “identifiable personality’ (Watkins, 2000, p. 120). Lieblich: Well, I think there are plenty of places in which Baron’s character stood separate and distinct from my own. Researcher. Yes, that was probably the most visible characteristic. In the ninth encounter, when the two of you are discussing the students who struggled to pass the school entrance exams, you wanted to make sure she wasn’t as desperate as the others. You tried to paint her as the invincible person you thought she was, but she made sure you saw her as she really was. Amia: But you weren’t like them, I protested. Baron: However hard it may be for you to accept this, she said, I worried about ending up in their shoes, and I recognized their despair (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 97). Lieblich: You’ve worked hard at making sure there is an understanding of my use of imagination, haven’t you? Researcher: It’s important that I and others understand the difference between just giving someone a voice and giving them a life. I think you did the latter with Baron, and because of that I could easily make a case that it allowed 128 your inner selves to develop more fully. Watkins wanted her readers to understand her perspective on the ability to give voices to the multiple selves of one’s identity. “The articulation of the imaginal other is at the same time an articulation of the being and activity of the self. These articulations are not only aimed at establishing a rudimentary sense of self but are an ongoing and changing way of participating in the complex meanings and comelative definitions of self and worid” (Watkins, 2000, p. 95). She believed this to be a higher form of self development. Lieblich: I’m not so sure I would subscribe to a higher form of development. Do you remember our discussion earlier? You yourself put me in a lower form of self development as you mapped my self knowledge transformation. Researcher: Yes, but you said that we alter through stages, much like we do life. The fact that you were able to develop Baron as an autonomous and rich character speaks to your ability to give another part of yourself a voice. Lieblich: Have you given me a voice? Researcher: Yes, but I’m not sure you have the autonomy and characterization I wish you did. Lieblich: Why not? Researcher: Because maybe I’m not ready to let all that go yet. Lieblich: I see. So how do you believe development of the imaginal other facilitates dialogue? 129 Researcher: Well, I think that when we are able to give voice and character to the other parts of ourselves we are able to engage in a truly dialogical relationship. Remember Bubefs “l- Thou” idea — each are given form. We are open to each other (Watkins, 2000). Lieblich: Like us. Researcher: Not like us. I don’t think we’re there yet, and I’m not sure why. Dialogic Relevance Lieblich: In all this conversation you know that I continue to push you in the direction of relevance. Your ideas about my book and my so-called self growth are important to you. I recognize that. But, you need to keep in mind what relevance this will have for others. Researcher: But does an artist or writer create or write for others or themselves? Lieblich: I am not sure that I always write for me. I do have something to say to others. I use writing as a way to communicate that something. Researcher: So it is with me. I strive to find the practicality in all that I ’m doing. It’s the only way I bring some kind of continuity to me the practitioner and me the academic. Lieblich: Now who’s looking for coherence? 130 ‘ Researcher: Look, I know that I can never truly resolve the differences between the roles I play in this world -- I never will. But, it’s important that I keep trying. That’s what keeps me going. Lieblich: So when you think about our conversation about dialogue, what “practical” ideas come to mind? Researcher: Well, I’ve done extensive reading about dialogism in teaching and the classroom. I’ve read about dialogue within the business environment, but I think that most of that literature reflects little understanding about true dialogue. I ’m not sure how to approach this. Lieblich: Are you familiar with Ira Progoff’s work? Researcher: A little bit. Lieblich: He uses dialogue in his workshops to promote self growth. In his work he states: “As a major goal of our work, it refers to the encompassing dialogue which we seek to establish between our inner self and the whole unfolding movement of our life” (Progoff, 1975, p. 160). Think about our exercise here. What are you doing? Researcher: Writing... conversational writing. Lieblich: Dialogic writing. Researcher: Yes. Lieblich: You ’ve used your imagination and developed an image of me within yourself. You have constructed dialogue between the two of us. Now, your intent may have been to solely discuss the Baron biography, but don’t you think you’ve accomplished much more than that? 131 Researcher: Do you mean have I learned to let go of myself a little? Lieblich: You yourself have admitted that you like to be in control, make the decisions for what happens in your own life. .. right? Researcher: Yes. Lieblich: What has our conversation helped you do? Researcher: Let go a little... think about things I’ve never taken the time to think about. It has allowed time for me to think about me. Lieblich: Do you think you’ve Ieamed about yourself? Researcher: I think I’ve learned to imagine. I think I’ve also found parts of myself! didn’t know. I see the confident parts of me... the insecure parts of me... maybe even the lonely parts of me. Lieblich: And what does that do for you? Researcher: It makes me think that people in general never have the opportunity I have had. Lieblich: But what if they did? Researcher: Are we talking about teaching here? Lieblich: One of the ways you’ve gotten in touch with parts of yourself that were hidden is through the writing. We do a lot of talking in this worid, but seldom do we take the time to write. Researcher: Isn’t that what Progoff’s work intended to do -- to teach people how to get in touch with their inner selves and how they see themselves within the worid? Lieblich: Yes, much of his work focuses on journalizing for that purpose. 132 Researcher: I can just see my various leaders at work now... “you think we should keep a journal?” Right. Lieblich: I don’t think that keeping an ongoing journal is what we’re talking about here. I think that if someone just once has the experience you have had through our dialogue, he or she would be prompted again and again to tap the inner self. Researcher: Could this be taught? Lieblich: Look where you started from. You taught yourself. Burbules has concentrated much of his work on dialogic teaching. Researcher: Yes, and he even has a neat little typology of dialogue. Lieblich: What must be made clear here is that dialogism is not exactly an easy topic. Can you teach someone to dialogue with others? Maybe not until they have had the opportunity to have the inner dialogue. And what fosters the inner dialogue is the act of writing, recording for reflection. Researcher: So if we want to teach students, teachers, and leaders about dialogism and imagination, writing should be the mechanism? Lieblich: It’s only one way. Researcher: Clark talks about writing as a means of constructing. His work uses some of Bakhtin ’s work as well. But his focus was on the writing aspects of conversation. In a way it mediates, facilitates, and sustains the dialogue itself (Clark, 1 990). Let’s face it, we all talk to ourselves, but we can ’t play the conversation back for reflection. Writing captures the inner dialogue as it transpires. Through that act we are continually constructing. It’s like building a 133 brick wall, brick by brick, one layer on top of another. That’s what this has been about... building, constructing. Lieblich: So back to our original discussion... can this be taught? Researcher: Maybe the better question is not how but to whom. I’ve been thinking about teachers and leaders who would benefit from this work. Those are the people that need to understand themselves and their own self growth. Wrthout this understanding, how can we expect them to be responsible for the growth of others? Lieblich: Do you really think leaders of today’s businesses think that they are responsible for thegrth of their employees? I definitely can subscribe to the teacher’s responsibility, but I am not so we should have that same expectation of leaders. Researcher: But this is my problem with the two worlds I live in. On one hand I am told that as a leader I must be a teacher. To be a teacher! need to understand how to foster self growth. Isn’t Parker Palmer really trying to get teachers to understand that responsibility? Lieblich: But he is asking that teachers take responsibility for their own self growth first and foremost. To understand the multiplicity of the selves and inner voices enables one to understand the others’ voices as well. “If we want to develop and deepen the capacity for connectedness at the heart of good teaching, we must understand — and resist — the perverse but powerful draw of the ‘disconnected’ Iife” (Palmer, 1998, p. 35). 134 Researcher: Okay... okay, but what leader will subscribe to connectivity? I don’t know many that would. Lieblich: So maybe that’s your message. Look, you’ve discovered that writing has allowed you, given you the time to talk to me. What’s wrong with advocating that our leaders and teachers do the same? Wrth that experience, we can teach our students. Researcher: That reminds me of Bakhtin again. Lieblich: How so? Researcher: Well, in my research I found very few references to “dialogic writing.” One resource talks about Bakhtin’s definition of authorship. He equates it to responsibility. Dialogic writing involves the process of not only negotiating with the “other” but also the manner by which the self is defined. To author the “other” means that the self also must be authored. The duality of purpose for dialogic writing represents meaning being constructed (Bernard-Donals, 1990). Taking responsibility through authorship is an act of selflessness isn’t? Lieblich: I’m not sure I understand you. Researcher: Ifl truly want to understand myself so that I may understand others, through dialogic writing I am forced to give up to the other, to allow them a voice. In a sense I am surrendering to all those inner parts of me. When I Ieam how to do that, I then can foster that kind of compassion in others. Lieblich: But what about the practicality of the writing you propose? Researcher: Wrtte believes that writing should be about social, developmental and textual aspects. By its very nature the act of writing is 135 construction and reconstruction (Witte, 1992). All I am proposing is that we need to teach others to use this everyday tool as a means to reconstruct meaning in our own lives. Lieblich: So if there is a purpose to dialogic writing, then where does that put the teacher or leader? Researcher: Ah... that’s the best part. When dialogic writing becomes personal, the teacher and leader are decentered in the process, aren’t they? Burbules talks about teachers having different roles than experts (Burbules, 1993). Freire states that there is a collaboration of sorts between teachers and students so that a multi-voiced classroom can emerge (Freire, 1970, 1993). These experts never really address how a teacher and leader can become decentered. Lieblich: In other words, if I ’m a teacher who always plays expert, I will continue to do so. Researcher: Yes, unless you take the initiative to explore yourself. You must surrender to your own voices before you will surrender to the external voices. Leadership faces the same fate. Only those who hear the “other” within will hear the “other” outside. Lieblich: You do know that using the imagination for the purpose of dialogic writing will sound outlandish to many authorities, even those in education. Researcher: I know that... but the power of it is unlimited. As Berthoff states: “I believe for teachers of composition [or any teachers or leaders for that 136 matter] such a philosophy of mind is best thought of as a theory of imagination. If we can reclaim imagination as the forming power of mind, we will have the theoretical wherewithal for teaching composition as a mode of thinking and a way of learning” (Berthoff, 1981, p. 64). Passages like this make me want to continue. Lieblich: But what forum or vehicle can you use to foster such dialogic writing? Researcher: Why not biography? It served as a wonderful vehicle for you to explore yourself. But biography may not be the only means. Maybe any writing that allows for intentional subjectivity or imaginal dialogue may be an effective means for self inquiry. Lieblich: I see where this is going... lead on. Chapter 3 Summary This chapter was devoted to components of dialogic theory and imagination. My first intent was to analyze the Lieblich biography to determine if it was in fact an example of what Bakhtin would label as dialogic. The second intent was to illustrate dialogism through my own dialogue with Lieblich. The first intent I believe occurred, the second is debatable. This chapter did illustrate the complexity of dialogic theory and the practicality or lack thereof of using dialogism within an educational and work setting. The major concern or question of this chapter is: Does dialogue serve as the means for constructing shared meaning? Sidorkin (1998) is very clear that 137 dialogue used for the purpose of shared meaning or synthesis is not dialogue (Sidorkin, 1999). However, where does this put popular business literature that focuses on dialogue as a means for synthesis and creating shared meaning (Senge, 1990; Schon, 1983; Marsick & Watkins, 1992)? In the dialogue with Lieblich it became apparent that shared meaning led to discussions on singularity of truth as well. If we subscribe to multiplicity of truth and selves, then how can meaning be shared; multiple meanings must be allowed to co- exist. The dialogue is the end, not the means. These differences between the philosophical and practical interpretations of dialogue deserve debate. The other issue is the practicality of dialogism and imagination for teachers and leaders. In this chapter the conversation encouraged leaders and teachers toward using more internal dialogue, Ieaming about the self, and using writing for self exploration. How practical is it, especially for business leaders, to use writing as a means of growth? Moreover, how could I ever convey to business leaders that imagination (imagining another for dialogue) has benefit to personal growth and development? Lastly, considering the discussion on self development, how can dialogue really happen when most people do not understand their own multiplicity? If individuals do not have a level of growth that is beyond self authoring, how can any of the work on dialogue be applied in a practical vein? It is disturbing to discover that dialogue literature lacks a consideration for self development theory. 138 CHAPTER FOUR: A ROLE FOR SUBJECTIVE BIOGRAPHY Through this endeavor I wanted to understand Lieblich’s self growth and the how dialogue and imagination are used as a means to foster such growth. But, I also wanted to understand the role subjective biography has in the process. Lieblich: Why this biography? Researcher: Do you mean why your biograph y? Lieblich: Well, yes. Researcher: Because it was unlike any biography I had ever read. The bookstores are filled with biographies, many told from an objective point of view. The biographer is an external observer to the life of another. Yours was different. It told the story of Dvora Baron, but it also told the story of you, Amia Lieblich. Lieblich: But you do know that this type of biographical composition is not well accepted by many people, don’t you. Researcher: Believe me, I’ve read enough on biography to understand the criticisms of interjecting the self into the life of another. But I also want to talk about empathy and transference, common issues with biography. And then I want to discuss your structure, some of your questions. Lastly, I want to understand if there is a place for subjective biography. Will it be embraced in research. .. in schools. . . elsewhere? Lieblich: That’s a lot of material to cover. I guess we’d better get started. 139 Intea'ecting the Self into Biography Researcher: I must admit I’m a little saddened to be reaching this stage of our dialogue. Lieblich: But this is where you started your research, isn’t it? Researcher: Yes, I did begin here two years ago, simply looking at the subjectivity of your biography. At that time I collected a great deal of material on biography — what works, what doesn’t. Lieblich: So what do critics believe to be the “best” kind of biography? Researcher: Leon Edel, one of the authorities on biography, believes that interjecting the self into the biography of another did an injustice to the biographical subject (Edel, 1984b). Lieblich: Really. What was his reasoning? Researcher: Although he hints to the role of the biographer being somewhat of a “juggling act,” his view is that a biographer who tries to establish a relationship with their subject is “in trouble” (Edel, 1984b). Lieblich: In trouble how? , Researcher: Describing the Maurois’ biography on Shelley Edel he states, “His [Maurois’] decision to attempt a biography instead suggests that he wanted to hide behind Shelley and make him serve as a mask, to write as he perceived an autobiography disguised as a biography" (Edel, 1984, p. 286). Lieblich: Those are pretty harsh words. Do others subscribe to this same view? 140 Researcher: Yes. Young-Bruehl is also critical of those who use subjectivity in biography. She believes subjective tendencies belong outside the biographical process and uses post-biographical essays to display her subjectivity about her subjects: My theory, in fact, as I noted occurred to me while I was writing Anna Freud’s biography, and at that time I did not trust it at all, or even understand it. I was afraid that this was one of those ideas that just registered my own idiosyncrasies or my own narcissism. Dangerously subject. And, besides, I believed that a biography is not the proper place to present a theory. A theorizing biography would reveal my failure to recognize my subject, respect her, pay her regard. Because I held this general belief about biography- writing, I put various aspects of what I had to say in a theoretical vein about Anna Freud into a series of essays composed between 1988 and 1997 (Young-Bruehl, 1998, p. 4). Lieblich: That’s certainly explicit enough, isn’t it? Researcher: You sound taken back by this quote. Lieblich: Ifl understand her correctly, she is saying that subjectivity displayed within biography taints the subject and is disrespectful toward the subject. Researcher: I believe that’s her point. Lieblich: Well for me, that certainly was not the case. I highly respected Dvora Baron. She was a heroine of sorts. But let me be clear. The way I really got to know her was to interject myself into her life. I brought her from being a forgotten historical figure into the present day and gave her life for a new generation of readers. 141 Researcher: But wasn’t that how you displayed your love for her? If you had told this story as most biographers do, from an external-observer view, I wouldn’t have learned as much about Baron as I did. Lieblich: But. . . ? Researcher: Well, I was just thinking about the parts of yourself in the story. Why did you find it important to talk about yourself? Lieblich: After all that we’ve talked about, why are you asking me such a question? Researcher: Because some part of you also wanted to be known, didn’t it? The conversation gave Baron life, but it also did the same for you. You couldn’t have strictly stayed the interviewer with no opinion or thought in this story. It wouldn’t have been a dialogue, just an interview. To be dialogic, the biography had to be about both of you. Lieblich: And do you believe that a biographer’s theories belong in the biography? Researcher: Young-Bruehl is very clear of her opinion on that topic. But the whole twenty-second encounter was dedicated to the two of you theorizing about why she became a recluse at such a young age. It was the theorizing that allowed both of you to discuss multiple explanations, multiple truths. Lieblich: And maybe this is one of the reasons many reject any self imposition on the part of the biographer. Researcher: I’m not following you. Lieblich: What is biography? 142 Researcher: It is the story of a life, another's life. Lieblich: Through whose eyes? Researcher: The biographer’s. Lieblich: How do I know that what the biographer knows and tells is truthful? Researcher: Only by reputation, by knowing the author sticks to the facts. Lieblich: Chronological facts, events, right? Researcher: Yes. Lieblich: But what happens when trying to illustrate another’s life through narrative? Researcher: I’m sure that the biographer must pick and choose what’s relevant and what is not. Lieblich: Is that interjecting the self? Researcher: In a way. Whatever the biographer decides to tell is what the reader will learn about the subject. Edel even states that biography students should pursue the truth at all costs, even though it’s recognized that the truth is still somewhat subjective. But, by striving for truth, the distortion of a life is less (Edel, 1984b). Lieblich: So if truth is subjective, based on what the biographer chooses to write, then how can theorizing within the biography about the multiple possibilities and truths be an injustice to the subject? In fact, a biographer who goes in search of all possible explanations is being more truthful than one who chooses to tell the story only one way. 143 Researcher: It’s funny you say that. Lebeaux recommends that biographers should join with their biographical subject to focus less on truth and more on the relationship. “. . .this very recognition of subjectivity may, I believe, bring us substantially closer to the truth” (Lebeaux, 1985, p. 226). Others admit that biographers who assume themselves to be truthful by believing in a single reality are simply fooling themselves (Manganyi, 1983). Lieblich: I guess that’s why I don’t subscribe to the mainstream view of biography. The power is just so much greater when I bring a little of myself into the story. I think, ultimately, that power transcends to the reader. Researcher: That’s so true. Whenever I pick up a traditional biography I usually am not as engaged. Lieblich: Pletsch, a noted authority on biography, believes that we are missing out when we avoid subjectivity within biography. He believes the reason many fear it is because of the negative stigma within the literary and academic community. He states: “. . .the introduction of the biographers subjectivity into biography could give rise to a new form of biography. Ultimately, it may call also for a biographer who is willing to appear as an actor in the biography he or she is writing” (Pletsch, 1985, p. 360). ' Researcher: But you’ve done that. You were part of Dvora’s world, and she was part of yours. In the end, all the sources admit that subjectivity is inescapable with biographical composition, but that purposeful subjectivity is still taboo. I think that the phenomenon of subjective biography is relatively untapped. Inserting the self was what made this biography dialogic, not 144 monologic. And, if you believe Bakhtin’s idea of the polyphonic novel, what’s wrong with the idea of a polyphonic biography? Lieblich: You feel strongly about this? Researcher: Me. .. I thought you did. Wasn’t it you that stated: “It was serendipity, or perhaps the spirit of the times that led me to writing a biography in which subjectivity and identification were proudly announced, rather than being conceal ” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. xi). You were proud of this accomplishment? Lieblich: Yes, I was. But I was also proud of how I portrayed Baron. I wanted others to know her and what she stood for, regardless of her frailties. Researcher: So, you discount those who would criticize this interjection of the self into biography? Lieblich: I have to... I don’t believe it was possible to leave the self out of the biography, so rather than keep it suppressed, I let it out to see where it took me. Could I have written Baron’s story like a traditional biographer? Sure, I could have. But, then would you have found her as mysterious or intriguing? Didn’t my personal quest become your own as well? What better way to engage the reader? Researcher: So interjecting the self brought your questions forward about the other. How else could you have exposed the questions you had about her life? What better way to look for answers than to ask her? Lieblich: In the end, you find many “authorities” who will highly criticize this work. And that’s okay. But this was my way of telling Baron’s story. There was no right, no wrong. I think that the fear of subjectivity is subsiding in research, 145 and I certainly don’t want to debate the value of subjectivity versus objectivity. I am just proposing that the writing experience was enriched by inten‘ecting the self into the biography. And, maybe that’s what needs to be remembered here. We ’ve talked all along about how the biography helped me grow and learn about myself, and how it represented a dialogic interaction between two people-me in this world, Baron in another. I think I’ve been respectful and humbling to her, and to this da y she remains a strong figure in my memories. The artist speaks through words. I spoke through her words. I couldn’t even respond to her statement. I felt her conviction that what started as simple research became an integral figure in her life. Her intentional subjectivity paid off, considering all that she gained from her encounters with Baron. I certainly couldn’t dispute the value it had for her, and I know the impact it had on me personally. Nowhere had I found a biography so captivating as hers, and I hope she understood how much I admired it. And, maybe the reason for my admiration was that she took the time to go a little deeper than just telling the story of another’s life. She also decided to share her own world with me, painful as it must have been. Choosing a Subject Researcher: Anyone reading this would probably ask what made you choose Baron as your subject. 146 Lieblich: Well, we talked a little about that when we started this joume y. I was looking for a hero, someone I could learn about and share with. I wanted to believe in someone. Researcher: Many resources discuss how a biographer chooses his or her subject. Some believe that subjects are chosen because of some kind of emotional attachment. Lieblich: That certainly would bring subjectivity to the forefront, wouldn’t it? Researcher: Certainly. Baron and Pletsch have written a book on the biographers introspection, collecting various reasons for the biographer’s choice of subject. Typically this selection is based on two extreme poles. The first extreme is that the biographer identifies strongly with the subject, either because of personal or professional interests. Lieblich: I would definitely place myself in that category. Researcher: The opposite extreme is that the biographer finds the subject distasteful or has an aversion to the subject. This disdain keeps the biographer aroused and sustains his/her interest (Baron & Pletsch, 1985). Lieblich: I don ’t think I could write a biography of someone I disliked. It would be like conducting research about a group of people you despised. My emotions would become entangled in the outcome. Researcher: How is this different than having an attachment to the subject? Don’t your emotions also become entangled as you say? 147 Lieblich: But how can you have a relationship with someone who you dislike? It was my attachment with Baron, for example, that sustained the dialogue. It was the attachment that kept her within my imagination. Researcher: So liking the subject is important to subjective biography. Wrthout it, dialogue isn’t possible. Lieblich: When we were discussing dialogical relationships, one of the primary ways in which relationships take place is to invite the other in. Would you invite an enemy to your house? Researcher. But couldn’t that enemy represent another part of yourself, a part that you despise or disdain? Wouldn’t that allow you to come to terms with the negative parts of you? Not all parts of the self are admirable characters. Lieblich: You’ve learned much since we started. I ’m not disagreeing with you. I just know that, personally, I prefer my biographical subject to be someone I want to get to know. Researcher: Do you think that, for whatever reason a biographer chooses her subject, it becomes integral to her Ieaming? Lieblich: Perhaps it begins as an unconscious choice. I’m not sure, but it is possible that the choice itself leads to learning. The more motivated a biographer is to Ieam about the inner workings of another person ’3 life, the more they begin to use that subject as a reflection. Researcher: A reflection of what? 148 Lieblich: As time goes on through the writing process, you begin to see your life in comparison to your subject’s. It acts like a mirror in some cases. Another person’s life story becomes a mirror to your own life. Researcher: That’s interesting. But doesn’t that often lead to empathy or transference? You yourself stated: “The principle of transference maintains, for our purposes, that it is necessary for biographers to relate emotionally with their protagonists, modeling these relationship on others in their past” (Lieblich, 1 99 7, p. xi). You saw this as an inspirational source. Lieblich: Yes, I openly admitted this from the start. Researcher: Why? Lieblich: Because as a researcher, I had the obligation to admit this fiom the onset. To not acknowledge this phenomenon would be neglectful of my responsibility as a social scientist. Researcher: You do realize that transference is considered to be a problem in biographical composition? Lieblich: I realize that many of my colleagues would see it this way. Researcher: Schepeler describes transference in this way: “Biographers might be genuinely motivated to find a biographical subject that fulfills their psychological needs for an idealized self-object, to ‘complete’ themselves... and for a mirroring self object to reestablish their infantile grandiose self” (Schepeler, 1990, p. 118). Erikson talked a great deal about transference as well, describing it as an act of returning to the past to find some image or subject that represents 149 a time from pre-adulthood (Erikson, 1970). I often wondered throughout your . book whether Dvora became more than a friend to you. Lieblich: And what would you propose she was? Researcher: I could easily make a case that she represented a mother image for you. In the twenty-first encounter when you won an award, she fussed over you much like a mother would. You received satisfaction from that. Lieblich: True, I did find myself parading my accomplishment. Maybe she fulfilled some of that void left after my mother’s death. I do miss my mother, and there were times when Dvora ’s comfort became a mother’s comfort to me. Researcher: But you also stated in the beginning that you became empathetic with her character: “. . .I strongly identified with Baron’s personality, and this empathy helped me construct her character until I saw her before my eyes as if she were alive, and heard her voice speaking to me” (Lieblich, 1997, p. x). What’s the difference between empathy and transference? Edel characterizes empathy as “good” and transference to “be avoided” (Edel, 1984). Empathy is a way to understand your subject. Lieblich: I think empathy was the first stage for me. Initially it allowed me to “walk in her shoes, ” but then I began to identify more and more with her. It was because of this I decided to consciously recognize these thoughts and feelings, and why I ultimately decided to tell the story conversationally. Researcher: So are you saying that it was explicit transference that allowed you to bring Baron into the present, to act as a partner in co-oonstruction of her life, your life? 150 Lieblich: Yes... you look puzzled over this statement. Researcher: Well, I have a lot of ideas running through my head about this. Lieblich: You should know by now you can share them with me. Researcher: Okay, first I am reminded of Buber’s interplay between “l-lt” and “I-Thou.” Lieblich: Yes, I remember our conversation on that. Researcher: Buber also is very clear that empathy destroys the capability for true “I-Thou” dialogue (Friedman, 1955). Lieblich: And yet there are those who believe that empathy allows for greater depth of understanding. Researcher: Who says that? Lieblich: Keller talks about establishing an empathetic relationship with the object of study in order to truly understand it. Basing her work on Schachtel, she believes that by forming a partnership with the object, the potential for learning and development is much greater... you achieve a greater sense of self in relationship to the world (Keller, 1985). Researcher: That’s funny... much of our discussion has focused on your partnership with Baron. So how do I resolve Buber’s comment about empathy? Lieblich: You take everything too literally. Buber believes that, in being empathetic with your subject, you see her as “an object”, not one to have an “I- Thou” relationship with. But, when transference begins to occur, the ability to enter into an “I- Thou” relationship becomes possible. 151 Researcher: So are you saying that, in order to maintain a dialogic partner you must have transference? And aren’t you concerned that, somewhere along the way, it will distort the life of your subject? Lieblich: You need to be mindful that there is a fine line a biographer walks here, regardless of subjective intent. Through dialogue, or any fictional device that is implanted in the biography, I must be careful with the life of the other. I can hold that life delicately in my hand, or choose to watch it from afar, but I may also choose to bond with it. Those are the choices I make as a writer. Beginning with Questions Researcher: Ifl was a biographer or a would-be biographer, where would I begin? Lieblich: What’s the relevance ? Researcher: You had many questions about Baron in the beginning. Lieblich: I also had questions about myself. Researcher: So is this where biographical writing begins? Lieblich: Are you trying to understand the structure of the writing, or the style? Researcher: Maybe both, and the content as well. When you searched for answers to your questions, you didn’t always get the ones you were expecting. I think that’s why this book is full of surprises. Lieblich: I obviously didn’t find most of the answers I was looking for, but I think that is the message or theme of this story. 152 Researcher: I want to talk about your questions because many times you arranged encounters around various themes, like isolation, mother-daughter relationships, artistry. . . Lieblich: Yes, the encounters were often centered on a single question. Go ahead with your pursuit. I never know where it leads, but I always enjoy the journey. Researcher: You spent an entire chapter theorizing about a single answer for Baron’s isolation. What were you hoping to accomplish? Lieblich: At the time, I was hoping to find that single truth. I still thought that, with my academic and scientific knowledge, I could pinpoint a theory, a solitary reason for her isolation. Researcher: You chose several resources for your “theorizing.” What I think is interesting is that the dialogic process allowed you to establish those as possibilities. The interplay or the dialogue between yourself and Baron permitted you to continue constructing a single reason for her isolation. Unfortunately, you really never pinpointed that one justification. Lieblich: Wonderful, isn’t it? My own knowledge only allowed for the interplay. It didn’t allow for the answer. Researcher: Can we talk about the theories you proposed? Lieblich: Certainly. Researcher: The first was based on the notion that, in the nineteenth century women were considered weak and delicate. Doctors even reinforced this behavior and treated many women for what they diagnosed as 153 “neurasthenia. ” In this characterization of women, the male hierarchy was maintained. Many women were bedridden and therefore freed from the burdens of being wife, mother, and caretaker. The illness struck mainly married women. Many of these same women stopped their education, stopped their creative endeavors. Some still pursued their art or studies, but not many. But Baron disagreed with this theory, stating: “Despite my illness, a day rarely passed without my picking up a pen. The stories I composed at home were the best I ever wrote” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 276). Lieblich: Baron became extremely creative alter she became a recluse. I couldn’t disagree with her on this. She knew and I knew that this “neurasthenia” diagnosis was faulty. Researcher: Then you explored Freud’s theory of hysteria. Lieblich: Notice it was Baron’s prompting in the dialogue that took me there next. Researcher: Yes, your dialogue with Baron during this entire chapter was amazing. I felt as ifl was there, listening to the conversation. Lieblich: Freud characterized these women who were reclusive and weak as mentally ill. Baron wouldn’t hear any of this characterization. She knew herself to be sane. Researcher: You took an interesting detour to talk about Florence Nightingale. But Baron was the one who proposed the idea. Your subject continued to lead your theorizing. Did you have her lead the conversation on purpose? 154 Lieblich: Her leading kept her at the forefront of the story, didn’t it? If I were simply conducting an “interview,” would I be leading? This way the dialogue was more balanced. There aren’t many instances in which I dominated. She was the subject of the biography, not me. From a conversational perspective I could have shaped the story, but she determined the paths we took within that shape. Researcher: You continued to allow Baron to tell the story of Nightingale, even though you had the information to tell her. Why? Lieblich: This was a dialogue — two people interacting, not one. Ifl singlehandedly threw one theory out after another, would it have been as engaging? Ithink not. Researcher: The Nightingale story was very similar to Baron’s. You even used descriptive passages of Baron ’s facial expressions as you tell the theory of Nightingale. This passage I chuckled at: “Thus she [Nightingale] secured for herself for the sharp things she said about people behind their backs, I said. I glanced nervously at Dvora’s face without detecting anything — or was that a faint smile she quickly swallow ” (Lieblich, 1 99 7, p. 279) ? Very clever writing. You had me believing that she found similarity to Nightingale ’5 life with just this one line. Nightingale 's biographers proposed that she assumed power with her reclusiveness. Because of her isolation, she was able to control her world and manipulate people to do her work, free from society’s demands. This sounded so much like Baron, didn ’t it? 155 Lieblich: Yes, there was a similarity. Baron ’3 power only became real for her when she was in total control of her environment. In isolation, she assumed that power — something she had been unable achieve all her life. But I caution you that this was not the sole reason for her seclusion. There were many more. Researcher: Your next theory was based on the life of Saint Juliana of Norwich. She became ill and was bedridden at age 30, but recovered and chose to isolate herself, giving up everything she had to write about Christian visions she had experienced during her isolation. Her goal was to purify her flesh and unite her soul with God. Baron dismissed this idea, didn’t she? Lieblich: Her Judaism precluded her from sharing these concepts: “Purifying the body or conquering the soul has no spiritual value in my life, she said, after prolonged thought. Who is strong? He who conquers his impulses, we say; but in my life, with this body, I had no other choice” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 283). She rejected this saintly image for herself. Researcher: And characterized her body as too weak to withstand society’s air, water, and food. Lieblich: Yes, she continued to maintain that her body could not withstand the present day environment. Researcher: You again used her to introduce yet another theory. Why this one? Lieblich: She was a scholar of the Bible. I wanted to illustrate her Biblical knowledge with the story. 156 Researcher: She told the story of Elijah ’s seclusion as an act of flight from an evil world. The isolation became what Baron called a “refuge.” People who flee from society do not or will not live amongst societal conventions and definitions. Baron then digressed to a characterization of women artists. Lieblich: I used Caroline Heilbron’s material to introduce a characterization of women who artistically grow from despair. A male artist uses exploration as a means for creativity and growth. Women, on the other hand, grow from the anxieties in their lives. Researcher: I found it hard to understand this section. I don’t see myself in this characterization. I don’t consider my creativity as growing from anxiety or despair. But you did, didn’t you? Lieblich: I find writing to be a kind of freedom from my deSpair. I think Baron used her writing in the same way. Researcher: How so ? Lieblich: As much as I have studied the life of this woman I don’t think I will ever understand the pain and anguish she felt. Researcher: Is that why Baron says: “I have always sensed that you could not understand the depth of my despair" (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 285)? Lieblich: Yes, for as much as I felt the pain of my loss, I did not share her history, her life experiences of persecution. All those memories, all that past remained in her present as well. Researcher: Although her life is a story full of anguish, I can’t help but wonder about myself as a writer. 157 Lieblich: What do you mean? Researcher: I haven’t had any kind of real despair in my life. How could I possibly be a writer without it? Lieblich: We all have had experiences that made us feel desperate, alone. Researcher: No, I haven’t. I have nothing to draw on when I write. It’s like an emptiness. If a person has not truly suffered, how can she write? Lieblich: Suffering comes in all shapes and forms. Also it is only one source of inspiration. Granted, I think Baron ’s life story allowed her to write with great psychological truth, but not all writers have known the depth of her suffering. I certainly haven’t. Researcher: But you have lost love ones, and through that loss you were able to compose this biography. I think this is where my insecurity about writing comes from, my lack of life, my lack of truly understanding loss or torment. Lieblich: We each have our own issues with living. We write to purge; we write in order to feel. Researcher: Somehow your words give me little comfort. Lieblich: I’m not here to comfort. I ’m here to tell you that your writing will come as time goes on. You need to be patient with yourself. Learn to see more of what goes on around you. When you are able to see and appreciate this life you’ve been given, your writing will become deeper in meaning. Perhaps you’re still too young to see all of this. Then again, maybe you are just fortunate to have the life you have had. 158 Researcher: Do you think that women and men are different in how they use crisis as an inspiration for their writing? Lieblich: Baron did, and I guess I do too. Researcher: How are they different? Lieblich: A man is ever in search of his goal. For a woman, crisis serves as a catalyst. Researcher: I don ’t see crisis as a means for propelling me fonrvard. Maybe I still do not understand. Lieblich: I proposed to Baron in our conversation that, typically in mid-life, a woman seeks to change the course of traditional events. Tradition has held them in the role of wife and mother. Crisis allowed them to break the course of the trajectory. Whether it is illness, isolation, or sin, they were able to free themselves from tradition. Researcher: Why in mid-life? Lieblich: Because until that point, they were not strong enough to object to society’s characterization. Researcher: You mentioned in the conversation that women artists have two halves to their lives. I found that an interesting description. One half is traditional, like Baron ’s life, maybe like your own. The other is where artistry emerges, free from the traditional demands. Was this a statement about a woman’s life course? Lieblich: I guess you could say it is. Maybe that is why you found it so difficult to identify with this section of the book. You have yet to reach that point 159 in your life, but then you have not followed a traditional path, either. You have experienced a great deal of freedom from those demands, haven’t you? Researcher: Yes, I suppose I have. I have played the role of daughter, but not that of wife and mother. Maybe that’s why I feel more masculine in that regard. Lieblich: Wrthout those roles in your life, you may have found that your path was always your own, but I would not have traded my path either; I do not envy your life. I couldn’t help but feel inadequate at this point of our conversation. Not only was I feeling less of a writer because I hadn’t experienced many losses in life, but I also felt that I had missed out on something else: being a mother, a wife. Now that l was facing mid-life I realized that I would never know what it was like to be someone’s caretaker, a mother. I couldn’t help but feel that loss as well. Did she see me as shallow for not fulfilling any of these traditional roles in life? Ultimately, was I missing something that would always leave me in the dark about that aspect of life? I longed to feel more whole about my being, yet all I felt was an emptiness. A sadness overtook me, and l shielded my face to hide the inevitable tears. Lieblich: Why are you crying? Researcher: Because I’m thinking about what I’ll never be. Lieblich: But you have so much time yet. You have all the time in the world to be who you want to be. Researcher: Then why do I feel so sad about who I’ve become? 160 Lieblich: Maybe because you have never taken a look at your life before. Maybe you never took a look at your capability. I certainly don’t have all the answers, and you shouldn’t look to me to tell you how you measure up to those around you. But you need to learn that living is not about just going through the motions. Life is about seeing what’s out there and taking every opportunity to explore. You’ve been too cautious with your life. Not every move will be good for you, nor will every move be bad. But you need to venture out. Make the mistakes and learn from them. Researcher: Can we stop for the day? Lieblich: If you wish, but I can’t help but feel you’re running away from these feelings you have. She was right, but I needed some time to regroup before we concluded our conversations. We were coming to the end of our relationship. I had been on this journey for so long, and I already found myself missing my time with her. I also knew that a part of me was looking at the end of my schooling. I had been so absorbed in my studies that I began to feel saddened about the conclusion of my academic life. It had been a difficult day for me, and I knew I just couldn’t look at her without feeling lost. I let some time pass before we met again. I needed to continue with our discussion on her biographical questions, so this is where I began our next conversation. Lieblich: You look like you’re feeling better today. Researcher: A little. I think I just needed some time to collect my thoughts. Thank you for your patience with me. 161 Lieblich: We were talking about Baron ’s seclusion... Researcher: I have great admiration for the construction of the twenty- second encounter. It was so carefully placed, long after the story of Baron had been told. Yet, it partially represents the central theme of her story — exploring why she became a recluse. Lieblich: Yes, I wanted to make sure the reader understood her life before I focused the attention on that nagging question. Researcher: In the eighteenth encounter you described Baron ’s seclusion: “This type of monastic existence was a riddle that held a powerful attraction for me” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 212). Were you attracted to her life because you also wanted to hide from the world? Did you feel the need to retreat alter the death of your husband? You questioned later in that encounter that maybe you didn’t feel whole because of the loss of your husband. Lieblich: I certainly carried with me a strong sense of loss. Perhaps that became evident through my writing. Researcher: You ended this chapter with the conclusion of a possible linkage between isolation and knowledge - that one leads to the other. Do you believe that? Lieblich: Baron believed that, through her isolation, she found an inner peace, that silence allowed one to become more reflective: “The goal of isolation is knowledge, the knowledge that life and death are only two aspects of the same order. . (Lieblich, 1997, p. 223). Through isolation, her creativity soared. Researcher: Is the knowledge self-knowledge? 162 Lieblich: In solitude, we often look inward. Researcher: Don’t you think people in general do not take advantage of solitude? Lieblich: I don’t think we know what to do with it. We become lost in other things: TV, social activities, responsibilities. But we really don’t take the time to just sit and think. Researcher: Are we talking about taking time out for reflection? Because if we are, there have been plenty of books written on that. Most of them sound a little farfetched. I like silence, but I seldom use it for reflection. Lieblich: Perhaps that is where you need to begin. Researcher: You mean take the time? Lieblich: Yes. Researcher: Our conversations have permitted me that time. It was difficult at first, with all the commotion in the house, but then I found it soothing. Writing became easy. Lieblich: Then perhaps you need to continue doing it. Just because you have reached the end of our conversation doesn’t mean you’ve reached the end. Researcher: Can we talk more about the questions you had? Lieblich: Which ones? Researcher: Well there are many more that emerged within the biography — ones that had significance for your life as well as Baron’s. I began the dissection of your book with the questions you asked throughout it, but now I only want to talk about the ones that hold significance for you the author. 163 Lieblich: There were many. Which ones in particular would you like to discuss? Researcher: What about the relationship that Baron had with her daughter? In some cases you sounded appalled with how Baron acted as a mother. I know that you are a devoted mother to your children, but that they have grown up to live their own lives. Can you tell me about your pursuit of answers to these questions? Lieblich: I began this story with a very negative view of the relationship between Baron and her daughter Tsipora. In the third encounter I used Baron’s dialogue as a way to introduce my thoughts: “They [Baron and husband] sacrificed her [T sipora], you would say, except that it always looked to me as if this was her freely chosen pat ” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 19). Researcher: You continued to display many different emotions in regard to Tsipora and this relationship. Lieblich: How so? Researcher: In the fifth encounter you make her sound almost adversarial, like the two of you are in competition for Baron’s attention. What was going on here? Lieblich: Through conversing with Baron and occupying her time, I created a fictional competition between Tsipora and me to show the intensity of this mother-daughter relationship. But I also think I was a little envious because I felt so strongly toward Baron that I wished I was as intimate with her as her 164 daughter. I also wanted to understand why Baron did not send Tsipora to school. Talking of my own experience allowed me to ask the question. Researcher. But Baron was able to educate Tsipora at home. Lieblich: Yes, but was it at the expense of her social growth? That’s what I thought at first. I thought Baron had been selfish in regard to her child’s life, never letting her develop normally. Baron’s prison appeared to become a prison for her daughter. Researcher: You began the thirteenth encounter with a discussion of Tsipora in which you Openly explored her possible jealousy of you. From a fictional perspective you continued to characterize your relationship with her as slightly adversarial. Why did you include this? What purpose did it serve? Lieblich: Again, I felt as ifl was an outsider to Baron’s worid. As a biographer I researched her life by finding the facts and analyzing the data. But I felt as though I had more responsibility than to simply give a factual accounting. I used fiction to create the overarching scenario of interaction. I couldn’t write about Baron without including Tsipora. They both lived an isolated life. Perhaps Tsipora was a victim of her mother’s isolation, perhaps not, but the relationship between the two of them haunted me. Placing her daughter as an adversary allowed me talk about Tsipora, and also her relationship to her mother. Researcher: You even asked yourself: “Should I ask her for an interview too? I wondered. Is her story part of what I’m looking for?” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 143). Lieblich: It was part of the story. 165 Researcher: But you chose in your narrative not to conduct a fictionalized interview of Tsipora. Why? Lieblich: This was Baron’s story — not Tsipora ’s. Baron’s relationship with her daughter and her explanation of it was the primary focus. To interview Tsipora would have taken the attention away from Baron ’s uniqueness. Researcher: In the fourteenth encounter you exposed Tsipora as an epileptic. At least Baron believed her to be that. Did the Tsipora ’s illness help you justify Baron keeping her daughter in seclusion... to prevent her from experiencing humiliation and shame? Lieblich: There were many rumors about Tsipora and Baron. I used our conversation as a way to expose the rumors, and also to give Baron a response. I used her voice to expose many of the possibilities. Researcher: Why her voice? You could have easily used your own to theorize, as you did about her reclusiveness. Lieblich: But would it have been as powerful? By using her voice, it gave some credence to her guilt as well, did it not? Researcher: Yes, certainly. I felt as though she herself could not give the answers you were looking for. Lieblich: Baron presented many possibilities. One was that she enjoyed being Tsipora ’8 teacher and kept her home to continue her teaching. Another theory was that Baron, lonely and often abandoned by her husband, longed for Tsipora ’s companionship. Perhaps she was a “tyrant” who “enslaved” her daughter to serve a selfish purpose. 166 Researcher: But it was here that you exposed the central theme of your biography. Lieblich: Do you mean the riddle? Researcher: Yes. “The human soul is a mysterious thing, the greatest riddle there is” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 166). Why did you place this question here? Lieblich: Besides her reclusiveness, what was more curious about Baron than her relationship with her daughter? It was an emotional issue, particularly for me as a mother because I could not imagine keeping my children at home, even though I wanted to protect them from the world. My children were growing up and taking on their own lives. Perhaps I was struggling from my own personal experience, and needed to understand how Baron kept her daughter from leaving home. Researcher: l was curious why you utilized the Madonna and child metaphor in this segment when thinking about Baron and Tsipora. “Tenderness and dedication suffused the picture before my eyes, Madonna and Child, and only the absence of a smile on the faces spoiled its perfection” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 167). That conjures up such a powerful image. There is a religious connotation, but also the sense of purity. Did they have a “pure” mother- daughter relationship? Lieblich: Pure in the sense that they had shut themselves off from the outside world, with little interference in the relationship. There was something untouchable about that image. 167 Researcher: Did you long for this type of relationship? Is that why you infen’ed that purity? Lieblich: Maybe. I wished for more with my own children. I am very close to them, but I don’t have what Baron and Tsipora had. I’m sure I wouldn’t want that. You notice that I said the “absence of a smile spoiled the perfection. ” This was not a perfect relationship. But it had a gage of purity or maybe just an appearance of purity. Researcher: In this same segment, you experienced what I would call an emotional upheaval. It was such a vivid description, exposing your vulnerability. As a biographer, you used this mother-daughter relationship as a means to reflect about your own son, and the story time he had with your husband. Lieblich: I reached a point in the story where Baron ’s life para/led my own so closely. I had an image of Baron telling stories to Tsipora, and my memories of my husband telling stories to my son, Elia v, became so vivid. I began to grieve for those lost stories, some I will never know or remember. Researcher: You stated: “I cried. I had been carrying this ache in my chest for a very long time” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 169). Was this the first time you had really grieved for your loss? I got the impression that the biography had become a purging process for you. Until this point you had used only snippets of your memories of your husband’s death. What happened here? Lieblich: Until this point I had really concentrated more on Baron’s story. Yes, as she told of her memories I related to those memories with my own. But this was different. This memory was extremely painful. It involved both the loss 168 of my husband, and the loss my son would experience without his father. Those were powerful emotions. Researcher: Why did you expose so much of yourself here? You could have left this out. Lieblich: What makes you find this segment so powerful? Researcher: Because you did expose yourself. You didn’t hide your grief. I almost felt your pain and your loss. Lieblich: Then why not include this? I didn’t want to respond to this. Call it avoidance — whatever you want. I . knew that, throughout my life, one thing I would not do is expose all of who I am to anyone. Maybe I envied her self honesty. I am not sure. I just knew that it was a question I couldn’t answer sufficiently for her. Researcher: I want to address one more issue about Tsipora and Baron. In the twenty-third encounter, you thought you had arrived at a conclusion about this relationship. Lieblich: Yes, in a discussion with Baron about marriage, I pinpointed at least one explanation for this unique arrangement. Throughout Baron ’s conversations she became increasingly negative about marriage and its effect on women. Because of Tsipora ’s illness, Baron was extremely protective of her. There was fear of ridicule, but also a fear that if she married, she would pass her disease on to her children. By characterizing marriage negatively, and men negatively through her stories, she continued to reinforce the downside of married life for a woman. 169 Researcher: So, by characterizing married women in an enslaved role, she was ensuring her daughter would never desire that life? Lieblich: Yes, many of her stories carried those messages, but even as she depicted men in a negative manner, she also continued to build up Tsipora ’s inner strength. She really wanted to teach her daughter how to find peace with oneself, so Tsipora would survive long after Baron’s death. Researcher: You ended this discovery with the characterization of this mother—child relationship as “double madness.” That was an interesting description. Why double madness? Lieblich: Because who is to say their relationship was wrong or unhealthy or damaging? Between the two of them, they carved a life out for each other. Baron carried the vitality and spirit of a great artist; Tsipora was the dutiful caretaker. They each had their role, and they both played them very well. Researcher: I see them as different sides of the same person. Does that sound feasible? - Lieblich: I think it was one reason I did not choose to include Tsipora as a conversational character in the story. Baron was her voice so much of the time. She was the storyteller in the family. Tsipora was the supporting cast. Researcher: Do you think from a biographical composition standpoint that conversational biography must limit characters? Lieblich: I wouldn’t go that far. If you want to tell the story of another, you must keep the conversation with the other. Additional conversations will take you away from your subject. 170 Researcher: So the few small conversations you had with Tsipora were for fictional effect? Lieblich: Most of the time they were logistically necessary. For example, Baron could not come to the door. Baron was incapable of physical exertion. Tsipora acted as the arms and legs for Baron. This was the purpose she served. Researcher: There were also many questions you raised in the biography about women, women artists, and marriage. Lieblich: Yes, these were dominant themes. Researcher: Why was it important for you to write about your feminist philosophy? This was the story of Baron. Weren’t you compromising your intent? Lieblich: But Baron was very much a feminist in her views about women, even though at times she rejected the notion. Why not create conversation about those issues? Through conversation I was not only able to explore her feminist beliefs but also my own. Researcher: I think I understand. You treated this the same as all your other themes. Lieblich: Just as with the themes of isolation and her relationship with Tsipora here you had a very independent and dependent woman at the same time. I wanted to explore both sides of her story. Researcher: I ’ll probably jump around a bit as I ask about Baron’s views of women, artistry, and marriage. Do you mind? Lieblich: Don’t I jump around as well in the biography? 171 Researcher: Yes, lguess you do. Lieblich: Life stories are not always so simple, so chronological. Thematic narrative life story writing is a common method. I structured her story around themes and questions. Researcher: You often characterized Baron ’s views of feminism, artistry, and marriage as somewhat mutuallyexclusive — that one cannot have it all. Do you believe that? Lieblich: I struggled with this in Baron’s story. She oflen characterized women artists as those who shed the demands of traditional womanly roles in order to become creative and to grow. Researcher: Baron brought up the notion of having women friends and being married in your second encounter with her. You had her say: “When I grow up and get married, will I not be allowed to tell stories and laugh with my girifriends?” (Lieblich, 1 99 7, p. 14). Did she see women friendships and marriage as conflicting states? Lieblich: I think she believed marriage was something of a prison; however she had a husband who let her be what she wanted to be. I found that conflict difficult to understand. Researcher: Later you began to explore the content in the stories that Baron wrote. You saw her stories as a reflection of her views. Lieblich: Of course, she had many dominant themes. One was the exploitation of women by men. 172 Researcher: You threw this into the conversation, but it went nowhere. Baron did not always take your lead, did she? Lieblich: There were many times that I kept her silent or had her dismiss my views because they were possibly not the same as hers. Researcher: So you used a fictional response to characterize her point of view. The descriptions you used of “ignoring”, “scoffing”, “laughing at” were all trying to display that Baron in fact was not you; she was her own woman, with her own views. Lieblich: If she had agreed with me all the time that would have made for a boring story. Opposing views are a way to bring versatility in thinking to the forefront. We didn’t always agree, and if we were in the same room today we would have disagreement. That disagreement is necessary in any dialogue. Researcher: In the eleventh encounter you talked about your own experience and the conflict you had with creativity and marriage. It sounds as if you definitely needed both in your life. You were fortunate that your husband assumed the burdens of the household to allow you to write. Lieblich: Yes, I was very fortunate, and I think Baron had a very similar arrangement with her own husband; although I’m not sure she considered herself lucky in that regard. Researcher: Do you continue to feel a void without your husband? Lieblich: Even though my writing benefits from it, yes I do. But Baron never described herself as experiencing a void after her husband’s death. It was and is hard for me to comprehend her marriage. I wasn’t able to understand it 173 through the research or from my fictional conversation with her. She never stated how much she loved him. Researcher: Baron thought you should never sacrifice for a man or a woman, only your children. Good advice? Lieblich: Yes, I do believe that, even though I was tremendously devoted to my husband. A woman’s true sacrifice should be made for her children. Researcher: You talked later in the thirteenth encounter about your heightened sense of creativity and increased writing since your husband’s death. Did you live in the shadow of your marriage? Lieblich: Maybe somewhat. Again, a certain amount of creativity emerges from aloneness. Baron taught me that. But I had a strong identity when l was his wife, and maybe writing became a substitute for that identity. Through writing I could express myself. I was lucky that I could also express myself with my husband. Researcher: So does writing become a means to express identity? Lieblich: It is an expression of self. If you want to call that identity, yes. Researcher: But you also characterized writing or creating as a means of expressing pain. In rephrasing Baron’s words you stated: “The creative expression of pain is first, and that draws others into the sorrow, faceless, nameless others—an anonymous audience. Along with this goes the sense of reviving what has been lost, and then if one’s creation merits attention, that too can help alleviate the pain” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 222). 174 Lieblich: I think of writing as a conduit for expression, whether it’s pain, happiness, or loneliness. All those emotions are part of who “we” are; those are parts of the self. If writing makes those parts come together into a sell: then it truly is an expression of self. Researcher: You talk about it as a type of synthesis. Doesn’t this contradict all our previous discussions on dialogue? Lieblich: I did not say that those parts are not in conflict with each other; they co-exist. Writing acts as a stage and the parts of who you are become the actors. The central theme remains the unanswered questions. A Role for Subjective Biography Researcher: So what is the role of subjective biography? Lieblich: Are you asking for me, or in general terms? Researcher: Do you think it has a place in research? Lieblich: I think the area is relatively untapped. Look at the effect it had on you. Maybe it could be a way to inspire others. Researcher: But I am only one person. What if it doesn’t have the same effect on others? Lieblich: Research is defined in many ways. I prefer not to pigeon-hole my thinking process, nor should you. Researcher: But what about its credibility, its validity to the field? 175 Lieblich: I realize that many will see my writing as unconventional, and others will think of it as self-serving, but you only have to ask yourself: “What did this experience do for you ?” Researcher: I guess it really made me look inside myself, more than I ever ha ve. Lieblich: Then if it is self-serving, what is wrong with that? We all conduct research for different reasons. Some look for answers to those nagging questions about why people do what they do. Others want to serve the common good of man, to uncover reasons and choices. But ultimately it has to be something we care about deeply. It is a personal act, a personal choice. For me, it has to become personal to be meaningful. Whether I’m interviewing those who have faced hardship or those who have dealt with loss, it must touch me in some way; othenrvise the passion to do the research is not there. Without passion, there is no purpose. Researcher: So subjective writing is about the personal, the meaningful aspects of who you are? Lieblich: You yourself were able to transcend Baron’s story to find my own embedded in the narrative. You then followed my transition, my self growth. You studied it until it became part of you. Did my book facilitate your learning? Researcher: Yes, and so much more. It inspired me to write, to find my voice. Lieblich: If reading subjective biography facilitates learning, then so does writing it. This has been about self-growth. That is what you must remember. 176 Researcher: But will it be considered scientific? Lieblich: No, it never will, and it shouldn’t be. For all the theories about self knowledge and growth, no one will ever find the true reasons for how and why a person grows because there is no one true cause and effect. And, although subjectivity will continue to irritate the quantitative minds of research, it still has its place. Researcher: Do you think a biographer is wrong to try to remain as objective as possible? Lieblich: It is their personal choice to do so, but I believe that when they do, they are trying to assume authority over their subject. Researcher So it comes down to issues of power. Lieblich: No, it comes down to issues of choice and preference. I could easily make a case that the biographer assumes power by remaining objective, but again it’s a personal decision. Researcher: But doesn’t subjectivity lend itself to a multi-voiced approach to writing? It seems to me that it would speak to more readers this way. Lieblich: You don’t have to convince me that it could, but I have no proof. Researcher: Could this methodology be taught? Lieblich: Do you mean could teachers use subjective biographical composition within the classroom? Researcher: Yes. Can writing subjective biography promote student self development? 177 Lieblich: The practicality of that may be far-fetched. I would consider it though. Researcher: I’ve enjoyed our time together, Amia. Lieblich: And I you. Researcher: I’m not sure how to end this part of my story, this part of my life. Lieblich: Rather than look at it as an end, why don’t you consider it a beginning? Do you remember the final message of my book? Researcher: “Thanks to these embroideries an eternal spring began to bloom” (Lieblich, 199 7, p. 320). Is that what you mean? Lieblich: Spring is near. Researcher: Yes, I’ve noticed. Lieblich: So it is your spring as well. This isn’t an ending, but a beginning. Learn to love your questions, Polly, and be grateful no one has all the answers. And with that statement she faded away. Hopefully she would return someday. Then again, would I ever need her as I have in the past few months? It was true. Spring was coming, and my life would be changing drastically in the next few months. Would she come to me again, maybe in a memory? And would I recognize her the next time I see her as some other part of me? What made her stay as long as she did? I’m only glad that she was with me because, through all the research and all the reading, diagrams, and theorizing, she has made all the difference to me. For that, I am thankful. Thank you Amia... 178 Chapter 4 Summary Ironically, that Chapter 4 focused on where I originally started this journey — subjective biography. In thinking about what book reviewers said of Lieblich’s work, her methodology and use of subjectivity may in fact be the “new biographers art” (Shaw, 1997). Nevertheless, beyond its uniqueness as a genre, I thought it was important to discuss how it related to the issues of development, dialogism, and imagination. I will not, however, enter into a discussion of subjectivity versus objectivity within this research. That conversation has occurred many times before and will not add value to this study. The first important point of this chapter was that Lieblich very carefully integrated her postmodernist tendencies with the biographical method. To approach this biography any other way, including traditional, would not have paid homage to her biographical subject, Baron. The complexity of a life and the life decisions needed to be displayed for the reader. By dialoging with Baron, the reader was taken on Lieblich’s quest. Developing multiple answers and meanings illustrated the very nature and importance of subjective biography: understanding the whole human being, not one singular perception of a biographer. However, this proclamation teeters on loose footing in regards to the argument of research and biographical integrity. Just as will/has happened with this study, so Lieblich’s work is open to criticism from authorities claiming that it de-centers her biographical subject, thus failing to accomplish what every 179 “good” biography should. So, will experts claim that this study has been self serving and lacks true value and integrity for the academic community? That question deserves debate. The dialogue with Lieblich in this chapter focused first on interjecting the self into the biography. Lieblich used imaginal dialogue with her deceased subject, which allowed for interplay of voices between the two women. A discussion of how and why a biographer chooses her subject followed, with emphasis on empathy and transference as existing phenomena between biographer and biographical character. Lastly, there was in an in-depth analysis of the questions Lieblich used to diagnose Baron’s reclusiveness and relationship with her daughter Tsipora, along with the themes that dominated the biography. The questions served one primary purpose for the biography — to snare and lead the reader on the same quest as Lieblich. The themes of the biography acted as a catalyst for dialogue between the two women. The chapter concluded with a brief discussion about the role of subjective biography in the development of teachers and leaders. The feasibility of using subjective biographical writing may be questionable, but I am convinced that in the right environment, teaching subjective writing may serve as a multi— dimensional mechanism for teaching self development, Ieaming, and teacher/leader responsibility. This chapter exposes some major questions. What makes this method much different from Jung’s active imagination and Progoff’s dialogue joumals? For that matter how did my method differ from Lieblich’s? Second, what is the 180 responsibility of the subjective biographer or researcher? Is it the same as the traditional research scientist, and if so, how are these roles different? How are they the same? Lastly, what was the impact on me personally and my own quest? I remained somewhat tormented (to the point of tears) in this chapter with feelings of my own inadequacy about writing and my uneventful life. Does self growth come with the multiplicity of roles that people play, or could I have grown simply as a result of this dialogue? How did imaginal dialogue inspire me to write, and what made Lieblich’s work the inspiration for me? 181 CHAPTER FIVE: IMPLICATIONS Introduction This chapter focuses on the methodological, theoretical, practical and personal implications of this study on self learning and development through imaginal dialogue. Remaining central is the question of how subjective intent through dialogic writing in imaginal conversation promotes self Ieaming and development. I waited a considerable amount of time before I tackled the implications of my conversation with Lieblich. I experienced somewhat of a personal void when the dialogue concluded. Was this because I longed for her voice again within my life? What purpose did she serve? There were many questions that tormented me about this study. I wanted to understand how my methodology was different than that of Lieblich. I also knew that somewhere within this body of work I needed to uncover the theoretical, practical, and personal ramifications of all this time spent trying to understand the self development of a biographer. I not only had the authorial responsibility, but also felt an obligation to be true to the research... or better yet, I needed to be true to myself. It was at this point that I met with my dissertation committee. After discussing the potential issues with my study, they suggested I continue the dialogic methodology of the study into the last chapter. I found this suggestion to be a relief. I did not want to return to writing about this work in a formal way. I 182 felt that if I did, I would not be able to engage the reader in all possible meanings of what I Ieamed. Therefore, this chapter is presented in a similar imaginal dialogic format as previous chapters. Recorded is a conversation between the researcher and three characters whose imaginal voices represent an advocate, a pessimistic academic, and a skeptical business leader. These voices emerged within myself as I read and re-read the previous chapters; therefore, who better to argue the implications? The methodology, theoretical and practical implications, and the researchers learning and development are all discussed. The Participants The first participant is myself. I feel immense loyalty not only to this topic, but also to Amia Lieblich, both as a real person and as an imaginal partner within the research. It was my intent to paint a picture of her as a true scholar and an adventurous biographer, one who pushed my thinking beyond what I thought possible. But Lieblich is also part of me, who I am; therefore, I must remain true to this part of myself — the confident, guiding, and nurturing “1” within my psyche. My life is much calmer than earlier this year. I have become more content in many ways with who I am and where I am going. And even though I continue to struggle with the ups and downs of a “typical” life I find that I am happier than I have been in years. So I bring to this dialogue these thoughts as well as the determination to insist upon the integrity and meanings of the 183 research, however they may be defined. But as with all personal quests, the doubts remain, and the “other” voices are still present. One of the characters who will participate with me in this discussion is an advocate. I felt that I needed an ally as l dissected the imaginal dialogue with Lieblich. The picture I have of this advocate is female — soft spoken, and plain. She is intrigued with the research and interested in the outcomes. She is protective of research integrity, but at the same time likes to push the envelope of the definition of research. She Is a high school teacher, and a mother, and wants to understand how to embrace and use these ideas in her professional and personal life. The second character of the dialogue is a pessimist male academic professor who is postmodemistic, but remains committed to certain traditional methodologies for qualitative research. He is stern and disheveled, married with two children, and has an extensive and well—published research background. His primary questions with this study are: How does this study demostrate self development and does it qualify as research? He is also interested in whether it could contribute to adult pedagogy. The last character that will participate in the imaginal dialogue is the skeptical business leader. Male, groomed, aggressive, and married with no children, the business leader is skeptical of academic research because it typically lacks “real world” application. He does however read all the latest business leadership literature, and finds himself embracing the p0pular business jargon of the time. He is not interested in the argument about research integrity, 184 but struggles to see how this work can be applied in his professional and personal life. This man is accustomed to being in control and approaches this topic with a “show me” attitude. The Meetin gs This chapter perhaps is the most daunting task I have faced since I began this research. I feel intimidated and apprehensive about these upcoming meetings. My role is both researcher and interviewer. My interviewees represent an advocate, an academic researcher, and a business leader. Their time is precious to them, just as it is with me. I have established a series of meetings with them to discuss the various methodological, theoretical, practical, and personal implications of this study. To reiterate, these “meetings” will be held in my own mind — imaginal, yet inquiring. The Questions There were many questions that emerged in my chapters. Actually I was somewhat surprised to discover the number of potential inquiries that arose from my dialogic exercise with Lieblich, but I cannot possibly deal with all of them. I hope that I will pursue this study further after the dissertation is complete because it continues to captivate my thinking and enthusiasm. But for now, my first task is to determine what is relevant and important enough to examine with my imaginal characters. These questions all have relevance to the overall research question: How does subjective intent through dialogic writing in imaginal conversation 185 promote self Ieaming and development? First, methodology requires debate, simply because subjectivity is proudly used. I use a similar method for explaining and understanding the subject as Lieblich. For Lieblich the subject is Baron. For me it is self development. To ignore the imaginal method and its place in research would do a disservice to this entire piece of work. It facilitates my Ieaming. In turn, I need to address how imaginal interaction propels self development and the awareness of multiple selves. Since the research focuses on development, it is important to discuss how self awareness grows as the imaginal conversation continues. Next, the dialogic fundamentals, both philosophical and practical, deserve debate. With all that is written on dialogue in teaching and leadership, there must be some crossover of this research to the practical world. Last, I would have been neglectful if I didn’t discuss what happened to me as I interacted with Lieblich. My change and growth becomes fundamental to illustrating dialogic writing as a means for self Ieaming and development. The first question involves the methodology used for this study and how it compares to: Lieblich’s process, mainstream qualitative research, Jung’s active imagination, and Ira Progoff’s internal dialogues. Personally, I need to distinguish my work from Lieblich’s, simply because my topic and pursuit were so much different than hers. I also need to have a debate about research with my imaginal colleagues because I continue to have that debate within myself. I believe that I may have carelessly used Active Imagination to describe my method, but clearly see now that it does not completely fit with the description of 186 Active Imagination. Ira Progoff has done extensive work with imaginal-like dialogues, but my method should not be considered a duplication of his work. With all these comparisons, the true implication rests on the question: How does imaginal dialogic writing serve the self Ieaming and development needs of the adult? The theoretical issue that is most prevalent involves the issue of multiplicity and development. If Kegan’s theory lends credence to my study then how does Lieblich co-exist within several levels of development simultaneously? Her development shifts radically throughout the dialogue, especially when addressing the reader. For that matter, so did mine. This leads to thinking about the multiple “I” positions that were discussed earlier. Do individuals demonstrate multiple levels of development simultaneously based on those positions? And if so, teaching students to become self-authoring may be a short-sighted goal. Maybe we should be fostering recognition of the multiplicity of the self in today’s classroom. Multiplicity of the self leads to the question of dialogue and its common use in academic and business circles for compilation of shared meaning. If this shifting between various levels of development is constantly occurring, then how does “shared meaning” happen between people? Bakhtin’s dialogic principles focus on multiple voices without synthesis of common meaning. Popular business and academic literature discusses dialogue as a means for establishing shared meaning. Does it really consider the impact of internal dialogue, the constant movement between “I” positions, and the ability of people 187 to abandon defensive routines? If people cannot understand internal conflict, how can they be expected to practice dialogue within an external setting? Perhaps the practical implications of this study involve using imaginal dialogue for self Ieaming and debating the popular notion of dialogue. Lastly, I must deal with the personal aspects of this study. In actuality this study has permitted me the ability to research myself too. What assumptions did I l have previously, and how has my thinking changed? This brings to bear issues of my own inner battles. How can I continue my journey of self development with the dialectical issues that emerged personally? First Meeting: The Methodology My participants are waiting in a room for me. I chose a classroom in which to have these meetings because hoped to establish somewhat of an “academic” setting — maybe to give them the impression that I truly consider myself an academic researcher. Our first meeting is fixed on the methodology I used in this study, as well as what Lieblich used in her biography, Conversations with Dvora. My palms are sweaty, and I feel just a tinge of nausea as I enter the room. I sit down carefully in a desk that must have been made for a much smaller person. I take out my questions, take a deep breath, and begin. Researcher: I want to thank you all for being here. I know your schedules are tight, so I won ’t ignore our time constraints. To reiterate, you are all here to talk with me about my study. I have questions prepared, but I am also 188 interested in your questions. I trust you have all read the chapters I submitted to you three weeks ago. Have you been able to read them? Advocate: Oh yes! I found this work absolutely fascinating and very creative. I’m interested in how you could have developed such interesting work. Academic: Yes, I’ve read it, but I have many concerns about what you’ve done here. I’m not sure this is feasible or even valuable to the research worid. As a matter of fact, I’m not convinced you have a true dissertation here. Already, I am being challenged. My heart sinks a little as he talks. Leader: Well, I read it, but I’m not really sure why I’m even here. You know how hectic my schedule is, so I need to understand how I can help you. I’m not interested in your academic pursuits. I’m looking for tools I can use for my employees and me. I don’t see much that is value added so far, but I am curious. I pride myself on being able to dialogue with teams and employees on the important things, so proceed. Researcher: We are going to start by discussing various questions I have about the research. Academic: Be careful about labeling this “research” young lady. That remains to be seen. Researcher: Yes, well, Ithink it is, but obviously I need to present my argument for that. And I am interested in your views. That’s why you’re here. Advocate: Well why don’t you just start? I’m anxious to see what you’ve come up with. 189 Researcher: I thought we would begin with a discussion about the methodology used. Academic: Are we talking about the writing, the research method, what? Researcher: Well, all of that. There are three primary comparisons to be made here. The first involves my method versus that of Lieblich. The second looks at my work versus mainstream research, and lastly my method in comparison to Jung & Progoff. Advocate: I had the opportunity to read the Baron biography before this meeting. I loved the style in which Lieblich chose to tell Baron ’3 story. Academic: l skimmed through it briefly, but I didn’t really have the time. I don’t really see how she could call this a biography, per se. Leader: I haven’t read it. It doesn’t look like anything I would read. I’m more interested in business method books, “how to” kinds of things. But I did read your appendix, encounter 19 I think it was. Researcher: Well, I want to clarify what my method involved. And I want to understand how it helped you, the readers, understand self development and growth. Advocate: How did you decide to do it this way? Researcher: I struggled with writing this in typical dissertation fashion. When I read what I had written, I was bored, so I knew my reader would be. It was bogged down with thick and heavy academic jargon. Academic: What‘s wrong with that? You are writing a dissertation. Dissertation work is about demonstrating knowledge, as well as gaining new 190 knowledge. It’s about researching people, debating theory, comparing results, and generalizing. Much of that requires proper writing. Researcher: No offense to you, sir, but that kind of writing reaches such a small audience. I wanted my work to be read by a multitude of academics, as well as business leaders and teachers. I would be excluding much of my desired audience ifl chose to write that way. 1: Leader: I must admit the conversational aspect helped me get through ll the theories you discussed. I still don’t get it, but then what good is it for me to understand all of that? Advocate: How would you describe your method? Researcher: First, I use questions as my foundation... questions about how Lieblich grew as she wrote her biography. When I discover possible explanations, I let her respond to them. Academic: But you just answered yourself. How can this be considered viable? At least- Lieblich had completed the necessary research on Baron ’5 life to answer her questions. Because she is a credible and known researcher, I trust that she uses Baron ’s history and her interviews as the source of Bamn’s responses. You didn’t even do that. Researcher: But I did do the research. Iresearched biography, self development theories, imagination, dialogic theory, and conversational writing. All of this information was debated with Lieblich. How is this different than what she did? 191 Advocate: I guess the question is what new knowledge emerged by your method versus Lieblich’s? Researcher: The multitude of meanings in her work as well as the multiple possibilities for self growth and dialogue... Academic: What’ does that mean? Leader: Yes, what possibly does that mean? You’re speaking over my head already. Researcher: Ifl had done simply a hermeneutic analysis of this text I may not have taken the time to look at things through her eyes. What was she feeling when she asked certain questions and got different answers than she expected? I had to ask her, and she then gave me various answers. Academic: But you answered the questions for her. She was not present in this study. You played you, and you played her. Researcher: But did I not allow her to give a multitude of possible answers? Ifl simply assumed a singular answer, or even took her answer through an interview, would I have been able to exhaust all the possible explanations for her actions? The way I told this, wrote this, allowed for her to respond in multiplicity. I did not speak from a position of authority, all knowing, assuming power over her voice. She on the other hand did allow her subject, Baron to speak from an authoritative position in many cases, which placed Baron at the center of her biography. This is one way my work differed from hers. Academic: But I still don’t understand how it helped us learn about Lieblich’s self growth. 192 I' Advocate: Let me see ifl can help here. I, as the reader, Ieamed from your work that your topics of self development, imaginal dialogue, and subjective biography are not easy topics for discussion. I didn’t understand them very well when I started reading your work. But I did gain an understanding of the principles and how those principles can be applied to biography, especially Lieblich’s work. Now as far as how your work is different, you obviously have not matured enough to write the way Lieblich has. She has mastered the art of good narrative, and I sense you are still struggling with this. Lieblich wanted her readers to know Baron and the contradictions in her life. You wanted us to know the theory and all the contradictions it presents. Your work will not have the richness of character because you aren’t discussing a character, a life. You also are not looking at Lieblich from a similar vantage point. Lieblich appears often to be holding Baron’s life story as a mirror to her own life. The biographical nature of her work clearly separates your work from hers. You didn’t use Lieblich ’3 character biographical/y, but rather as an argumentative partner, one who would challenge your views and research conclusions. I see nothing wrong with what you did. It was just different than hers. Academic: Aren’t you being a little too easy on her? You must remember that she simply argued the theory. She called it Lieblich, but it could have been some other person within her own mind. That’s much different than what Lieblich did. Lieblich didn’t argue Baron with Baron. She simply tried to let Baron tell her life story. Now, I’m not crazy about how she did it because I kept trying to understand Baron, and there was Lieblich, all too present in the text. 193 Leader: I’m not so sure I am following any of you here. Did this Lieblich know that she could be compromising her intent of telling Baron’s story? Researcher: She stated emphatically that she did it in pursuit of the answer to the question about the author’s reclusive life. She discovered that there wasn’t one answer for Baron’s behavior, but many. Leader: So, did you yield the same results? Researcher: What do you mean? Leader: I deal in simple facts. Didn’t you learn the same thing — that there is not just one explanation for people growing and learning? I certainly learned from reading your paper that theory can sometimes be just that -- theory. I mean how can anybody really understand how people develop? There are enough theories out there, and not one of them ever makes sense to me. I did Ieam through reading this that I ’m not the idiot I thought I was. You’re just as confused as the rest of us. So what if one theory, this Kegan’s work, maps somewhat cleanly to Lieblich’s growth? Someone could easily take another one and probably do the same thing. Your work allowed me to see the complexity, and also understand and see the complexity through your eyes. Advocate: That’s very true. Lieblich ’s work was much more straightforward. The reader never loses sight of who Baron is. But your work illustrates the complexity of self development theory and other possibilities. I would say too that your work keeps the roles — yours and Lieblich ’s — very clear. But when reading Lieblich’s biography, many times I saw a blending of roles, to the point that I was unsure who was talking sometimes. 194 Leader: What do you think you did for the reader? Researcher: I wanted him/her to go on this trip with me. In other words, I felt that I was learning through dialogue. By engaging the reader in this conversation, I hoped that he or she would also become engaged in my inquiry. Lieblich did somewhat the same thing. She snagged the reader much better than I do I’m sure. Academic: But, I think her quest becomes disappointing for the reader. Because in the end, he or she learns there is no gn_e_ explanation. I think your work does the same thing. I found myself disappointed that I couldn’t use your conclusions because you really don’t conclude anything. Researcher: But then I would be assuming that there is one explanation for Lieblich’s growth, or I would be giving you some diagram for how this person grew. Is that what you want? Do you think readers always want that? Leader: That’s what I’m looking for. Give me the roadmap so I can get there too. Researcher: But the dialogue is only a teaser. I want to tease you along, but I don’t believe I can give you a roadmap. You have to find that for yourself. Academic: I still think that you are taking a great risk here. By dealing with this from a multi-voiced viewpoint, you never commit to any one explanation, nor do you really prove anything. Researcher: You sound very positivist in your viewpoint. I thought that from your background in qualitative research, you would see this as a way to open the door on the various differences in research technique. 195 Academic: Positivis t?! Ijust believe that your research doesn’t present itself with true tension. Now if you had interviewed Lieblich and used her interview as a means to explore her own learning then I would see more validity in your process. Researcher: But if! had interviewed her, I wouldn’t have been able to explore my interpretation of her growth. Her words would have taken precedence over my own thinking. I could have disagreed with her openly, but the reader would have believed her over me. Academic: But you are supposedly exploring her growth, not your thinking. Advocate: I disagree. If she had actually interviewed Lieblich, this study would be drastically different. Look, I’m concerned about the integrity and justification for her method as well, but the result is a reader‘s perspective, not an interviewer’s perspective. This paper is about Polly’s relationship with the biographer as well as Lieblich ’5 learning. That’s what makes it unique. When reading a typical biography written from an objective viewpoint, the reader may or may not be as engaged. I don’t think we can ignore the fact that readers interpret in multiple ways. She just pushes the envelope on the multitude of meanings from these interpretations. Academic: But I still get back to the point that research should contribute the common good, to society’s understanding of itself. 196 Researcher: It sounds like you are a purist in regards to research. But, I’m still wondering how you can claim this is not research if the subject is the self and the multitude of issues that emerge when a reader explores a text. Academic: How can you research the self and present it as contributing to understanding people’s behaviors and relationships? You don ’t dare generalize and your validity will always be in question. Researcher: But, if! am to be present in the research, why not capitalize on it and explore the self in relationships? That’s the tension — the self in relationship to Lieblich, to her work, to the theories, to the practical issues that affect all of us. I started this research looking for the tensions, between Lieblich ’s work and other biographers, but in the end it didn’t matter what other biographers did. If! had set this up as a comparative case study I would have concentrated on the differences and similarities between the works, not what one work did for me. I think it’s important, too, to recognize that subjective intent, which is purposefully played out in Lieblich ’s work, pushed the envelope on the notion of subjectivity in this study as well by inserting the self into research just as Lieblich did in biography. Academic: But it may have been more powefulr and made your work more credible to social scientists like me if you had taken a more mainstream approach. Advocate: How do you define credibility and power here? I really found that this study launched me into several directions in my thinking. Isn’t that what you ultimately try to do for your readership and community? As a teacher, I’m 197 always looking for different ways to approach my work. I must admit I often have “imaginal” conversations with myself on what the right thing is to do, to say. I see here a vivid demonstration of a reader’s dialogue with an author. You can argue the research integrity of this study forever, but you can’t discount the reader. Her work may be totally disregarded in academic circles, but if it prompts one person, a person like me, to think about my dialogues and myself in a new way, then it has significance. Leader: I don’t have a nickel in this conversation because my role isn’t to protect academic integrity and research, but I agree with her. Now, I’m not saying that I have been “touched” by this work, but it did make me think about how many times I see things differently than my employees. And it did yield many questions for me. Isn’t one of your so-called goals of research to push thinking that may lead to more research? Academic: Definitely. By studying individuals and groups, we often find issues that deserve further attention. Leader: Then how can you not consider this research? If it leads others to think differently or maybe even have one of these imaginal conversations, then I think it has merit. As I’m listening to this debate amongst my colleagues, I can’t help but think there will never be a clear—cut conclusion about this study as research. I feel intense conflict, and it leads me to doubts about justifying this study to my peers and committee. 198 Advocate: Polly, what leads you to believe you have justification for your approach ? Researcher: Well, I’ve read a great deal on the different types of qualitative research. But the person I’ve turned to for this subject is Jerome Bruner. Bruner defines a qualitative researcher as one who “is not an objective, authoritative, politically neutral observer standing outside and above the text” (Bruner, 1993, p. 1). He goes on to state that meaning is “radically plural, always I open, and... there is politics in every account” (Bruner, 1993, p. 1). All of these issues emerge in my text. I certainly do not place my knowledge above anyone else ’3. And, like Lieblich, I announce the subjectivity of my study from the beginning. If this study concentrates on the multiplicity of meaning, then a traditional approach may have compromised the intent; therefore, I would have had a contradiction between method and findings. Advocate: This reminds me of an article by Lincoln & Denzin I read on the future of qualitative studies. In the article, the authors talk about representation as a “crisis” within qualitative research. Academic: A crisis? Advocate: Well, the problem involves how we represent the “other” in our studies. I’m quoting here: “the point is that both the Other and more mainstream social scientists recognize that there is no such thing as unadulterated truth” (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p. 577). This seems to hint that, regardless of approach, there is no singularity of truth, but multiple voices. This is similar to the multiplicity of meanings you’ve addressed here. 199 Academic: I agree that there is no unadulterated truth, but how can research involve representing the other when the other is yourself and an imaginal character? Researcher: But if new meanings or knowledge emerge from this co— construction, then what difference does it make? Advocate: Exactly. I could make a case that this study reflects a blurring of those formal boundaries in hopes of telling the reader something new. Academic: But it makes the research messy. Proudly announcing subjectivity and purposefully playing with it in research is troublesome. Leader: In my world, messy is normal. From chaos we learn new things all the time. Confrontations with employees, for example, are sometimes difficult. There are multiple ways of dealing with any situation. I’m paid to make decisions that are many times “messy.” So why can ’I research reflect real life? Part of what really initates me about academic research is its relevance to everyday life and my world. That is why business literature appeals to me — because at least it’s most often written by a practitioner like myself, someone who has experiences and problems just like me. When I read it I find things that I identify and disagree with, but that’s okay. I accept those differences. Academic: I don’t see us coming to agreement on this issue, but your points are interesting. Advocate: What other issues do you have with your method? Researcher: Well, I originally used Active Imagination to describe my method in the beginning. I’m not sure about that comparison anymore. 200 Advocate: Can you explain why? Researcher: Jung’s concept of Active Imagination is built upon the ability to picture images and attribute parts of the self to those images. Leader: But you said that you began with an image of Lieblich. Researcher: Yes, but Lieblich is a real person that l have actually met. Active Imagination involves an image that is more symbolic in nature, an archetype, an entity. It is the conscious mind meeting the unconscious mind. Leader: You’re losing me again. What is an archetype? Researcher: An archetype typically represents a symbol of our unconscious mind. Johnson clarifies “the archetypes are often represented by the unconscious in images that are divine, royal, magical, or mystical” (Johnson, 1986, p. 35). For instance, an archetype could be a universal heroine like Joan of Arc or Mothers of Mothers. I Leader: But you often refer to Lieblich as a mentor or teacher. I also got the sense that she was a confidant, someone you turned to for understanding your own ideas about development and dialogue. How is this different than Jung’s concepts? Advocate: Polly, do you feel that Lieblich represented a larger image for you then just a dialogic partner or biographer? Researcher: I think in the beginning she was just that — a biographer I wanted to understand. I didn’t begin with a symbolic image. But she eventually transformed into an image as we discussed her growth and biography. I began to see her as someone I could finally talk to about my research. I had never 201 really had an opportunity to “talk" about it. I also recognize that by the end of our encounters, she became to be another part of me, one who is more patient, confident, and seemingly intellectual. This is a part of me I somehow had lost touch with. Advocate: So, even though you did not start out with imagery for the purpose of inner dialogue, you somehow arrived at that point through the process of writing ? Researcher: I guess I did. I hadn’t thought of it that way. Leader: Is it possible that you have just discovered a different approach to Active Imagination? For instance, if! begin to have an internal dialogue with a person, someone for whom I have admiration, like Peter Senge, he may start out as one to ask questions, but then begins to shift to the other parts of me, the unconscious parts. Researcher: I guess that is possible, but then your internal dialogues may take on an entirely different nature. Academic: Let’s approach this a different way. I see your method as a simple visualization technique, looking for answers to your prescribed questions. You scripted this somewhat, didn’t you? Researcher: There was a script of sorts. Advocate: Describe it. Researcher: I had all my questions written out and an order to follow. Advocate: Well, Johnson clearly states that, in Active Imagination, the “unconscious is not something to be manipulated to suit the purposes of the 202 conscious mind, but an equal partner to engage in dialogue that leads to a fuller maturity” (Johnson, 1986, p. 15). It sounds like you initially manipulate, but then possibly reach a dialogue stage in which Lieblich does become more of a partner, more of your unconscious, acting independently from your script. Researcher That could explain why the dialogue has a tendency to drift. It also could explain my relationship to the reader. I didn’t intend nor script any topic or question that would involve a third other. Academic: What did the reader represent? Researcher: I’m not sure. I seem to be seeking consolation much of the time I’m talking to the reader, but it’s a one-wa y dialogue. The reader doesn’t respond. Leader: Your reader is me, or whomever is reading your work. Academic: Well, I think it is safe to say that what you have here is not what Jung intended with Active Imagination. It may have similar components at times, but really is not representative of the method used. Besides, Jung believed in the process of individuation, which uses Active Imagination as a way for integrating the parts of the self (Johnson, 1986). I don’t think you advocate integration, but rather simple understanding. I see his method as very applicable within psychological therapy, but not in this vein. Researcher: That’s true. Jung concentrated his work on the self confronting all the unconscious parts for the purpose of becoming a more “complete” human being (Johnson, 1986). I find this conflicts with creating the dialogic self, one who deals constantly with the centrifugal and centripetal forces. 203 The difference here rests primarily on unification versus recognizing the multiple parts of the self that co-exist (Bakhtin, 1981). Advocate: These are good points. You also mentioned Ira Progoff’s work. I’m much more familiar with him because he takes a less psychological approach and emphasizes more of the spirituality of knowing the self. I’ve always wanted to participate in one of his journal workshops. Researcher: Progoff’s work has the greatest similarity to what I’ve done here in comparison to Lieblich and Jung. Advocate: In what way? Researcher: Progoff uses his Intensive Journal Method as a means for people to journal about their own lives. He established a framework that consists of daily events, life history, dialogue with persons, events, inner wisdom, and dreams. His method allows us to play back our life and learn from our memories and reflections (Progoff, 1983). Academic: Not to take us backward here, but are you thinking that journal writing is research ? Because if you are, you are definitely crossing the boundanes. Researcher: No, I’m not saying that. Journal writing has its place for self discovery. What I did here is use a methodology similar to Progoff’s dialogue with persons. Advocate: There is a slight difference in your method than Progoff’s. To quote Progoff: “The primary criterion as to the persons whom we choose for our dialogue exercises is that they be individuals whose existence, as well as 204 actions, has an important bearing on our life as we experience it from an interior point of vieW’ (Progoff, 1975, p. 161). Leader: How does this make Polly’s method different? Lieblich obviously was important to Polly. Advocate: But Amia Lieblich personally had little importance on Polly’s inner life. She was simply serving as a character with which to interact. Researcher: I disagree. She was the biographer whom I wanted to know, to understand, to discover how she learned. Somehow I felt that by understanding her learning and growth, I might learn how others develop. Academic: But you approached her from a theoretical and practical perspective. You didn’t really want to know her, or how you perceived her. Leader: Yet she did get to know her from a biographer standpoint. And how do we really know that Polly didn’t intend to know Lieblich ? She had met her, and maybe she regretted not having more time with her. Advocate: Progoff emphasizes those persons with whom we engage in dialogue have an “inner importance.” “That person to whom we meet externally represents to us something that is still to come to fruition within ourselves. Therefore, he or she awakens intimations of greater meaning in our life and we are drawn to them” (Progoff, 1975, p. 162). Now that I think about it, maybe Lieblich really did have internal significance for you. Researcher: Are you suggesting I want to become like Lieblich ? 205 Advocate: You often reflect in your dialogue with her that she is such a gifted writer and that you do not have the capability to write narrative like she does. Researcher: Yes, but how does this matter? Advocate: Lieblich, or the writer Lieblich, is who you would like to be, isn’t it? e Researcher: I wish I had her writing life. Advocate: Exactly. Progoff’s dialogue exercises allow individuals to interact with parts of the self that have potential (Progoff, 1975). Maybe that’s E why this book became such a draw for you. You found a type of writing that touched you, and that you could simulate. Dialoging with Lieblich allows you to explore your own inner potential. Researcher: I’ve never thought about it like that. You must admit though, the method still is slightly different. Progoff’s dialogue work begins with the person primarily, then with events or inner wisdom. This study began with the research questions, grounded in self development and dialogic theory. Didn’t Lieblich just serve as a persona? She could have been anyone, a friend, a relative, a colleague. Advocate: No, I disagree. Granted, you did start out with theory and research questions, but you chose her, the biographer, with whom to have the conversation. That is significant, especially considering how drawn you were to this book. She touched something deep within you. Maybe it was her gift. Maybe it was her growth. Maybe it was just who she was within Baron’s story. 206 Therefore, I would maintain that you specifically choose her as your subject and that your dialogue is very similar to Progofi"s. Leader: I agree with this. Now I’m not into the jouma! thing — takes too much time, plus you have to be fairly committed. But Progoffs work does sound very similar to your method. Academic: Aren’t you all forgetting that some believe Progoff has just used another form of Jung’s Active Imagination (Goodwin, 2001)? I’m not sure what he did is so different. Advocate: I think you’re confusing results with technique. Progoff’s techniques involve Jungian steps — the clearing of the mind, the seeking of solitude, etc. — but the results are much different. Progoff does begin with a specific person in many cases (Goodwin, 2001). Academic: He also begins with inner wisdom, and that inner wisdom may carry a specific image, such as a Jungian archetype. Leader: Sounds to me like this Progoff just commercialized Jung’s Active Imagination. Previously, it appeared to be hidden within psychological circles as a therapeutic technique. He took it, re-packaged it, and made it sound more practical for peOple like me. Now people attend journal workshops, and someone makes some money. Advocate: You make it sound like simply a cash business. What about what it does for others? Leader: Yeah, yeah... I know, but in the end, that's what it boils down to. 207 Researcher: I think you are still forgetting the overall benefits of the method. I took a question, explored the theory, and in the and expanded my thinking and hopefully others’ thinking, simply by having this imaginal conversation. That’s got to account for something, mean something. Advocate: Look at what it’s done just in this meeting. We have been able to use your work for simple conversation on methodology. We could argue the researchable aspects of this paper for days, and maybe we will never solve that argument. But look at what you’ve stirred in us and our thinking. It’s like what Lieblich did for you, and what Baron did for her. That is what the reader gains in the end. Your relationship with the biographer really becomes the focal point of your study. Leader: So what’s the output here? Researcher: What do you mean? Leader: What does it all mean? Academic: That’s true. You’ve been taught to always look for the “so what,” haven’t you? Researcher: Yes, I guess I have. In the end it boils down to that. Advocate: So what is the “so what”? Researcher: Well, in the beginning I was curious about purposefully using subjective intent or inserting the self in biography. I mentioned in my research that Carl Pletsch talks about intentionally inserting the self into biography and yielding “a new form of biography’ (Pletsch, 1985). But now through all of this, I believe the same holds true for research. Why can’t purposeful subjectivity yield 208 a new kind of research — that which explores the self? Pletsch states that: “Biograph y is the perfect enterprise in which to transcend that idea! [writers standing out of the way to let the forces between reader and subject play out] and show the value of assimilating subjectivity in a larger conception of knowledge” (Pletsch, 1985, p. 360). If we are truly committed to expanding our knowledge, we must open the door to all kinds of new approaches to research and writing. Advocate: Are you advocating that others use your approach? Academic: This worries me. What about issues of generalization to larger populations? Advocate: If self exploration is the goal, you can’t apply generalization. This must rest on its own. Now I think it’s possible that the method itself can be generalized, advocating others to explore the self through imaginal dialogic writing. I think that is the key. We all have had those little conversations with ourselves before. By writing it dialogical/y, Polly makes those conversations known to others. Through that, readers have the means to construct their own meaning. If we are committed to research as a way to Ieam and advance, meaning making is part of that growth. Leader: Are you saying that the implications of this work simply rest on advocating a method of dialogic writing in research ? Researcher: I believe that we have become stagnant in what we call “acceptable” research. My true intent here was to challenge that notion of acceptable. l was lucky enough to have mentors who were just as interested as 209 l was in pushing research to the edge. If we are truly interested in new forms of knowledge, we will start to accept those “on-the-edge” approaches to study. For me, exploring Lieblich’s self growth subjectively yielded an increased understanding of me as well as theoretical implications of self development. Some may challenge that the knowledge is not new, but it was new to me... maybe it will also be for someone else. With that, I told them I would see them next week. My mind was reeling from all the discussion on methodology, and its similarities to Jung, Lieblich, Progoff. And I’m still not comfortable with how the discussion on research turned out. On the way home, I kept playing back the conversation over and over, trying to understand its movement. The primary intent was to discuss my method in comparison to Lieblich, Jung, and Progoff, but the debate as to “what is research?” soon dominated the discussion. Perhaps that is typical with this type of study. I realize that my dialogic characters are representative of those I will face on the outside, and although I haven’t solved this inner dilemma, I feel better equipped to defend it. The overall implication of this methodology is it can be a “door” between real and imaginal in exploring the self and self in relation to others. Will academia accept this method of research and imaginal exploration? Perhaps what keeps this work credible is its grounding in theory. From a research standpoint, there must be some kind of commitment to the text. Most likely this study will not gain any surmounting or overwhelming support, but the hope is that it at least challenges current conservative thinking, even within a postmodern world. 210 In comparing my method to Lieblich’s, Jung’s Active Imagination, and Progoff’s dialogues with persons, it was clear it was different on some planes, similar on others. The real difference from Lieblich’s work rests on its biographical nature. She clearly focuses first on Baron’s life story, which causes her to draw comparisons to her own life. My own work seldom compared my life to hers. I often express a desire to have her gift of writing or “life history,” but they not held as a mirror for my own life story; therefore my work is not biographicaI-autobiographical. With regard to Jung’s Active Imagination, my method did not use the “imagery factor” Jung requires. Although Lieblich’s character later emerges in my unconscious, I can’t say that I ever gave it a true symbolic form. In addition my tendency to “script” the dialogue would also separate it from Jung’s methodology. In comparison to Progoff, I would say that my work is closest to his style of tapping into the unconscious desires. Lieblich’s character helps me understand the inner conflicts about my identity from an academic and personal perspective. Ultimately her character allows me to understand my potential. The dialogue method provides me with the opportunity to get to know myself through her. Second Meeting: Self Development Implications There is only a week between our first and second meetings — hopefully keeping the study fresh in everyone’s minds. I needed time to prepare for this 211 next session, which I believed would be the most complicated of the three. The question at hand debates the notion of simultaneous development, in which persons demonstrate multiple levels of development at the same time. If persons consist of multiple “I” positions — some conscious, some unconscious — then it is conceivable that each one of these positions could be at a different level of development. But if this is true, then how do we measure or acknowledge that the self has grown or developed? And even more important, how do adults Ieam about the multiplicity of the self and understand the inner centrifugal and centripetal forces, reaching Kegan’s fifth order consciousness? With all these complex questions swimming in my head, I decided to just dive in with my group discussion — to see where it leads. Researcher: I wanted to thank you all again for our discussion at the last meeting. It really opened my eyes to some of the implications of using dialogic writing for self discovery. Today I would like to focus on the theoretical part of this study -—- understanding how the self develops. Leader: You’re probably going to lose me in this discussion. I re—read your Chapter Two just so I could understand how you traced Lieblich’s development, but still I am very confused as to the theoretical implications. Advocate: I also have concerns about becoming lost in the discussion. I have the desire to learn how to apply this to my teaching. I often become extremely confused when I read about the “best” way to teach. Some advocate self directed learning; others call it facilitated learning (Merriam & Caffarella, 199 1; Brookfield, 1986). Either way, I struggle with teaching conflict or facilitating 212 conflict in the classroom. When I read Jane Tompkin’s book, A Life in School it made me feel a little better about opening the door. One of my favorite quotes from that book is: “Learning to deal with our own suffering is the beginning of wisdom” (Tompkins, 1996, p. 221). I think she believes that we have an enormous untapped resource for learning out there: our students — their memories, experiences, imaginations. Academic: I think you have to assume that fostering conflict is not your only role. You also have a responsibility to share what you know — to broaden the student’s knowledge. Researcher: These are all good thoughts. I want to get to the implications as well, but first what do you think of mapping Kegan’s developmental levels to Lieblich ’s biography? Advocate: In most cases, I understand your comparisons. For example, when you and Lieblich talk about her desire to disappear in Baron’s life, I definitely see Lieblich as being defined by the other. Further on, you move to self authoring and document all of Lieblich’s attempts to separate herself from Baron. That could easily be described as her desire to remain her own person. But where I become confused is your mapping to the fifth stage — what happened here? Academic: Yes, I sensed you were slightly confused in this section. Kegan’s fifth order consciousness — a self that invites conflict is difficult to understand. 213 Researcher: I honestly believed at the time that Lieblich had moved from being defined by Baron, to self definition, to finally inviting contradictions for purposes of learning. I believe this transition represents self growth. Leader Why would a person choose to do this consciously? My job is to resolve conflict, not maintain it. Researcher: But how can differences ever be resolved if you assume people are at different levels of development? For that matter, what if people represent multiple levels of growth simultaneously and different parts of the self become more dominant based on different situations? Leader: This is too deep for me. Advocate: Let’s take that question apart. Let’s first deal with multiplicity. Do you think your work illustrates that Lieblich is at multiple stages at the same time? Researcher: Not exactly at the same time, but within the same context — as the dialogue moved, so did her position within it. One minute she was defined by Baron, the next she was struggling for her independence, fighting for her own beliefs. What exactly happened here? Academic: I take it you don’t believe in a unified self? Leader: What’s that? Academic: Some define a unified self as somewhat of an adult development goal, to synthesize all the parts (McAdams, 1990). Some developmental theorists believe that, throughout our lives, we strive for unity (Johnson, 1986; McAdams, 1990; Erikson, 1950/1993). It’s like a jigsaw puzzle. 214 As we age, we gain more pieces of the puzzle. We take in all of life’s events, and each event adds another piece to how we make sense or meaning of our life. In our elderly years we reach a point where much of the puzzle has come together or we at least understand or see the pieces that are still missing. Leader: Well, I could buy that. I mean I can see that in myself. At 18, I certainly was not able to understand many of life’s contradictions. But as l have aged, things have become much clearer. I haven ’t solved a lot of the issues, but I have greater understanding. Researcher: I think that age progression theories of development assume that the events of people are the same or that people age the same way. That’s why I didn’t use those for mapping to Lieblich. She wrote her biography at a particular point in time within her life. I couldn’t use linear progression, or growth from her life events. I treated her as if she was in a singular situation. Advocate: If that’s true, then what do you make of this issue of multiplicity? Researcher: I’ve spent so much time this week pouring over developmental material — especially Kegan’s work, but even more than his material, Hermans’ and Kempen’s The Dialggical Self. They are clear to delineate that the self is made up of multiple “I” positions (Hermans & Kempen, 1993). Advocate: I recall your discussion with Lieblich on this issue. Do you think that her biography illustrated this shifting? 215 Researcher: I could easily argue that Lieblich’s multiplicity of self, her different “I” positions, shifted throughout the book, especially if you consider Baron as one of those “I” positions. Academic: You can’t consider Baron one of those. She was obviously a separate entity. Researcher: Even though Lieblich incorporated Baron’s life story and researched beliefs into the biography, she also gave Baron her voice. I can’t help but believe that at times when Baron was speaking so was Lieblich. Advocate: So, this “I” position stance says that we are never at a single level of development, and that as these positions shift, so does our level of development. When Lieblich accepted that there was no single explanation for Baron’s choices, her meaning making or thinking shifted. Academic: I’m struggling with this. Leader: You’re not the only one. Researcher: Let’s assume that there is a dominant “I” in everyone ’3 personality. Some people have a dominant self that is defined by others. Others have a dominant “I” that is self authoring or autonomous. What happens when those two people come together? Advocate: It’s very possible that the first person would suspend his/her thinking and allow the second person to define them. Researcher: Or would they simply incorporate the other’s “I” position? Leader: Actually, I see the former happening all the time, where one employee allows another to manipulate them into certain actions or thinking. 216 Researcher: Now take these two people and make them one person. Let’s say that we begin with a dominant “I ” being defined by the other. Yet in the subconscious, a second “I” exists that is more self authoring. Couldn’t a particular situation cause the subconscious “I” to emerge and become dominant? And then, couldn’t another situation cause a reversal? Advocate: That would imply that people exist at multiple levels simultaneously — perhaps not simultaneously but in a very back-and-forth manner. Academic: I find it hard to believe that people would constantly shift dominant “I” positions. Researcher: Isn’t that exactly what happened to Lieblich ? She was at one moment confident, self authoring, and the next moment she allowed herself to be defined by Baron. As the dialogue shifted so did her “I” positions. Academic: This would make self development one giant moving target. How would you ever know whether or not someone has grown? Kegan talks about adults striving to be self authoring (Kegan, 1994). Baxter Magolda discusses a similar area, advising teachers to foster students to become self- authoring (Baxter Magolda, 1999). These experts assume a singular level of development toward which we should be pushing ourselves and our students. Advocate: Baxter Magolda focuses on a teaching environment based on constructive-developmental pedagogy — in which teachers place students at the center of the learning process, inviting conflict as a way to mutually construct meaning. She reiterates Kegan’s beliefs with this methodology, stressing that 217 society requires adults to be self-authoring. Our role as teachers is to create an environment in which they see other perspectives and also become comfortable with their own (Baxter Magolda, 1999). Leader: How would you do that? Advocate: Conflict in the classroom allows students to work toward understanding the multiplicity of voices, which is basically Bahktin’s dialogic philosophy. Leader: If you allow all this conflict, how do students ever learn? Advocate: When other students hear views and ideas different from their own, they play out those differences within their own minds. In the adult world, they will encounter all kinds of diversity issues. By teaching them to discuss these differences openly, they will have a tool for real life. They will see that it is okay to have individual opinions, their own perspectives. This moves them from being defined by others to being more self-authoring (Baxter Magolda, 1999). Leader: If you always have this conflict, how do you ever solve anything? I couldn’t have this within the work environment. We’d never finish or resolve any of our problems. Advocate: Because you never allow the differences to emerge in your problem resolution process, you never expose all the different ideas your employees might ha ve. Kegan believes that people need to move toward more self-authoring because being defined by others prevents them from discussing their own ideas (Kegan, 1994). We need adults who can think for themselves. 218 Leader: I can’t have my employees going on and on about their differences or different ideas all the time. I’d have chaos. Someone has to make the decisions. Advocate: I don’t understand your worid anymore than you understand mine. But I think that if you allowed them to have these conversations once in a while, you may find them becoming more comfortable with their own individual perspectives. You may uncover new ideas from these people that you yourself could use. Academic: You are all off track. I’m still stuck on the ideas of multiple levels of development in a single context. I need to go back to that. Researcher: Yes, let’s go back to talk about this more. Can you help me clarify the fifth order? Academic: Kegan’s work is complex. I was surprised you used it. Can you tell me why? Researcher: As I stated earlier, I looked originally at more linear theories, such as McAdams’ narrative progression, Levinson’s age model, and Erickson ’s stages. These were all viable, but Lieblich was in a single context of time and space. I couldn’t trace her development using these models. Academic: You could have traced Baron’s life using one of these. Researcher: But Baron ’3 life was so evident—too obvious. Lieblich’s development was much more intriguing, maybe because it was so buried within the biography. Kegan’s work almost spoke to me when I read it. I easily related 219 it to Lieblich’s dialogue, especially when she shifted back-and-forth between being defined by Baron to defining herself. Academic: So what about the fifth stage? Researcher: Well, I think that Lieblich demonstrated filth stage of development throughout the biography. Advocate: You didn’t say this in your conversation with her. Researcher: Think about it. Kegan states: “Those who long for more fifth order consciousness — for the recognition of our multiple selves, for the capacity to see conflict as a signal of our overidentification with a single system, for the sense of our relationships and connections as prior to and constitutive of the individual self, for an identification with the transformative process of our being rather than the formative products of our becoming—let them take heart” (Kegan, 1994, p. 351). Academic: What does this mean to you? Researcher: It means that the fifth order is about seeing all the different “I” positions within yourself and inviting the conflict those positions bring. Lieblich did that from the start of her biography, whether it was a conscious act or not. Just the fact that she was able to write this demonstrates a fifth order consciousness. Leader: What about all those times she felt trapped by her imaginary conversation? You used the passage in the nineteenth encounter to show how she was losing herself: “I left the house with hurried steps, as if escaping from some trap that had nearly swallowed me whole” (Lieblich, 1997, p. 237). Now 220 that sounded like a woman who had lost sight of herself. .. she felt that Baron ’8 world was taking over. Advocate: l’m siding with him on this one. Lieblich was far from seeing reality here... she was losing herself. Researcher: But she was in the act of leaving, escaping... wasn’t she just trying to exert her own self here as I challenged earlier? Academic: She may actually have moved from filth order consciousness to self authoring. Researcher: What? Academic: Throughout that particular chapter she carried on one of the more integrated conversations with Dvora. She clearly dealt with herself and with Baron at multiple levels. Possibly her imaginal method took her into fifth order and the resulting conflicts made her jump back, not fonrvard. Researcher: But then you ’re making a case for the ability of the self to move back-and-forth within the levels of development. Academic: / suppose I am, but I’m not yet sure that’s what we have here. I am worried about many of our studies today that attempt to measure growth in adults. I struggle with the implications. Ifl understand this correctly, the “meaning making” advances as the “I” positions shift back and forth. Advocate: You know, through all of this we haven’t yet touched on the imaginal aspect. Does the use of imagination allow us to see the multiplicity of development? 221 Researcher: Watkins states: “When we allow characters to speak, to be known apart from the self, then a depth and specificity of characterization can develop” (Watkins, 2000, p. 113). I take this to mean that the more we let the other parts of ourselves grow, the closer we get to a fifth order level of consciousness. Advocate: So she associates this imaginal capability as the means to understand the multiplicity of the self? Leader That advocates we should have these imaginal conversations in order to grow. I can just see it now... in my group meeting we are all going to be talking to ourselves. Researcher: Why not? If adults grow by knowing themselves and the multiple parts of who they are, why shouldn’t that be your role as leader? Leader: Because in the end my job is not to foster growth, but to get the job done. Advocate: Maybe that’s the problem with many of our businesses today: they don’t nurture or espouse employee growth. Can you imagine how different society would be if companies accepted the same mission as our educational institutions — to develop employees like we do students? Leader: Even educational institutions do not take this on —— they spew knowledge in hopes that students will learn. Why do you think people in the workforce are not capable of being creative and solving problems (Apps, 1988; Jones, 1996)? It’s because education has not accepted this mission anymore 222 than corporate America. I want to understand, believe me, but I fail to understand how this is practical. Researcher: Ifl take a look at Hermans’ and Kempen’s work on “I” positions, I can easily build the case that what happens in adult development is this constant shifting between “I” positions based on the situations we encounter. They are explicit when they say: “. . .at work a person may feel highly dependent upon others’ opinion of his or her achievements and thus become increasingly involved in conforming to specific external expectations... In another situation, however, the same person may achieve — often at specific times or at specific places — a considerable liberation from these norms and feel stimulated by the environment to listen to other voices of the self. . .” (Hermans & Kempen, 1993, p. 95). This leads me to believe that the dominant “I” shifts with many situations. Academic: But you believe that Lieblich shifts within the same situation. Researcher: Well, maybe each part of the dialogue is a different situation. Advocate: How can this be? Researcher: Bakhtin talked about uniqueness of space and time. As Lieblich dialogue shifted, so did the situation. Her demonstrated development shifted throughout the dialogue, with each utterance at a different space and time (Bakhtin, 1981). Leader: But do you really believe that people alternate this quickly, within one single conversation? Researcher: Maybe the dialogue becomes a metaphor for growth. Academic: What does that mean? 223 Researcher: When I look at the imaginary aspect of Lieblich’s work, or my work for that matter, growth or development is traced by looking at the dialogue. As it shifts, another “I” position emerges. Perhaps Baron provided Lieblich with another “I” position. Advocate: Okay... I’m almost following you here, but where do you get the metaphorical reference? ' Researcher: Dialogue has a back-and-forth movement correct? Advocate: Yes. Researcher: So, if “I” positions change, and if more can be revealed, then i richer the dialogue, the more positions incorporated. Academic: So if growth is displayed in the dialogue, how do people make meaning or transform? Researcher When they are able to see another “I” and incorporate it with their other internal positions. Maybe this is exemplified when Lieblich realized there was no single cause or reason for Baron ’5 choices. But this makes me wonder how any of us ever understands the other person. When all this meaning making is going on within ourselves, how do we ever really understand the other? Advocate: Perhaps the other, and I’m assuming you mean an external other, is just another “I” position. I have to believe that somewhere within a conversation there is some kind of connection, maybe between one of my particular “I” positions and one of yours. That’s entirely possible. Or, maybe 224 when you are exposed to another’s position, you somehow incorporate it as a subself — another “I” position that will later emerge when in a different situation. Academic: I’m concerned with the issues of situation and where we are going from a pedagogical perspective. How can we teach or lead people if every situation prompts a different level of development? Let’s say I do what Baxter Magolda recommends by encouraging conflict and fostering disharmony within the classroom. Now, I may see a student who emerges with a dominant “I” that is more self authoring. But then they can walk out my door and encounter a situation that takes them backwards, towards a dominant “I ” that is more defined by others. Advocate: Maybe we shouldn’t stop at self-authoring. The problem with Baxter Magolda’s work is that it stops at the fourth order of consciousness. If we really want to teach effectively and foster growth, our role should be to teach students about the multiplicity of the self, to recognize the different parts of themselves. Researcher: Are you advocating that we need to teach students how to develop internal dialogues? That would enable them to surface the multiple positions within the self, causing interaction... and ultimately leading to internal conflict. Dialogic writing could easily provide the means to do this. Advocate: I find that constructive—developmental pedagogy needs further work after this conversation. Researcher: See, I don’t think we really teach students how to have that “internal contest.” 225 Leader: What’s that? Researcher: Well as I was listening just now, I thought about Bakhtin and his dialogic principles. Dialogue is like an ongoing contest between centrifugal and centripetal forces (Bakhtin, 1981). Thus far, we can make a case for those forces playing out within a classroom setting, between students. But we don ’t really address how those same inner conflicts play out within ourselves. We don’t teach students how to have those inner battles, what to do with them, how to expose them. I would love to talk to Kegan to see if that is really what it means to go beyond self authoring — dealing with the multiple positions within our head, talking with them. Academic: But I have to take us back a step here. How do we really know — or measure for that matter— human development? This is bothering me. Advocate: Why does this bother you so much ? You’ve come back to it several times. - Academic: We have countless studies out there measuring the growth of children and adults. Many great studies have provided quantitative and qualitative data on tracking development (Miller, 1993; Piaget, 1964/1972; Neugarten & Daton, 1996; Brown & Gilligan, 1992). This conversation makes me feel uneasy. The implications are troubling. If in fact we shift levels of development based on situations or context of time and space, how do we ever truly measure or analyze any kind of growth? In addition, the only reason we are asking this in the first place is because of an analysis of a fictional conversation 226 between Lieblich and Baron. My mind is swimming with both the possibilities and the disappointment. Researcher: But through all of this can’t you see that dialogue illustrates the growth? Academic: So we should only be mapping, studying growth through internal dialogue? That sounds a little ridiculous. Researcher: I studied Lieblich’s growth through her dialogue, but I never really concentrated on the back-and-forth movement of the biography. The growth was in the movement, not her individual statements. I’m not saying that dialogue or narrative is the only way to study growth, but I think that the emphasis on narrative studies is warranted. Leavy has demonstrated the importance of listening to narratives for psychological purposes — this study only adds credence to that approach in a more academic vein (Leavy, 1980). Leader: Well, I’m still struggling with how this affects my role within the organization. I know I have my own paradigms about employee enthusiasm and development, but if! were to try and foster employee growth, it would be like trying to solve world hunger. I can’t have them writing internal dialogues, nor do I have the background to analyze who they are or where they are from a growth perspective. Advocate: I think that we need to simply step back and look at it from all sides. The ideas here are stimulating —— look at the conversation we’ve had. I see so many implications for teaching. I’ve tried bringing conflict into the classroom, but now I think I need to take a step back and look at the students’ 227 internal conflicts - how I can help them understand themselves, not just who they are in comparison to the external world. Researcher: My problem with this is that most teachers and leaders really don’t understand themselves well enough to get to this point. Peep/e like Tomkins and Palmer talk about this explicitly. Palmer says: “When we deny our own condition, we resist seeing anything in others that might remind us of who and how, we really are” (Palmer, 1998, p. 47). ltake this to mean we fail in teaching when we don ’t understand our own multiplicity. Advocate: But how do we as teachers do this? llove Palmer’s work, but telling someone they must know themselves sounds a little too esoteric for me. Researcher: We talked about methodology last week, but we never really talked about the practicality of doing what Lieblich did in order to understand herself, her fears, her wants and desires. It certainly opens the door for discussion of how subjective biography or dialogic writing in imagination allows the individual the opportunity for exploring the self and exploring the self in relationship to the world. Advocate: So you would advocate teaching just that? Researcher: I didn’t do that here. I didn ’t write a subjective biography. I certainly gave myself the opportunity to explore me, along with Lieblich. That wasn’t my original intent, but I definitely have found parts of myself! had no real conscious knowledge of. The dialogic writing helped me to probe into myself — to see the multiplicity of my own self. It was sometimes unpleasant, but it has changed how I view myself within the world. 228 Academic: Doing this and teaching this are two different things. I’m not certain how we teach teachers in this endeavor. Leader: Well, I could see a couple of ways to do this. You could have students write subjective biography. You could use Progoff’s method. Either way, you would be pushing them to look inward. I still struggle with how this has a place in my world. But I certainly can picture it in the classroom. Advocate: I think you’re right. Polly, your research may really illustrate a way for teachers to explore themselves and do the same for students. Academic: I must admit I could see this method used, but not much beyond an education curriculum. Advocate: I disagree. Why not use it in science? Maybe the student could dialogue with an imaginary scientist, discussing his or her research, and discover a two-fold benefit — the student Ieams about herself and about the scientific concept. Wasn’t it Barbara McClintock, the scientist, who actually imagined herself in dialogue with the hybrid seedlings she was studying (Keller, 1985)? Her research is well known and respected. I think it’s safe to say that application is just a matter of trying it out in different curricula. Research: When researching this method, I did find many authorities who lend credence to conversational or dialogic writing for self exploration (Berthoff, 1981), (Mortensen & Kirsch, 1993), (Ritchie, 1989), (Ewald, 1993). Adding the imaginal component gives it even more value in my opinion. You have all brought some great perspective to my thinking today. I think we need to end our meeting, but I want you to know how much I’ve enjoyed it. Thank you. 229 Leader: Well, I think I’ll go dialogue with myself and convince myself your ideas have merit in my worid. The group all chuckled at the leader’s statement. It had been a long meeting, and I could tell they were all trying to understand the concepts we talked about. I know I certainly was. But the implications are far-reaching. If development is such a moving target as proposed, what does this mean for my research? Is dialogue or narrative the only way to effectively trace developmental patterns? If as adults we constantly shift dominant “l” positions, does the dialogue or the richness of the dialogue represent growth? Lastly, the practical ramifications of these development issues must be considered. Should we move students from self-authoring to comprehending the multiplicity of the self? How can they possibly understand the conflicts between people without understanding their own internal conflicts? I was excited to hear my group discuss the practical use of imaginal dialogue. All along I have felt that the intentional use imaginary dialogue had tremendous self-Ieaming potential in a curriculum. I’m also very conscious of the leader’s position in all this. How does he use this to benefit his world? Third Meeting: Dialogic Implications The second meeting had been just as engaging as the first. I was pleased with how the conversation moved and found that, for the most part, it stayed focused, unlike my discussion with Lieblich. The next meeting would focus on dialogic implications. l have become increasingly concerned 230 throughout this study about the differences between dialogic theory and the popular notion of dialogue. What did they have in common, and how were they different? I flippantly described Lieblich’s work and my work as dialogic, but did her biography and my study really become dialogic? The last concern was addressed at our last meeting. Must individuals understand the multiplicity of the self before they can truly dialogue? If so, this has practical ramifications within our teaching and business environments. Researcher: Well let’s go ahead and get started. As in our previous meetings, there is a great deal to cover. We’re going to talk about the dialogic aspects of this study. Leader: l ’m glad you’re covering that because I use the word “dialogue” many times in my work. I’m not sure I understand what it means in this context. Advocate: lam also curious about the use of the word. I know that it is often associated with a goal of establishing common or shared meaning. But I certainly don’t get the sense that Lieblich and Baron were establishing shared meaning in all cases. Academic: If anything, the dialogue exposed differences more than sameness. Researcher: Exactly. That’s why it is critical for us to understand the difference between what I’ve done here and the popular ideas of dialogue. You see, I struggle everyday with the differences between my business life and my academic world. The simple word “dialogue” means something different in those two environments. When I wrote this, I began with the knowledge that the 231 purpose of dialogue is to create shared meaning. Then I encountered Bahktin, Sidorkin, and Buber. What a conflict they presented in my thinking! Academic: I am sure they did. Can you imagine having Sidorkin and David Bohm in a room ? I would love to listen to them debate these ideas. Advocate: David Bohm? Sidorkin? Leader: I am familiar with the first gentleman. He is believed to be one of the “founding fathers” or visionaries of dialogue as we know it today in leadership circles (Ellinor & Gerard, 1998). His work concentrated on various aspects of thought and suspending thought long enough to challenge assumptions (Bohm, 1996). Advocate: Suspend thought? How can we possibly do this? Researcher: I had that same question. I read some of Bohm’s work, and I think it definitely has more merit than some of the more popular work in business literature today, but I struggle with the idea of suspending thought. Academic: Let’s make sure that you understand it. I think there were many times in which Lieblich suspended her thinking within the biography. Researcher: Really? Where? I am not so sure she did. Academic: Well, first you need to understand what Bohm meant by suspending thought. Let’s say someone said something that in a meeting that offended you. Now when you suspend thinking you don’t ignore it. You basically place it in front of you in your mind... examining the thought from your assumptions, ideas, and feelings. Suspension does not mean suppression or turning inward (Bohm, 1996). 232 Researcher: But this is one of the defining issues of Bohm’s thinking and fits in with our discussion last week about development. How can an individual have enough self awareness enough to suspend thought if he has not reached a certain level of consciousness about the self? This is one of the most conflicting points. If dialogue in the modern sense implies the practice of suspending thought, examining the mental models as Senge would state, then how can we truly practice dialogue if we don’t move beyond self authoring to understanding the multiplicity of the self? Advocate: It’s a good question. I’ve read a little about today’s notion of dialogue. I’ve also read some of Chris Arygris’ work on Ieaming. You mentioned him n your dialogue with Lieblich. Leader: Yes, I recall that. I ’m not comfortable with your portrayal of him in the same vein as Senge or Drucker. I have respect for their work, but they have presented a much more popularistic view of today’s business success factors. Argyris has contributed greatly to our ideas about organizational Ieaming. He presented the idea that very smart people have an inability to learn based on their defensive routines. By understanding their routines, they can then be open to his concept of single and double loop learning (Argyris, 1991). Researcher: I know that I referred to Argyris in a negative tone. But can I tell you why? I have read some of his literature, but I find his ideas conflicting in the same way I do Bohm’s work. They believe people reach a high enough level of development, which gives them the capability to put their negative feelings “on hold. ” Now Argyris clearly distinguishes expoused theory, what we say, from 233 theories in use, what we do (Argyris, 199 1). And that is all useful, but in order to understand those notions, I believe individuals must have a self awareness that is much greater than self authoring. They need to understand the multiplicity within. How many people truly have enough self knowledge to challenge their own thinking? Leader: But you can’t deny the contribution of people like Argyris to the business worid. Researcher I’m not denying that. But unconsciously l grouped Drucker, Senge, and Argyris together because I often see workshop advertisements in which one or two of them are presenting. I went to one of those workshops once, and I struggled with the ideas presented. I kept thinking, unless an individual has extreme self awareness, how can he possibly look inside himself enough to understand what drives his own thoughts and feelings? And then I began looking at development. My ideas on self development conflict with much of the literature written on dialogue and learning. Bohm’s work specifically talks about thinking not as an individual, but coming from a “pool” of collective thought (Bohm, 1996). That idea in itself bothers me. Advocate: Why? If we learn and grow based on our social construction with others, that statement is perfectly understandable. You yourself believe that we make meaning based on our conversations with others. Researcher: Yes I do, but then what do you make of the internal dialogue — that which only comes from within? If dialogue with the self is possible, then not all thought is collective. 234 Leader: You’re talking around what’s really bothering you here. Researcher: Two things are bothering me. One: I think that most of what is written today — by Argyris, by Senge, even by Bohm — is under the assumption that people can rid themselves of their defensive routines, or they can gain this notion of “personal mastery” by just understanding themselves. That notion calls for fifth order consciousness. Even Kegan mentions his admiration for Argyris’ work, but that it calls for human beings to go beyond self authoring — something that most may not or will not achieve (Kegan, 1994). “Argyris, however, has been candid in reporting that even highly advantaged, graduate-educated, organizational/y high-ranking adults have a great deal of difficulty mastering — or simply cannot master — what it is he is teaching. But this should be no surprise, because what he and other postmodern conflict resolutionists are asking people to do is to organize experience at a level of complexity beyond the fourth order of consciousness, something few people are yet able to do” (Kegan, 1994, p. 321). That makes many of the ideas in business literature more utopian than practical. The second thing that bothers me is the idea that dialogue, as known in present day terms, creates common vision or shared meaning. Leader: Well yes, that’s why we utilize dialogue. What’s wrong with that? Researcher: By emphasizing the commonality we do not look at individual thought. We don’t look at the uncommon. Bakhtin did not intend for dialogue to be used with a purpose or goal in mind. Dialogue is about the utterances — 235 multiple voices. It doesn’t suppress negative; it doesn’t intend to suspend thinking; it’s not about establishing unity (Bakhtin, 1981). Leader: But then all you would have are voices with no direction. I can’t buy that. Researcher: Lieblich did not suspend thinking. She used all her voices, some to the reader, some to Baron to expose the multiplicity of thinking. Can you imagine how the biography would have been different if she had hidden her negativity, or dealt with it outside the writing process? Academic: But even Lieblich used her dialogue with Baron to find common meaning or explanation. You can’t discount the fact that she intended to expose the “real” truth. Researcher: That may have been her original intent, but she never reached it. In my mind her work depicted this dialogue debate explicitly. She began with a goal, a purpose in mind — that if she talked with Baron, she ’d find the common ground, she’d discover the answers. But, in the end, there was no answer — the purpose became the dialogue. See, that’s the real difference. We can talk all we want about using dialogue to come to some common agreement or shared meaning. But, the self is always present in that dialogue. I may reach some kind of collective meaning with one particular “I” position within myself, but it doesn’t mean all the parts of me are sharing meaning. Leader: So what you’re really saying is this dialogue thing in my world is just one big waste of time. I’m not comfortable with that. 236 Researcher: I’m sorry. I’ve just been in too many meetings where someone proposes to dialogue about a particular idea — and very few people even understand what that really means. Nor do I think that most of the people I work with have the self awareness and understanding to have dialogue. That’s my frustration. You see... I too look for the practicality in all this. I become skeptical of the popular literature because when I take it apart, I find too many holes. Understanding the process does not necessarily imply a person can execute that process. Academic: Ifl could just interrupt here for a minute... Bohm, whom, by the way, I think is brilliant in many of his works — states: “Dialogue is the collective way of opening up judgments and assumptions” (Bohm, 1996, p. 46). Here I find the greatest power. He talks about dialogue as a means for exposing the multiplicity of thought, primarily between people. Researcher: Okay, but then Sidorkin states: “Dialogue that is being used for something ceases to be dialogue” (Sidorkin, 1999, p. 15). It is not a means, it is the goal, the end. He is very clear in distinguishing the ontological versus non- ontological uses of dialogue. Leader: La yman’s terms, please. Researcher: For Sidorkin, and I believe Bakhtin as well, dialogue is a relationship we enter into. It’s not about establishing shared anything; it’s about establishing a dialogic relationship, one which invites multiplicity of voice and thinking. To reduce dialogue to common agreement diminishes the power of dialogue. Let’s say you have a meeting, and the goal is to reach some kind of 237 common understanding about a particular problem. How many people will believe this to be the goal, or will have the same goal? Maybe for some it isn’t a problem or issue that has relevance. But true dialogue does not focus on goals. The dialogue is the goal. Advocate: But Polly, you can’t believe that most people will understand this distinguishing factor or the differences in definition. We all are looking for ways to make this practical and relevant in our lives. If we simply state the dialogue that people like Bohm, Senge, and Argyris write about is not really dialogue you’re not contributing anything. You disagree with their thinking — so what? Researcher: But some of their work is very good. It’s just that I’m trying to resolve the inconsistencies in philosophy and theory here. I believe that Lieblich ’s work exemplified a dialogue that shifted from a non-ontological plane to an ontological one. Academic: How? Researcher: By beginning with a purpose, a goal, she entered into this dialogue with Baron. She was truly using dialogue at the time to discover the truth. But a shift occurred from dialogue for a purpose to dialogue for dialogue ’s sake. There no longer was a truth — no longer an answer for her to find. When she reached that point, she truly began to understand dialogical connections, to have Buber’s “l-Thou” relationship with another. Dialogue for her became a way of being, not something we do. Academic: So are you suggesting that both definitions are acceptable? 238 Researcher: Very few will understand the differences. Leader: I’m sure I don’t. Advocate: Does this shift represent growth for her? Researcher: That’s a good question. I never thought of it like that. I think it’s possible that the transformation occurred dialogical/y. I was so focused on looking for the change in development levels that I didn’t pay attention to the dialogical change. We talked last time about dialogue as a metaphor for growth. It’s not just the back—and-forth movement between “I” positions, but also the ability to reach a dialogic relationship amongst the “I” positions. Giving each position a voice represents growth. Academic: Be careful. . .I think both components are at play. You need to understand . . . Leader: Can we take a break? I need a minute. With that he abruptly left the room. All of us looked at each other a little astonished. What would I do now? I promptly said, “Let’s all take a break,“ and the others streamed out of the room. What just happened? Did I offend the leader? I began this research looking at the practical, and where have I ended up? Am I so caught up in the theories that I haven’t taken the time to really think about the practical implications? I feel disappointed and even moreso unhappy with myself. Throughout my academic life I have scoffed at many issues I’ve encountered, stating that they aren’t “real world.” Now, after all this time, have I become one of those people my colleagues will joke about? If that is true, I 239 haven’t done this study justice. Where do I go next? Just about then, they all came back in, even the leader. Researcher: What just happened here? Leader: I’m sorry for leaving so quickly, but you are talking way over my head. It gets very frustrating. Now I know all of you have an academic perspective here... Advocate: I don’t see myself as an academic. I just want to understand. Leader: So do I, but you’re challenging some of my assumptions about dialogue... what it means and how it is used. I’ve always taken great pride in my ability to bring people together and facilitate conversations. I think I’ve accomplished a great deal using some of the teachings of Bohm and Argyris. Now, you’re telling me that wasn’t “real” dialogue. Researcher: I don’t think that’s what we’re saying. I think we all acknowledge that there are multiple ways of looking at this topic. Dialogue as a way of being is one definition. But I don’t think we are dismissing as a possibility that dialogue can be used as a means to expose multiple thoughts. Leader: But you also said earlier that most people are incapable of true dialogue, even if it’s used as a means to an end. You believe what Kegan says — that most people are incapable of doing all that’s required. They haven’t reached a level of consciousness to have what Senge refers to as “personal mastery’ (Senge, 1990). If that’s true, we should shove all this popular literature aside. 240 Advocate: I think that what is in question here is one, the ability to have shared meaning; and two, do most people understand the multiplicity of the self to be able to dialogue. Leader: Ifl subscribe to either one of these ideas, then all we have are discussions, not dialogue. Academic: You can’t dismiss the possibility that, philosophically speaking, that is a true statement. There’s nothing wrong with that. Discussions yield a great many things. Leader: But I maintain that as a group we have often reached a point of shared meaning. Advocate: How do you know? Leader: Because we all reached a common understanding of the issues surrounding a problem. We didn’t solve the problem, but we understood it. Advocate: How do you know each person reached that point? Leader: By their acknowledgment. Advocate: I prefer to think of it as connecting, not sharing. Researcher: Please explain. Advocate: If you subscribe to the idea that we are all made up of multiple selves, there is connection. The question is, do all the dominant “I” positions among participants share that same meaning? I think that is statistically impossible. It might be connected meaning, rather than shared. Academic: But what about our shared culture, our common morals and ethics? Those are all part of some kind of shared meaning. 241 Advocate: I’m not sure what our larger sense of culture represents. We are all socialized in different ways depending on our upbringing. Perhaps that’s why we share common culture -- our experiences become somewhat shared. Leader: So you believe that dialogue Is possible, but that we shouldn’t believe in shared meaning? Researcher: If meaning making is about movement between our various “I” positions and the external others we encounter, the best we can hope for is connectivity of thought, not unity. Unity implies resolution. We reach an understanding of our sameness and our differences. I don’t think we ultimately resolve for synthesis purposes. Leader: Okay... but how can I better prepare people for understanding all of this? Advocate: That concerns me also. I’ve read some of Burbules’ work on dialogic teaching (Burbules, 1993). Doesn’t he give us some points that will help us create a dialogic atmosphere? Researcher: Most of his work in Dialogue in Leeching focuses on using dialogue in schools. Sidorkin also discusses a dialogical school. Leader: What about me? How can I use this? Researcher: I just picked up an interesting book about dialogue in business. Now I don’t agree with the flippant way they use dialogue because it’s too focused on common meaning and moving away from conflict instead of inviting conflict, but there were a couple of exercises that intrigued me. 242 Leader: Well, let’s start with that. You all have had your turn. Now it is mine. How did this book help you understand the practical application? Researcher: There was a discussion on polarities, extreme differences in thought. The authors were more concerned about conflict inhibiting forward movement of a group and working toward resolve (Ellinor & Gerard, 1998). I, on the other hand, am less concerned about eliminating or “working through” the F conflict. There are times where I believe there is more to be gained by simply letting the conflicts exist alongside the areas of agreement. However, one of the recommended methods is an internal dialogue of sorts. Advocate: Describe it. Researcher: Basically you allow the two different positions to converse with each other, examining the two extremes. As you begin to form a judgment, the authors recommend “suspending” and listening to the other side. The only problem is that because you are having this conversation with yourself, it may be hard to truly represent the opposing thoughts unless in your unconscious you have similar ideas (Ellinor & Gerard, 1998). But regardless, here is a method of internal dialogue used for understanding differences. Leader: But the conversation would be imaginary. Advocate: Sounds like it would. What do you know... more imaginal dialogue. Leader: Now I could see having a group do that. But I certainly couldn’t have them do what you’ve done here. 243 Researcher: But this exercise could be expanded. l base my assumptions on that fact that, unless we know how to dialogue with the self we cannot reach a dialogic relationship with the other. But here goes... what if, before we begin a dialogic session in a work environment we take people through internal dialogue exercises, maybe like Progoff’s work. Advocate: That sounds feasible, but how would you convince them to do this? Leader: I was only joking before about imaginary conversations at work! Researcher: Bear with me... what if we take an issue and have each person develop one or two other people or characters that represent various positions of an issue. We give them a list of questions to answer with the goal of exposing all the different and shared opinions —— this is not agreement. Through this little conversational exercise, they learn not to focus on common meaning, but multiple meanings. Now, you bring them together for dialogue on what they conversed about imaginal/y. What do you think would happen? Leader: I guess you would see many ideas, some standing alone, some similar. Researcher: Exactly. But all the while, the internal dialogue provided the means for the employees to understand their own thoughts first. Through the next step, they become exposed to other or new thoughts, but at least they’ve had the opportunity to dialogue internally. Academic: Interesting idea. Why this approach? 244 T L... ‘ Researcher: Because I think most people are not aware of the differences within themselves — how one part of the self can feel one way and another part can feel a different way. Wrthout an exercise that allows them to explore the sell: I find it hard to believe they will be open to others the way much of the literature says they will, especially when encountering diversity. But I also think facilitating this activity is tricky. You have to be committed to exposing multiple thinking — not the common theme. Leader: That is so hard to do when we’re all just trying to make the right decisions for the business and solve the problems that arise. Researcher: But you shouldn’t use dialogue for many of those things. Dialogue is about multiplicity — exposing, not merging, not eliminating. That’s the bottom line. You can ’t do that if people do not internally understand these same factors within themselves. Advocate: I ’ve been patient... so how can school systems do the same? Researcher: Wait just a minute. There is one more point I want to bring to bear on this part of the discussion. Do you remember talking about Argyris’ notion of expoused theory and theories in use? Academic: I believe I brought it up earlier. Researcher: Well, basically this represents the idea that we don ’t walk (theories in use) like we talk (expoused theories). When there is a gap between these theories we create defensive routines to cover up (Argyris, 1991). I agree with this idea, but we need to dialogue with ourselves on these theories also. 245 How can I understand my defensive “I” if! don ’t understand the true differences between how I walk and how I talk (Ellinor & Gerard, 1998)? Leader: Could you also do some three-wa y dialogue with this? You know, have the walk represent one person, the talk represent another, and the defense be a third. I can’t believe I’m even saying this stuff. Advocate: I think you’re on to something... my only concern would be how to get people to recognize they even have a difference within their lives. Academic: It’s a good question. You know, I’ve been quiet on this subject, but I still believe you are assuming people have reached a level of development that may not really be present in today’s environment. Kegan may be accurate when he said: “In our longitudinal study it is rare to see people moving beyond the fourth order, but when they do, it is never before their forties. . (Kegan, 1994, p. 352). Advocate: That sounds pretty definitive. So are you saying that most of us in this room may not be capable of participating in dialogue? Academic: I’m just trying to reconcile the concepts presented here. If we are predominantly at a third and fourth order consciousness, how do you expect dialogue to really happen at all? If my self, my dominant “I,” is defined by the other, I may shift in the dialogue constantly and fall into agreement too easily. If I’m self-authoring, I may have an autonomous nature that prevents me from confronting all my defensive routines. I think Argyris is right about the defensive routines, but maybe smart people have them because they have great agency and remain primarily self authoring in their development. 246 Advocate: All your ideas are worth merit. It seems to me that what really needs to happen is a self preparation for dialogue. I was bothered last week about our conversation on Baxter Magolda’s work... that maybe we should be teaching students to move beyond self-authoring, instead of just trying to get them there. This ties into that somehow. We are not teaching adults to move beyond agency and autonomy. We should be teaching them about self multiplicity. Then, they may eventually find a life that is dialogical. Leader: Well personally I have found this discussion to be a little disheartening. Researcher: Rather than believe it to be disheartening, why not look at as prompting new ideas about integrating adult development concepts into dialogue discussions? It appears that teaching and business literature on dialogue ignore development perspectives. Leader Don’t get me wrong, I am beginning to see that we haven’t, I haven’t, looked within myself enough to understand my own multiplicity. But, then, who has the time for this kind of effort? Advocate: I think we have been saying that all along. Those who want to lead, those who want to teach, need to make these kinds of commitments to their own self learning and growth — pushing beyond self authoring. The good leaders and teachers won’t, but the great leaders and teachers will. Researcher: You all look a little tired. Let’s call it a day and finish next week. As a reminder, next week will be our last meeting. Bring any concluding issues you may have with you for discussion. 247 Leader: You mean dialogue, right? Researcher: By all means. . Final Meeting: What Happened to Me? I find myself doing a great deal of staring into space these days. Perhaps it is because I am intimidated by this final meeting — maybe because I am reluctant to talk about myself, what happened to me as I wrote this study. I am by design or by my socialization, a very private person, not one to share who I am with too many people. I have an extremely small circle of friends and even amongst most of them I cannot be myself — or I am unwilling to be completely open and honest. I started down this path of research when I discovered a wonderful story about two women who, through the course of imaginary being, discovered what it means to be self aware. Some may say that Lieblich uses Baron as a means to heal from within. Others may scoff at her use of biography for self-serving means. I personally prefer to think about it in terms of taking a great risk — one that exposes her to the reader. In a great many ways I fell in love with the risk itself. It makes me think back to my childhood, when I dreamed of becoming just like her: a writer and a teacher. When I started my meetings on the implications of this study, I did not understand that admiration, nor did I understand what Lieblich was to me. But for the first time I understand that she represents parts of me I did not know existed... the creative ones that want to share learning with others. 248 II q 5:“ u‘ ‘ Where did I lose my desire to write and teach? As far as writing is concerned, maybe it was that “C” in English I received in tenth grade. Who knows? I pursued literature and journalism in college, but I never entered the realm of creative writing. My writing is and often gets lost in jargon, which especially became known to me in my doctoral studies. But then I began this study, and I realized that the only way I could say what I wanted to say to my r“ readers was to tell it in conversation. The wordiness went away. The jargon was questioned and dismissed when it became too complicated. Using a common metaphor of an opening door, the writing flowed and thoughts returned J to me once more. Given the chance by using this method, I could be direct and say what I wanted to say. The teacher in me went away in my early twenties, although still predominant in my thinking. I began teaching secondary education, but because I was young, I only went through the motions of what I had Ieamed in college or imitated what I had seen in those teachers who touched me most growing up. There were students I reached and those that I didn’t. I became obsessed with the students I was losing, and they remain in my memory as my failure. Being someone who has not faced much failure, I couldn’t bear the images of the students who despised me or grew bored with my way of teaching. I took the easy road and decided that teaching was not a path I could mentally or physically follow. I chose a different path in hopes of finding a place where I could contribute what I knew about Ieaming. I joined the ranks of the corporate environment, but all the while found myself wanting to return to more of a 249 learning environment. Through my doctoral studies, | read Convegajions With M. I guess you could say I awakened from a deep sleep, one in which the multiplicity of me was brought to the forefront, and my assumptions of who I am were called into question. Researcher: This will be our final meeting. I can’t tell you how much I have benefited from meeting with all of you. I began the final part of this journey hoping to conclude my study, but through your words, I almost feel like I’m just beginning. Needless to say, you’ve been a great help. Advocate: I too have benefited. I wasn’t sure what you were doing when we began our meetings, but now I think I am beginning to not only understand your work, but also understand you. Leader: Well, I still struggle with the practical implications of your work, but I can now follow much better what you’ve done than I could before. Maybe that says something. Academic: I worry about your work. I know we’ve gone through it before, and I don’t want to rehash it. But I worry about its acceptance. Then again, that’s part of who I am -— ensuring students contribute to research is part of what I’m about. Researcher: I admire your sense of ownership here. I also wony for my own sake. I’ve been taught to care about the implications, the “so what’s. ” Hopefully there has been enough substance, but I can’t say I’m confident yet. Advocate: What did you want to talk to us about at this last meeting? Researcher: I want to turn the microscope on me. 250 Leader That sounds a little intimidating. Researcher: It’s the only thing left uncovered in this body of work. To ignore what happened to me ignores something very fundamental about this kind of work. All along, I’ve proclaimed that self knowledge is critical to growth. I have to believe my own self knowledge is relevant—don’t you think? Academic: That’s true. If you can’t talk about what happened to you, I think your readers will be left with the most important “so what.” Advocate: Where do you want to start? Researcher: I’d like to talk about my beginning assumptions. Advocate: Okay, that sounds like a good place. Researcher: I began this study two years ago, with a concept of myself that is very different than where I am today. Academic: How so? Researcher: I didn’t initially start out believing in much of a personal philosophy, for one thing. I wasn’t what I would calla deep thinker. Academic: What do you mean by that? Researcher: I never spent time contemplating who I am or what I believe in. My life has rolled along, pretty much without too many trials and tribulations. I never looked within myself. I guess you could say in Jungian terms, I spent most of my life in an ego conscious state (Johnson, 1986). Leader: Ego conscious? Academic: I think what you’re trying to say is that you never looked at yourself from a multiplicity viewpoint. 251 Leader: But your research indicates a strong belief in that philosophy. How could you not see yourself that way? Researcher: When I began this research, I needed to ground my work in a belief, to take a philosophical stand. I read countless books on multiplicity. It made sense to me or struck a chord so I went with it, focusing on socially constructed knowledge and the multiple parts of the self. Advocate: You would never know that you yourself didn’t internalize some of this theory. I’m actually surprised by your statements. What other assumptions did you have? Researcher: I believe that I was, for the most part, in a self authoring mode of operation. I considered myself autonomous, in control of most of my life and my decisions. That self control is deeply rooted in who I am. It protects me, so to speak. It’s like I was living in some form of bubble. My life events stayed on a particular course. I didn’t take many risks -— at least none that would cause me to lose control or feel vulnerable. It was a very unemotional way of being. When something did happen that made me feel out of control, I retreated back to my bubble. Advocate: That’s a pretty interesting characterization of a life — a very dispassionate kind of life. Leader: I see nothing wrong with what she is saying. And who are we to judge the life she’s led? I identify with a lot what she’s said here, especially considering the world she lives in. Surviving a corporate environment oflen 252 requires this attitude. I have found myself in the same mode. Taking risks can present many problems. Protecting the self is not undesirable. Advocate: But, if we all are working toward this idea of self control, then how do we ever become anything but self authoring? After all we’ve discussed, I think we’ve concluded one thing — that going beyond self authoring is critical toward understanding the self, and in turn, understanding others. Researcher: ldidn ’t see that until now. I told you these were my beginning assumptions. I didn’t say this is where I am now. Academic: I also want to touch on one other thing. Where did you see yourself in terms of your abilities? Researcher: I believed I was adequate in terms of my academic mind and writing capability. I knew I wasn’t extremely talented, not very creative. I didn’t really possess the “gift” for words, but that was okay because most of the writing I did didn’t require creativity. But I felt inadequate when I began my doctoral studies. Some students used all the philosophical terms fluently. I saw myself as very common, common language, common writing. I never felt as if! fit in, but then I could retreat back to my job and slide into the masses of common people like me. Academic: Did you always consider yourself different than your doctoral colleagues? Researcher: Yes... never really a part of that culture. Deep down, however, I wanted to be like them. I went through a year or so where I became very depressed around them because I could never embed myself in the 253 research. I always had meetings to prepare for, employees to take care of, a project that needed my attention at work. At times, I felt as if! was being pulled back and forth. It was very disturbing to me, but somehow I managed to finish what I needed to do for my studies and my job. Now that the struggle has passed, I feel a relief and a loss at the same time. Leader: Why a loss? The only thing I would feel is relief! How lucky you are! Researcher: Lucky? I don’t feel lucky. I feel fortunate to have had this opportunity, but not lucky. Luck would imply that I had very little to do with what’s happened. I worked very hard to achieve what I have. I think about all the long days and the early mornings during which all I wanted to do was sleep. I would drag myself into my office, my cocoon, trying to find the energy and inspiration. Academic: Many of us have gone through what you did. How are you so different from the rest of us? Researcher: Because through all of this, I finally found me. Advocate: It sounds as if you knew this all along. Researcher: Not really... how I began and how I have ended this are on two entirely different ends of the spectrum. Yes, I began with an overall philosophy, one which sounded applicable — the multiplicity of the self. But I ended up seeing the multiplicity of me. Leader: I’m not following you. 254 fl” ..il‘.’ A' '. Researcher: I started this journey with a goal: not only to write a dissertation, but also to learn how Lieblich’s self knowledge transformed from the start of her Baron biography to the end. Advocate: And I think you did a pretty good job of mapping a theory to the text. The dialogic piece of this kept you on track and the self development theory worked as an adequate framework. No, things didn’t always map clearly, but Ir- theory is not meant to be absolute. As you have learned, it is only a “lens” for you to look through. Not to mention the textual analysis is very in-depth. Researcher: Yes, I feel very good about how it all turned out, but what’s i] different is how I look at myself. Advocate: How has that changed? Researcher: Do you remember the points in the dialogue where ! either speak to the reader or become anxious about some of the dialogue? Academic: There were many occurrences of this, some being somewhat emotional for you. Researcher: These parts were a surprise to me. Leader: How could this be? You did say you scripted much of this. That’s what made your method different from Jung and Progofl'. You really never did lea ve that script, did you? Researcher: But that’s the point. I did leave the script. My conversations with the reader were totally unexpected. I didn’t plan to have them.‘ My emotional responses were unexpected as well. I kept asking m yselfi where is 255 this coming from? Why is the conversation drifting to dialogue about me? I was supposed to be studying Lieblich from a theoretical lens, not studying me. Academic: That’s true. The researcher in you wanted to remain very impartial, in control of the dialogue. But it didn’t completely stay this way. I kept asking myself what these “off-track” moments represented. Now I think I understand. These were moments in which you surrendered your control, your 5* autonomy. What do you think? Advocate: I think they represented her unconscious parts trying to emerge. E; Researcher: What unconscious parts? Advocate: You had the most emotional response to Lieblich when you realized that your life had been too scripted. You hadn’t taken the risks, you didn’t become the writer you wanted to be. Encountering Lieblich made you remember your childhood fantasies of writing and maybe teaching. Academic: I agree. Polly, what are your assumptions now after finishing all of this? Researcher: I don’t know if you call it an assumption or not. For the first time, I see myself in multiplicity. Leader: Please explain. Researcher: I hadn’t thought much about me when I was writing this. I tried to remain true to the research intent — to study Lieblich. What resulted, though, is somewhat a study of who I am. 256 Academic: I’d be careful with that statement. This study cannot be about you. Advocate: Why not? What’s wrong with Polly discovering the multiplicity of her own self? Academic: All of you must remember that research should have, no, must have — value for others. You’re insinuating that this study has been about her. I cannot accept that. Advocate: Can’t or won’t? Academic: Either. What’s to prevent others from pursuing studies about themselves? If that happens we will diminish, no, destroy the integrity we’ve built into the research field. Advocate: I think we must keep in mind that Polly rooted her studies in a particular theoretical framework. She remained true to that self development framework throughout her study. Not only that, you can’t discount Lieblich’s biography served as a backdrop for this body of work. She did analyze the meanings of the text. Academic: But look at the output here. Who is the subject of this research ? Leader Well, I would say it’s Lieblich. Academic: No, the subject is Polly. Remember, Lieblich is Polly. She is her voice, her thoughts. What she did here is study the self. How can we begin to say this is research ? 257 Leader All along, you have tried to convince me that understanding the multiplicity of the self is critical toward growth and development. You concluded that, to truly participate in dialogue individuals, must have a self awareness of the multiple parts of who they are. You have made it blatantly obvious that, to be good leaders or teachers, we must cross that bridge — know the self in order to really contribute to others, be with others, and understand others. Now if I’m IF getting this wrong, correct me. Advocate: No, that’s what we have talked about all along. Leader: So, now you’re saying that what she did here is of no value Dr because it was self-serving. She learned to see her own multiplicity, to see the more emotional parts of who she is. I began this whole thing with a belief that it was all academic garbage, not practical, not important to me. But now I feel differently. It serves to exemplify a means for others to do the same thing. Academic: Oh great... I can see it now... I’ll have a student come to me wanting to analyze the self. Do you realize the dangerous territory into which we are moving? Leader: But you’ve already accepted her theory and process. Why can’t you accept the results? Advocate: That’s true. You stated in our first meeting that you were looking for a tension. I think in the end we ’ve found what the true tension is. Academic: What’s that? Advocate: The theory, the text, the process, and the self learning present the tension. Polly didn’t start out with that intent, but it emerged. As the multiple 258 parts of her became known, she tried to escape the unconscious parts, but she couldn’t — they were right there in the dialogue. Researcher: That’s true. I wanted to remain the researcher at all times, but I kept turning to the reader for guidance. Lieblich began as part of my conscious, but then she became the unconscious part of me, questioning my life choices. She became critical of my lack of life, my inability to let go. In some ways the tension was also between her and me. I made light of the fact that there was no metaphor to describe our relationship. To find a metaphor meant to embrace that unconscious part of me. That’s what Lieblich did. She used fabric and weaving as metaphors of her relationship with Baron. She wanted to embrace her and the unconscious parts of who she was. Her use of metaphors reflected a commitment to her multiplicity. Advocate: So through all of this, have you committed to all the parts of who you are? Researcher: l ’m not sure I have completely surrendered to that. I see those parts of me, the passion, the anxiety, the inadequacies. I didn’t acknowledge them before, but I can’t hide from them anymore. They are part of who I am. Leader: So does this mean you’ve reconciled those multiple parts of who you are with the part that wants to remain in control? Researcher: I don’t think I can do that. If anything it presents a multitude of conflicts. 259 Leader: So if it brought more internal conflict to your life, what purpose did this research serve? I don’t think I want to know myself that much. Researcher: The conflict has presented me with a great challenge... to learn how to live with my multiplicity... to question some of my controlling feelings and choices. Maybe it will push me to take a risk once in a while. Or maybe it will allow me to understand my employees instead of only vie wing things from that dominant “I” that I protect so well. Advocate: You mentioned a lack of metaphor for the relationship you and Lieblich shared. What comes to your mind? Researcher: A rubberband. Leader: What? Researcher: It was the first image that came into my head. We’re taught early on in our studies to look for the tension. The rubberband is used metaphorically to represent that tension in research. But, it’s also the image that emerges when I think of our relationship. She’s at one end; I’m at the other. We keep the band tight, pulling on each other as if trying to bring our two worlds together. Leader: But a rubberband eventually loses its elasticity. When that happens, do you become whole? Researcher: No. I don’t see us becoming whole. I see the loss of elasticity as a point at which I see all the other parts of me clearer. The tension disperses until another part of me is discovered or emerges. Academic: So what happened to you exactly? 260 Researcher: I began knowing other parts of me and learned I had all these other voices inside of me. Now, for some reason, the whole thing brings a wave of sadness to me. Advocate: But why? What a wonderful thing to have learned about yourself. Here you were so determined to learn about Lieblich ’s growth and what you learned about was your own. That’s a beautiful gift. Researcher: But it’s also made me regretful. Maybe it’s my age. I’m at the “crossroads,” or at least that’s what some peOple call it. I look back and see a life, and look forward and see another life. The choices I make now are critical to my future. My schooling was a refuge for me. It kept me from viewing my work as central to my life. Now, that’s what I’m left with. Leader: 80 you need to decide to listen to the other voices a little more. Researcher: Of everyone here, I can’t believe you’re the one saying that. Leader: Surprises me a little too. I think you need to step back and decide how to continue your internal dialogues. Maybe writing is a way for you to continue to do that. You really should continue writing. You talked eariier about how many times your dialogue with Lieblich felt awkward and forced, but I don’t get the sense you’ve struggled with it in our conversations. Why is that? Researcher: Because you all represent parts of me that I see clearly. I suppose you are parts of my ego consciousness, or maybe I’ve just Ieamed to listen more to the unconscious parts of who I am through this exercise. Advocate: So you didn’t see Lieblich clearly at first? Or did you not want to see her? I think Lieblich grew to represent your unconscious hroughout the 261 dialogue. When those parts of you became clearer, the writing became less forced, less scripted. You were letting go. As you saw clearly, so did your writing flow. If you want to continue to expose yourself, to get to know all the other parts of who you are, writing gives you the means to do that. Researcher: But once this work is done, what’s to keep me from returning to where I began? , F Advocate: Because where you began is not who M are anymore... '- Their images, their faces faded almost as quickly as they emerged. l * could still hear their voices, but in a distant echo. Were they right about what happened to me? Did in fact I become the subject of this study? I must admit that the multiplicity of self went from a philosophical belief to an internal way of being. What a difference that has made to what I say and what I do from now on. Already in conversation, I find myself examining my own thoughts and speech. It doesn’t make me hesitant, only more thoughtful. I’m less quick to judge others, more willing to understand them as individuals with unique personalities and ideas. I am also more compassionate about my role, both as a member of a family and as a manager in the workplace. For some reason a smile comes to my face, not because my task is almost complete, but because I remember something that Professor Lieblich said when I met her. When I asked her about the Baron biography — where did the idea come from, how did she decide to write it this way — she answered very succinctly: “This book just happened to me.” The result was far from the academic writing she had done in the past. And so, I will take a quote from 262 someone who I have grown to admire and love. It simply “happened” to me, and I don’t think my life will ever be the same. 263 EPILOGUE It became increasingly necessary that, through the course of this study I take some time to reflect and discuss what, I believe, to be the importance of this work. Even though the boundaries of postmodern tendencies continue to expand within research, this study may be considered by many to be frivolous and far-fetched. I, like other researchers, remain committed to protecting the boundaries. On the other hand, I believe that we need to look at research of the self or self inquiry as critical to the study of adult development, as well as a means to provide aid to teachers and leaders who are looking for ways to understand their own actions and behaviors. This study ended with a much different intent than originally conceived. I am unable to alter the dialogues to make my leamings explicit because of the imaginal method I used. In Chapter Five, I thought I had covered my topics as succinctly as possible; however, in reflection it is necessary to clarify what I believe to be the true contribution of this study. We, as practitioners, have been inundated with self-help books and cookie-cutter recipes for understanding the self, dialoguing in groups, and teaching and leading with compassion and purpose. However, I believe many of these resources assume the reader has an understanding of self multiplicity and has achieved Kegan’s fifth level consciousness. l have doubts that many individuals have reached this level of being; therefore, how can we apply the teachings of our present day theorists? 264 ll I discovered that the reason I struggled with recent literature on dialogue and self improvement was because I did not have an understanding of the different aspects of me. It wasn’t until I finished my study that I realized that I had unearthed the hidden parts of myself, those that kept me from taking chances and comprehending my emotion in conflict-ridden situations. By remaining self authoring, I was unable to truly dialogue with other human beings Fin and understand the actions and behaviors of my employees. Self authoring kept me “in control” and rational, but suppressed the emotional parts of me. I think this ultimately hindered my learning and growth. . J In discussion with my advocate, academic, and leader personas about dialogue and its common use within our professional lives, I Ieamed the value of the methodology proposed in this study. Without self understanding, conscious and unconscious, we will never develop the capabilities to recognize the inner conflicts and emotions in our teaching and working environments. In the purest sense, this research serves to propose a new experiential methodology for self study, rooted in imagination, dialogism, and self discovery. As I review the dialogues with my imaginal characters, it is clear to me that, not only is my methodology different from Jung, Progoff, and Lieblich, it represents a unique approach to surfacing the unconscious parts of the self for growth and awareness. Parker Palmer is very clear when he insists teachers must strive for self understanding (Palmer, 1998). For the first time I not only grasp what he is saying, but I am living it. We are taught in the business world to deal in very 265 rational, unemotional terms. The emphasis in teaching is on text and content, with little attention paid to self development (Tompkins, 1996). We will be unable to suspend our thinking or develop true dialogical situations for Ieaming until we realize the inner relationships within ourselves, conscious and unconscious. As stated in the dialogue, this was not an exercise in free writing. I did not conjure up images to dialogue with, nor did I consciously choose Lieblich as the dialogical partner because of a deep personal attachment. I also did not employ Lieblich’s method, in that I did not create an imaginal relationship for the purpose of life study and narrative biography. What I did was to use biographical text, theory (self development and dialogism), and the persona of Lieblich, creating a dialogical relationship that surfaced the unconscious parts of myself. I started out strictly from an ego-conscious state, but through dialoguing about theory and text, I was able to achieve some of what Jungian and Progoff traditional imaginal methods have accomplished. This is the true contribution of my research — linking the text and theory to development of the self, creating what I would label a “hybrid” methodology for self learning. The nature of the unconscious emergence was much different than what occurs in active imagination as well. There was no great onset or flood of unconscious parts of the self, but rather occasional reflections of the self which suddenly had a voice. That voice ultimately led to self understanding about the multiple parts of me, those I had no previous knowledge of or refused to hear. I started this study with an extremely rational approach to the dissection of a 266 Ili biography, but ended with a method that has both rational and irrational moments of being. 80 how could teacher and leader practitioners re-create this imaginative exercise for their own self Ieaming purposes? The methodology began with the biographical text and self development theory. The original intent focused on Lieblich’s transformation as she composed Baron’s life story. For teacher and F... leader practitioners, re-creating this dialogic method first involves selection of a foundation - an idea, problem, process, or product (literary text, theory, or tangible item). The key is to choose a foundation that has personal meaning embedded in conflict or simple curiosity. Once the foundation is selected, the imaginal, dialogic partner must be chosen. When dealing with text or theory, the author of such material is an ideal co-constructor, just as Lieblich served in this piece. A persona or personas that represent aspects of the idea, problem, or process (stakeholders) may be the best candidate for dialogue. For leaders of organizational change, those that support and oppose the change are valid personas for imaginal dialogue. The next step is to decide on the beginning questions that arise when thinking about your foundation. Although I used the word “script” to illustrate my rational start to this study, it implies | outlined each encounter in detail. In actuality, I only scripted the questions. As I proceeded through the questions in conversation, I let the dialogue take its own direction. The purpose is not to answer the questions, but to let the conversation go in whatever direction the 267 imagination moves. This is when my ego was exposed to my unconscious thinking, thus resulting in a greater sense of self. One last point needs to be made about this methodology. The key is to avoid entering into a dialogical exercise with the hopes of solving a problem or finding all the answers to the predetermined questions. The teacher or leader must believe that understanding the self is important to their professional and personal being. I somewhat stumbled onto this value as l dialogued with Lieblich. I realized that the benefits of self awareness far outweighed any possibility of obtaining answers to my questions. This exercise provided the opportunity for me to take a very rational approach to the text and theory from an ego conscious view. What resulted was the emergence of emotional, unconscious “l” positions, some rooted in fear and doubt, others in hope. The imaginal dialogue served as a mediator, causing the unconscious parts of the self to cross axis with the ego conscious self. This often created conflict, but I believe it also led to a heightened sense of self awareness. l attained a greater understanding of the text and theory as well, which may be a by-product of this methodology. Thus, I ultimately gave myself the opportunity to grow in terms of understanding some of my irrational, emotional selves by Ieaming about Lieblich’s growth and self development. I, like Lieblich, realized there is no single answer, no one explanation for the choices I have made in life. Her message, Baron’s message, was to Ieam to love the questions. Hopefully, this study represents that same message — Ieam to love the questions of the self. I cannot deny that what happened here was a 268 transformed self, one that moved beyond self authoring to perhaps what Kegan would label as fifth order consciousness. Since concluding the dialogues with my imaginary selves, l have found myself in conversations at work in which I am able to recognize some of my emotional and irrational responses to issues of conflict and concern. I am able to acknowledge that these emotions are coming from the unconscious selves, and as a result, I am better able to comprehend the self conflicts that drive my behaviors. This comprehension has made me more empathetic and conscious of the “other’s” view, thus potentially leading to a true dialogical relationship, one in which multiple views and voices are allowed. When the title of this work “Self Knowledge as Dialogue” was suggested to me, I really didn’t see that title as representative of my inquiry. But as time passed, this title began to perfectly capture the process of self learning. Self knowledge is represented as dialogue. Dialogue is reflective of self growth. Its back-and-forth movement is the self moving toward greater self understanding. Hopefully, practitioners will see this study as providing the means by which they can explore their own inner selves, thereby reaching a level of growth that helps them teach and lead more effectively. I recognize that imaginal, dialogic writing may sound too enigmatic for many. I maintain that I myself who always dealt with issues from a common- sense approach. I wasn’t one to think about myself in any other terms but the here and now. I am a middle level manager in a large corporation trying to ensure we meet our cost and quality goals. I am a former teacher who someday 269 would like to return to the classroom. If I was able to imagine the other, to talk to the other selves inside of me, to learn how to incorporate the other parts of me into my present day thinking and behaviors, isn’t it possible for others to do the same? 270 Appendix A Poem from Tenth Encounter: Friendship The following poem was placed in the tenth encounter between Amia Lieblich and Dvora Baron. Written by Anat Ninio, Lieblich shared her favorite poem with an imaginary Baron. Look at the wisdom of old age, hard and so feminine: at the happiness of small ornamental stitches, nothing wild, the most delicate contact with other people’s days, a few sentences here and there, wrinkles arousing tenderness at the corner of the mouth of another woman preserving sweetness, a new acquaintance, lost as are we all (rain in large drops fell on the desert, and the children ran gaily about in a spring picnic) the hard wisdom of old age makes it possible for me to rejoice in our lot, which has despite everything some fragrance of remote blossoming citrus that fizzes the blood, when the smiles are sweet as honey, unbelievable. 271 We talk about the children that is to say talk about love. Our men flow from room to room and sometimes one of them stays and he too speaks his piece. Lightly, lightly we gather them onto our laps, around the coffee table (Ninio, 1989, p. 107). 272 Appendix B Nineteenth Encounter The following is a chapter of Lieblich’s biography Conversations with £21013. This chapter is included to give the reader greater understanding of Lieblich’s style and methodology for her imaginary conversation with Dvora Baron. It rained furiously all that night in Tel Aviv. I tossed and turned restless/y on the hard sofa in my friend’s living room, and woke in the morning feeling troubled and heavy. I did not sleep a wink last night, Dvora greeted me when I arrived at her house an hour later. I do not generally see people at this hour, when lam not myself. But she was already on the sofa, hair combed and gathered at the neck, long dress covering her body. The curtains prevented the gray morning from brightening the room, and the comer lamp burned instead. Nothing changes here, I thought in amazement. I also barely slept, I answered. Dvora smiled affectionately. Troubles? She asked. My brain is teeming, I answered. Things do change somewhat, I thought. Here we are communicating in telegraphic morning style, which we’d never done before. 273 We were quiet, allowing our energy to recharge. Tsipora entered, dressed as usual in her brown sweater, with the white socks peeking out over the tops of her boots. Do these two ever change clothes? I wondered. Tsipora/eh, prepare a strong cup of coffee for our guest. Grateful/y I asked, And you? I had two cups of tea and a piece of toast before you arrived, she answered. We sat in silence. The steaming coffee was served, with a slice of toast and jam. Warm smiles passed among us, enveloping Tsipora as she came in. The meny sound of children on their way to the school at the end of the street could be heard through the closed window, punctuated by the rhythm of a ball bouncing against the sidewalk. Where is Eliav now? I worried. Had he managed to get ready for school without me and did he remember his sandwich, the key— Quiet, quiet, I calmed myself by taking measured breaths, sipping the hot coffee. Some modesty please, the familiar internal dialogue continued, you can’t be everywhere at once, and the world will keep spinning even without your constant supervision. I thought about Kafka last night, Dvora said in her lovely voice, and immediately all reality outside the room vanished. And I thought about you. What were you thinking? No, tell me about Kafka first. 274 And then you will tell? She asked like a little girl. I promised. Kafka ’5 letters to the women in his life always attracted me as much as his stories, she began. He was unable to live with a woman, and directed all his love from afar. In one letter to his beloved he wrote something like this: “You once said that you would like to sit at my side while I wrote. If you were to do that, I could not write at all.” And then he continues in these words, which are etched in my memory: “A person can never be alone enough when he writes, there can never be enough stillness when he writes, and the night—can never be black enough.” When I read his letters, I understood that he had been frightened of love all his life, love that would be realized in a shared life. He felt it as a threat to his sole possession: the slender thread that connected the parts colliding and struggling within him. lMthout writing it was clear to him that nothing could protect him from madness, from the abyss. And so, the person Kafka needed most was also the one who most frightened him. And why were you thinking about him last night? Let us not rush to easy comparisons, she said, and in any case he was an infinitely greater writer than I. But there you have a sick and isolated man, and a great artist at the same time. And you, it is your turn. What were your thoughts last night? I was thinking that maybe mourning in your life was an incentive for isolation and creativity, even though it’s clear that you’ve always been both 275 sensitive and talented, and didn ’t suffer great or overwhelming losses early in life, as some other artists we know. But where did you find the ability to be alone for so many years? I couldn’t bear it, even for a week or two. Maybe that’s why the whole thing is so fascinating to me. Have you ever tried it? she asked. No, I always had children, a husband, work. Once I traveled to Greece for two weeks, but even there I was with a group of women. Maybe in the future, when no one depends on me any longer, I’ll go off to an ashram in India or get myself a single room in the Eita nim Psychiatric Hospital in the mountains of Jerusalem, where a few of my friends work. She didn’t seem to get my joke about a mental hospital as refuge. If so, then how do you know you could not bear it? She asked. I just thought about the times when my house is full of guests, I said to her, without knowing whether my association was at all relevant, even ifl love them all, even when my older children come home for a visit. And what about that? she asked, when I stopped. I get this feeling of relief when they all go back to their own lives. I dump the butts out of the ashtray, air out the blankets, scrub the bathroom. Slowly, after their footsteps and smells have disappeared along with the notes of the music they play, the house, my private world, comes back into its own, like a circle closing on itself again. Only my little son doesn’t bother me. Even when he brings his friends to the house or roughhouses with his dog, he doesn’t break my imaginary circle. Someone can touch the circle — but never enter. They can 276 come in sometimes, very rarely, l corrected myself — but only at my invitation. And if someone breaks through — it hurts, it bothers me, it demands to be repaired. You see? You also have the tendency to close in on yourself. And I too enjoy the company of children. Sometimes the neighbor’s or housekeepers children would come to me even in my gloomiest day, and then light would penetrate the darkness. Sometimes I felt I was frightening them—a black woman on a sofa—but I always found some way of entertaining them. And Tsipora? I asked. Tsipora, she considered, no, I have never felt her disturb that circle about which you spoke, the holy of holies that must not be touched. Perhaps because she remained a child, she said slowly, perhaps that is why I never allowed her to become an adult. When I did not respond she said as if to herself, I turned her into my shadow; but what sort of life could she expect in her condition? I don’t know, I said, but it’s obvious that the two of you love each other very much. Dvora turned her face toward me and smiled gratefully, although clearly she did not see the matter as closed with that. So we have agreed that I did not entirely withdraw from human society, she said, but only exercised the right to choose with whom and when I would socialize. And once a person starts down such a path, it may not occur to them that they could end up chained to their house for over thirty years. 277 Just a minute, I continued. You asked me to tell you what I was thinking last night. Two ideas crossed my mind, and I wanted to hear what you think of them. Dvora listened seriously, without the scorn I usually perceived on her face when l slid into psychology. The first idea was that only some peOpIe have the talent for being alone, which is crucial for the development of creativity. And people with healthy experiences in their childhood, who trust their parents and family, may have an easier time being alone and can develop the desire for it. The determining factor in this regard is if an infant or your child experiences the conditions in which to “be alone in the presence of the mother.” That is the only way a person learns to listen to their inner world. Dvora nodded her head vigorously. Thus far psychology passes the test, she announced. Indeed I had the advantage of such conditions in my childhood. You remember, I told you how my childhood bed stood across a thin wooden partition from my parents, and their presence was very palpable. While I was still an infant I would play in the kitchen while my mother and older sister did housework, or! would hide in a corner of the community house while my father dealt with community affairs. And at night I often overheard my parents’ conversations. They were always close by me. It’s the same in therapy, I explained. Often the therapist says very little while the client proceeds with the journey into oneself, as if alone but with the support of a sympathetic presence in the room. 278 And perhaps that is why I was able to bring up the story of my life before you, she said as if struck by a new discovery. Although I’m not your therapist any more than you’re mine, I protested. Even so, the idea pleases me—being alone in the presence of someone who feels for you, as we do for each other. It reminds me of winter nights in Jerusalem, when I would fall asleep tucked into my warm bed while my husband was still sitting in the study. In the stillness of the house I would hear the night noises, hints of his proximity: soothing classical music, rustling pages, a spoon clinking in a mug of tea, a mild cough, the rattle of a typewriter. It was especially pleasant on those nights he was most distant, most absorbed in his own world. When I thought about it, it seemed to me that l was remembering nights from my early childhood, when I lay in my crib and heard my father returning a book to the shelf, or my mother, finishing up the dishes in the kitchen. They were not involved with me, but their presence infused me with a sense of security. Dvora smiled tenderiy. These days it is Tsipora who is always present at my side, moving around the house with her light step and making me feel safe. There is no voice more soothing, more soporific, than the rattle of her typewriter in the next room. Now listen to the second of my night thoughts, I continued. Take a slightly older child — let us say five years old — who begins to encounter the demands of its parents and environment, for instance, upon entering school. Such children may feel that many expectations have been placed on them to behave properly, so they can be their parents’ good little boy or giri. Families can be 279 very demanding; children who are interested in keeping their parent’s love may try very hard to behave accordingly. In this way, a gap gradually builds between the true “I” of the child, which remains inside, and the public “I”, the false one, who is worthy of praise. Depression is the result, I concluded, with utter bluntness. That is the word you have been avoiding these many months, have you not? She asked in a whisper. As a doctor refuses to present a sick person with the name of their malignant disease. Not true, I insisted. Why would that word be forbidden? How is depression so different from sorrow? Some degree of despair and depression exists in everyone ’s life, and each of us responds to life ’3 blows in our own way. It is true that depression could explain the unwillingness to get out of bed, the lack of appetite, and the various physical ailments; but I do not see you as a depressive, since I always found your words alert and fluent and I sensed that you also took an interest in me. Believe me, I am not trying to put you in any medical category. And you would not succeed if you were to try, she said. I have experienced deep despair, but without losing interest in life. On the contrary; I would consider someone sick if they did not feel despair in the face of what I have undergone in my life. True, I said, hurrying to leave the danger zone before Dvora banished me from her magic realm. But the same split also leads to a desire to be alone, I continued, in order to find expression of the true self. And perhaps the hidden 280 self is better expressed through creative work than through contact with people. Such a person might be drawn to describing relationships in literary form, which would constitute an involvement with human beings without necessitating any direct contact. I thought, I concluded hesitant/y, that you might find some of these ideas useful. Let me think about them. .5... We sat in silence for a few moments, alone, I couldn’t help thinking, in the presence of another. This split, Dvora said from within a supreme effort at focusing, has its Iwant", . roots in the fact that I was born a daughter and not a son. My parents expected another boy, like Benjamin, and although they loved me and gave me everything they could I always felt wounded and ashamed of being a giri. This was brought home to me, in fact, each day Benjamin went off to learn in the study hall and l was left alone; when the boys played wildly on the slope above the synagogue, and for us, the girls there were rag dolls. I wanted to be with the boys in their games, in the synagogue, and the study hall, she said with fury, and instead they wanted to turn me into a little fool, who would stand in front of the kitchen stove and rock the cradle when the baby cried, and nothing more. Fortunately, my parents soon understood that I was no less intelligent than Benjamin, and my desire to learn was as powerful as his. The harder the books my father brought me, the more I surprised him with my progress, and eventually I was granted a partial exemption from helping my mother and sisters with the housework, and became a study hall girl, called upon to perform what I had learned before the 281 guests: some strange hybrid creature. But I always sensed that I have been granted an education by charity, not by right. I was never one of the boys, but was always looking at them from behind the partition of the women’s section. Sometimes I did not know ifl were a girl or a boy and what it was I should be striving for, she said bitterly. I did not know a single woman on whom I could model my own character. The closest I could come was a female Benjamin. So, I continued, maybe you felt in some way that only when you were alone could you be yourself, without the need to justify yourself or answer to anyone ’s requirements. Perhaps, she said. Being the wife of an activist in Palestine was even further from my nature than being the rabbi’s daughter in a small town, she added with a smile. I would escape to our house from the tumult of the editorial office, from the workers’ arguments, far from anyone ’s eyes, in order to be alone. And today my inner self finds no place in the noisy Israeli city. The inner I has no part in all this, she said, searching for the proper words. At first it was free will, and in the course of the years, force of habit. I only see a narrow strip through my window, through those who continue to visit; and that is me, the reflection of that small world, and alongside it the old world of memories. Small and large simultaneously, she corrected herself, since it is possible to see the whole universe in a drop of water. One morning when the tide was low, I suddenly remembered, I went down to Jaffa beach with a friend and we sat on a rock, it was like a long, low cliff stretching parallel to the shoreline, and stared at a small hole, really just a crack 282 .73. in the rock. We could see the water inside it rolling in miniature waves, a crab scuttling after its prey, and tiny fish flitting from one end to another. I stuck a finger into the little pool, and the motion of the water changed, circles alter circles forming around my finger. The mighty ocean with all its power, its creatures, in the cleft of this rock. That is I, Dvora Baron, she echoed my words, this house, closed off from .5... the outside world, the sofa in the darkened living room, my old dresses, the books on the shelves, the words on the page — those are me; and outside — the noise, the progress, the light, the great strangeness, I could not be like that. As we sat in silence, a bird chirped outside the window, a desperate, shrill whistle, like a mother warning her nestlings of some danger. I can still see that same dear friend before my eyes, I said, trying again to break into the thread of her thought. I don’t know what makes me think of him, but I feel as if he were sitting here with the two of us. He lives alone. At about forty, he began to feel very sad and restless, after a long period of working closely with other people. He wasn’t running away from any particular trouble, except for the obvious difficulties he had in finding time for himself, to read a book or listen to the music he loved so much. And while we all resign ourselves to such situations, my friend understood that he would have to leave the rat race behind before it was too late. He strapped a knapsack on his back, said goodbye to everyone, and went off for a few months to be alone in the wilderness. What was he looking for? Some peace and quiet, he said, nothing 283 more. I just want to experience this completely, being alone, he said, to experience solitude and quiet for long enough to know what they taste like. Like Elijah the Prophet, she said, so soflly I could barely hear her. For a few months he lived alone at a wildlife observation station. When he finally returned from the desert at the end of the winter, he was someone else. I settled into my own self, he explained, and it revived me. You Io ve him, she said simply. We were silent again. The winter sun emerged from behind a cloud, and made its way through the drawn curtain, touching the room with a warm gold. The rain had stopped. One must choose quiet and tranquility, and not have loneliness forced upon you, Dvora continued, drawing together the vanished threads again. In my seclusion and sickness l unintentionally found myself free from the daily worries about food, clothing, or money. As I learned to make do with little food and drink and distanced myself from people who disturbed my peace, I sometimes felt that I had passed from the physical to a spiritual plane, until I could carry on a conversation with the cosmos, with life and death, in my room, even ifl were utterly alone. You see, she continued to explain, my illness and revulsion with public life forced me to shut my doors against the multitudes. I did not know where it would lead, but once it had been accomplished, my solitude brought illumination, something similar to what happens to a nun when once she enters the abbey. 284 Like your friend in the desert, I loved tranquility and clung to it as best I could. In the long days, when not a living soul came to visit, I sometimes descended—or perhaps ascended—to hidden worids. Sometimes, in the lengthening stillness, a person uncovers the perfect order that reigns in the universe and sees their own place within it. Now that I have grown old, I often miss people. But who has no regrets? She added, and at least I had my moments of illumination in which these stories were born. I made a mental note to listen to the tapes at home and think again about what she had said. And then she surprised me, as usual, with an unexpected transition: But those moments never lasted long. I often say that life is like a krupnik, she laughed aloud, a Lithuanian stew of potatoes, groats, fat, water, salt, and more. A krupnik comes in a single dish and it is impossible to eat each ingredient separately. Thus, alongside the life of the spirit, daily worries managed to drag even me into their orbit. The neighbor from the floor above, Leah, came in to show me how her little son had begun to crawl, and together we worked up some gossip about the landlady, who was stingy with the heat. The doctor Manya Merari came to visit, and ranted at me for lying in bed. The time for porridge arrived, Fichman and Barash were at the door wanting to come in, while Tsipora was entering the living room with the tray. You call that seclusion? I was moved by her hearty laugh in the face of the unexpectedness of life. But I still don’t really fully understand your lifestyle, I said, living here in an apartment, distancing yourself from people and writing about them in stories. 285 I love people, she said whimsical/y, from afar and in small doses, like Kant, for example. Do you know about him? she asked. Of course, but I know very little about his way of life, except for the fact that he never left the city he was born in. Correct. He lived in Kdnigsberg, the same city in which Benjamin studied medicine, and at the same university, only more than a hundred and fifty years earlier. He was a gentleman-bachelor, you might say, she said in an uncharacteristically light tone, as apparently are many of the professors at the great European universities. I listened, transfixed. He never had a sexual relationship with a woman, she continued, and told his friends that there was nothing worse in the world than the ensla vement of one person to the will of another. In his philosophy he also championed complete independence, never concerned with what others thought about the problems on which he was working. He did not isolate himself from contact with others, he had friends, women and men, conversational partners whom he loved to lecture about his ideas; but he always lived alone, and no one became his intimate. They say that he did not see his sisters, who lived in the same city, for twenty-five years. But see here, she smiled this eminent man who strove for a life free of all limitations, was very meticulous, to the smallest detail, about everything that touched his life. He would awaken each morning at exactly the same hour, eat his meals and go for his daily constitutional with such meticulousness that his neighbors could set their watches by his comings and 286 goings. And more, he guarded his health religiously, had a horror of filth and contagion, kept his house at a fixed temperature, and abstained completely from coffee and tobacco. He lived in this way to the age of eighty and died in the best of health at a ripe old age, she laughed. And why are you silent? She challenged me. It is clear that your brain is responding to the invited comparison. Are you thinking about Dvora Baron ’s hubris in supporting herself against such a large tree? You got me, I laughed. Reclusiveness has been occupying my mind for decades, and all my friends have brought me stories and books about great thinkers who displayed similar proclivities. I could tell you about Marcel Proust, about Beethoven, about Goya — each has some strange connection with my own story. I would be happy to hear, I said. I remembered one of our eariy conversations, when she listed for me, like a living encyclopedia, all the dishes of her town and how they were prepared. I won’t try to interpret your stories and I won’t make any comparisons, I promised; I wouldn’t dare. I felt the satisfaction in her look, the sense of superiority at the very kernel of her being, beneath all the bodily infirmities. That was how a very special girl grew up in her fathers house, I said to myself a lofty tree of the female sex. Here you have an eminent writer, composer, and artist. Each of them created from within physical weakness, apparently, but that only begins to explain the matter. Marcel Proust, very nearly my contemporary, was always in poor health and died in 1922. He remained in his apartment from the age of 287 thirty-four, when his mother and father died. Alone in his room, he devoted himself solely to perfecting his masterpiece, Remembrance of Things Pas — a treasure that exceeds all others in world literature. They say that when Beethoven became deaf at the beginning of the ninetieth century, she continued, he suffered the agonies of hell. And indeed, how great must have been the pain of a man such as he, when he could no longer hear the melody of the flute, the song of the shepherds. He said to his brother that it was only his art that kept him from taking his own life. Because of his disability, he distanced himself from society and grew suspicious in dealing with people, but scholars say that with his deafness his artistry increased. Beethoven could try out new musical forms in his silent world, free of the distraction of noises from the surrounding worid. His internal ear was not at all damaged. He worked, like Basya the embroiderer, from his head alone. So too with the artist Goya, who lived around the same time as Beethoven. After he fell ill at the age of fifty and also went deaf, he stopped painting noblemen and their wives and chose to paint whatever he found in his imagination. He no longer attempted to win favor with his art. The paintings he did after that are full of imagination and invention, describing the depths of human anguish, the nightmares that tormented his sleep, the compassion for those who suffered, and his disgust with tyranny. He painted those harsh, wonderful paintings on the walls of his house, and he lived out the rest of his days surrounded only by them. 288 Slowly I saw them arrive and gather round, sitting with their backs to the white walls in their mantles and flowing locks—Kafka, Kant, Proust, Beethoven, Goya, each in his place, erect on his chair, mute witnesses to our conversation. There isn’t a single woman among them, the thought flitted by, but I let it go, trying instead to hold on to the moment for a little longer. I want to go home, I said suddenly, surprising myself. This was the first time, I thought, that I had ended our meeting. I hope you aren’t angry, I hurriedly added. It’s just that I want to get back to Jerusalem before my son gets home from school so I can be there to greet him. So why are your crying? She asked — she, whose vision was so poor. Did I not tell you that ebb tide and high tide always follow upon each other’s heels? I don’t know. I was thinking about solitude, the despair and suffering that lie in wait for my children, when I won’t even be there to lift their spirits. Think also about the happiness, she said softly, about the beauty, about the joy of understanding. I nodded my head and thought: I want to feel my son in my arms. Just that, and nothing more. I left the house with hurried steps, as if escaping from some trap that had nearly swallowed me whole (Lieblich, 199 7, pp. 225-237). 289 References Apps, J. W. (1988). Higher Education in the Learning Society: Meeting New Demands for Education and Training. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications. Argyris, C. (1991 ). Teaching smart people how to Ieam. Harvard Business Review, 69(1-3), 99-109. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. Baron, S. H., & Pletsch, C. (Eds). (1985). Introspection in Biography: The Biographer‘s Quest for Self-Awareness. Hillsdate, N.J.: Analytic Press. Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues & Dialectics. New York: The Guilford Press. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). Creating Contexts for Learning and Self- Authorship. (1st ed.). Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press. Bernard-Donals, M. (1990). "Discourse in life": Answerability in language and in the novel. Studies in the Literary Imagination, 23(1), 45-64. Berthoff, A. E. (1981). The Making of Meaning: Metaphors, Models, and Maxims for Writing Teachers. Upper Montclair, NJ: BoyntonlCook Publishers. Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue. New York: Routledge. Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brown, L. M, & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the Crossroads: Women’s Psychology and Girls' Development. New York: Ballentine Books. Bruner, J. (1993). Introduction: The ethnographic self and the personal self. In P. Benson (Ed), Anthropology and Literature. (pp. 1-26). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. 290 Chodorow, J. (Ed.). (1997). Encountering Jung on Active imagination. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Clark, G. (1990). Dialogue, Dialectic, and Conversation: A Social Perspective on the Function of Writing. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. Clark, K., & Holquist, M. (1984). Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Corbin, H. (1972). Mudus Imaginalisor the Imaginary and the Real. Spring 1972. Zi’rrich: Spring Publications. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). The Fifth Moment. In N. K Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Edel, L. (1984a). Transference: The biographer's dilemma. Biography, An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 7(4), 283-291. Edel, L. (1984b). Writing Lives: Principia Biographica. ( 1st ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Ellinor, L., & Gerard, G. (1998). Dialogue: Rediscover the Transforming Power of Conversation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Erikson, E. H. (1950l1993). Childhood and Society. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Erikson, E. H. (1970). Gandhi’s Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Ewald, H. R. (1993). Waiting for answerability: Bakhtin and Composition Studies. College Composition and Communication. 44(3), 331-348. Freire, P. (1970, 1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Friedman, M. (1955). Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press. Gardner, H. (1995). Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership. New York: Basic Books. Goodwin, G. Ira Progoff on Active Imagination. [accessed June, 2001] 291 Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1993). The Dialogical Self: Meaning as Movement. San Diego, California: Academic Press. Horowitz, S. R. (1998). Book Review - Amia Lieblich, Conversations with Dvora: An Experimental Biography of the First Modern Hebrew Woman Writer. Biography, 21(3), 361-364. Johnson, R. A. (1986). Inner Work: Using Dreams & Active Imagination for Personal Growth. San Francisco: Harper. Jones, E. A. (Ed.). (1996). Preparing competent college graduates: Setting new and higher expectations for student learning. (Vol. 96). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jung, C. (1935). The Tavistock Lectures: On the theogy and practice of analflical psychology. Collected Works. Vol. 18, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human Development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. (1994). In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press. Leavy, S. A. (1980). The Psychoanalytic Dialogue. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lebeaux, R. (1985). Thoreau's Lives, Lebeaux's Lives. In S. H. Baron & C. Pletsch (Eds. ), Introspection in Biography: The Biographer’s Quest for Self-Awareness. (pp. 225-248.). Hillsdale, N.J.: The Analytic Press. Lieblich, A. (1997). Conversations with Dvora: An Experimental Biography of the First Modern Hebrew Writer (Seidman, N., Trans.) Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Manganyi, N. C. (1983). Psychobiography & the truth of the subject. Biography, An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 6(1), 34-52. Marsick, V., J., & Watkins, K. E. (1992). Continuous learning in the workplace. Adult Learning, 3(4), 9-12. 292 Maurois, A. (1929). Biography as a Means of Expression, Aspects of Biography (pp. 115-144). New York: D. Appleton & Company. McAdams, D. P. (1990). Unity and Purpose in Human Lives: The Emergence of Identity as a Life Story. In A. l. Rabin, R. A. Zucker, R. A. Emmons, & S. Frank (Eds), Studying Persons and Lives (pp. 148-200). New York: Spnngen McAdams, D. P. (1993). The Stories We Live By: Personal Myths and the Making of the Self. New York: The Guilford Press. Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miller, P. H. (1993). Theories of Developmental Psychology. (3 ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman. Morris, E. (1999). Dutch. New York: Random House. Mortensen, P., & Kirsch, G. E. (1993). On authority in the study of writing. College Composition and Communication. 44(4), 556-572. Nadel, l. B. (1984). Biography: Fiction, Fact, and Form. London: Macmillan Press LTD. Neugarten, B. L., & Daton, N. (1996). The Middle Years. In D. A. Neugarten (Ed), The Meanings of Age: Selected Papers of Bernice Neugarten. (pp. 135-59). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ninio, A. (1989). On the Edge of the Paved Pool, Tel Aviv. Nonaka, l. (1991). The Knowledge-Creating Company. In R. Howard (Ed.), The Learning Imperative: Managing People for Continuous Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Palmer, P. J. (1998). The Courage to Teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Piaget, J. (1964/1972). Development and Learning. Paper presented at the Piaget Rediscovered. A report of the Conference on Cognitive Studies and Curriculum Development, Cornell University. Pletsch, C. (1985). Subjectivity and Biography. In S. H. Baron & C. Pletsch (Eds. ), Introspection in Biography: The biographer's quest for self- awareness. (pp. 355-360). Hillsdale, N. J.: The Analytic Press. 293 Progoff, l. (1975). At a Journal Workshop. New York: Dialogue House Library. Progoff, l. (1983). Life Study: Experiencing Creative Lives by the Intensive Journal Method. New York: Dialogue House Library. Rilke, R. M. (1903-8/1984). Letters to a Young Poet, trans Stephen Mitchell. New York: Vintage Books. Ritchie, J. S. (1989). Beginning writers: Diverse voices and individual identity. College Composition and Communication, 40(2), 152-174. Sampson, E. E. (1993). Celebrating the Other: A Dialogic Account of Human Nature. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Schein, E. H. (1999). The Corporate Culture Survival Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Schepeler, E. (1990). The biographer’s transference: A chapter in psychobiographical epistemology. Biography, An Interdisciplinary Quarteriy, 13(2), 11 1-129. Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Currency Doubleday. Shaw, G. (1997, May 1, 1997). Book Review - Conversations with Dvora: An Experimental Biography of the First Modern Hebrew Woman Writer. Library Journal, 122,104. Sidorkin, A. M. (1999). Beyond Discourse: Education, the self, and dialogue. New York: State University of New York Press. Tompkins, J. (1996). A Life in School: What the teacher learned. Reading, Massachusetts: Perseus. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between Learning and Development, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (pp. 79- 91). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Watkins, M. (2000). Invisible Guests: The Development of lmaginal Dialogues. (3rd ed.). Woodstock, Connecticut: Spring Publications. Witte, S. P. (1992). Context, Text, lntertext. Written Communications. 9(2), 237- 308. 294 Woolfe, V. (1976). Moments of Being. Sussex, London: University Press. Young-Bruehl, E. (1998). Subject to Biography: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and Writing Women's Lives. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 295 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII iiIiiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIii