Advertisement

Mirrors and Reflexive processes: From Looking Oneself in the Mirror to Sensemaking Processes of One’s Own Experience

  • Raffaele De Luca Picione
Chapter
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 141)

Abstract

The reflection is an activity of thinking that involves the ability of the subject to think about himself. Such a return on himself of the thinking has always been associated with mirror features – understood as a physical device that enables the process of reflection of an image. The pervasiveness of this specular object in the cultural human life is documented by myths, superstitions, rituals, folk traditions, habits, novels and literature, etc. They invite us to deal with the mirror (as a process of knowledge, truth, discorvering) but at the same time to be in alert from the risks and dangers connected to it (capture, illusion, lying, falsehood). Indeed looking in the mirror and recognize oneself is not a trivial psychic operation. Animal and comparative psychology, developmental psychology, cultural psychology and dynamic psychology have long expended on the importance for the human being of this acquisition. In this work by comparing the semiotic studies of the mirror and dynamic psychology (specifically some psychoanalytic theories) we intend to outline some characteristics of human reflection as an open (never-ending) process of sensemaking of his own experience. It implies: (1) the ability to recognize themselves; (2) the acquisition of a subjective position in the first person starting from relationship with otherness; (3) defining and modulating an epistemic perspective of observation about oneself and the surrounding world around; (4) being able to tolerate the impossibility to be (namely to coincide with) one’s own image; (5) crossing the present time of the specular image integrating it into a multi-temporal perspective, which is a plastic gestalt of the past (i.e. continuous reformulation of experiences by memory processes) and the future (as expectation of possible worlds by creative and imaginative processes). Finally, we discuss the psychological relevance of these five points in a therapeutic setting, inasmuch they are crucial knots to be taken into account in a psychotherapeutic path of psychodynamic orientation.

Keywords

Dynamic psychology Sense-making Semiotics Psychoanalysis Reflexivity Alterity 

References

  1. Bakhtin, M.M. 1984. Toward a reworking of the Dostoevsky book. In Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics, ed. Caryl Emerson, 283–302. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baltrusaitis, J. 1978. Le Miroir. Essai sur une légende scientifique. Révélations science-fictionet fallacies. Paris: Elmayan.Google Scholar
  3. Bateman, A., and P. Fonagy. 2004. Mentalization-based treatment of BPD. Journal of Personality Disorders 18 (1): 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brockmeier, J. 1995. The language of human temporality: Narrative schemes and cultural meanings of time. Mind, Culture, and Activity 2 (2): 102–118.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039509524692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carotenuto, A. 1997. Il fascino discreto dell’orrore. Milano, It: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  6. Cassirer, E. 1955. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cooley, C.H. 1902. Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  8. De Luca Picione, R. 2015a. The idiographic approach in psychological research: The challenge of overcoming old distinctions without risking to homogenize. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science 49: 360–370.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9307-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 2015b. La Mente come Forma. La Mente come Testo. Un’indagine semiotico-psicologica dei processi di significazione. Milano: Mimesis Edizioni.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2017. Il fantasma in psicoanalisi, un dispositivo che articola la “statica” e la “dinamica” temporale della significazione. European Journal of Psychoanalysis. ISSN: 2284-1059. Available on line: http://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/il-fantasma-in-psicoanalisi-un-dispositivo-che-articola-la-statica-e-la-dinamica-temporale-della-significazione/
  11. De Luca Picione, R., and M.F. Freda. 2014. Catalysis and morphogenesis: The contextual semiotic configuration of form, function, and fields of experience. In The catalyzing mind. Beyond models of causality. Annals of Theoretical Psychology, ed. K.R. Cabell and J. Valsiner, vol. 11, 149–163. New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8821-7_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2016a. Borders and modal articulations. Semiotic constructs of sensemaking processes enabling a fecund dialogue between cultural psychology and clinical psychology. Journal of Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 50: 29–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9318-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2016b. The processes of meaning making, starting from the morphogenetic theories of Rene’ Thom. Culture and Psychology. 22 (1): 139–157.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X15576171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2016c. Possible use in psychology of threshold concept in order to study sensemaking processes. Culture & Psychology 22 (3): 362–375. DOI: 1354067X16654858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Luca Picione, R., and J. Valsiner. 2017. Psychological functions of semiotic borders in sense-making: Liminality of narrative processes. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 13 (3): 532–547.  https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v13i3.1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Luca Picione, R., M.L. Martino, and M.F. Freda. 2017. Understanding cancer patients’ narratives: Meaningmaking process, temporality, and modal articulation. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 30, 339–359.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2016.1227738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2018. Modal articulation: The psychological and semiotic functions of modalities in the sensemaking process. Theory & Psychology 28 (1): 84–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Luca Picione, R., M.L. Martino, and G. Troisi. 2019. The semiotic construction of the sense of agency. The modal articulation in narrative processes. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. (on-line pre-print): 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-019-9475-9.
  19. Eco, U. 1976. A theory of semiotics (W. Weaver, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 1984. Mirrors. In Semiotics and the philosophy of language, 202–226. Bloomington: Indiana Univeristy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Esposito, G., M.F. Freda, and De Luca Picione R. . 2016. Reflexivity or “Reflexivities” in Higher Education: conceptualizing unique reflexive process. In Working with underachieving students in higher education: Fostering inclusion through narration and reflexivity, ed. M.F. Freda, J. Gonzàlez-Monteagudo, and G. Esposito, 32–42. Abingdon/New York: Oxon/Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315659121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fonagy, P., and M. Target. 1997. Attachment and reflective function: Their role in self-organization. Development and psychopathology 9 (4): 679–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frazer, J.G. 1994. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Freda, M.F. 2008. Narrazione e intervento in psicologia clinica. [Narration and Intervention in Clinical Psychological]. Napoli, It: Liguori.Google Scholar
  25. Freda, M.F., R. De Luca Picione, and Esposito G. 2015a. Reflexivity. Applying a reflexive process to an educational context. In Reflexivity and psychology, ed. P. Marsico, R. Ruggeri, and S. Salvatore, 195–225. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Freda, M.F., R. De Luca Picione, and M.L. Martino. 2015b. Time of Illness and Illness of Time. In Temporality: Culture in the flow of human experience, ed. L.M. Simão, D.S. Guimarães, and J. Valsiner, 209–234. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Jakobson, R. 1971. Selected writings. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
  28. Kripke, S.A. 1980. Naming and necessity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Kull, K. 2009. Vegetative, animal, and cultural semiosis: the semiotic threshold zones. Cognitive Semiotics 4 (Supplement): 8–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lacan J. 1949/1977. The mirror stage as formative of the function of the I as revealed in psychoanalytic experience. In Ecrits: A selection. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  31. Levin, Jurii I. 1988. Zerkalo kak potentsial’nyi semioticheskii objekt (The mirror as a potential semiotic object). In Trudy po znakovym sistemam, XXII (Acta et Commentationes Unicversitatis Tartuensis 831), Jurii M. Lotman (ed.), pp. 6–24.Google Scholar
  32. Lotman, J. 2005. On the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies 33 (1): 205–229.Google Scholar
  33. Marsico, G. 2016. The borderland. Culture and Psychology 22 (2): 206–215.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X15601199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neuman, Y. 2003. Processes and boundaries of the mind: Extending the limit line. New York: Academic/Plenum Publishers, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ———. 2008. Reviving the living: Meaning making in living systems. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  36. Peirce, C.S. 1935. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ponzio, A. 2005. In altre parole. Milano: Meltemi.Google Scholar
  38. Rizzolatti, G., and L. Craighero. 2004. The mirror-neuron system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 27: 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salvatore, S. 2013. The reciprocal inherency of self and context: Notes for a semiotic model of the constitution of experience. Interacções 9: 20–50.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2016. Psychology in Black and White: The project of a theory-driven science. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Salvatore, S., and M.F. Freda. 2011. Affect, unconscious and sensemaking: A psychodynamic, semiotic and dialogic mode. New Ideas in Psychology 29: 119–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shaffer, L.S. 2005. From mirror self-recognition to the looking-glass self: Exploring the Justification Hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Psychology 61 (1): 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simão, L.M. 2003. Beside rupture—disquiet; beyond the other—alterity. Culture and Psychology 9 (4): 449–459.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X0394007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. ———. 2016. Culture as a moving symbolic border. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science 50 (1): 14–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9322-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tagliapietra, A. 1991. La metafora dello specchio. Lineamenti per una storia simbolica. Milano: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  46. Tateo, L. 2013. Generalization as creative and reflective act: Revisiting Lewin’s conflict between Aristotelian and Galileian modes of thought in psychology. Theory & Psychology 23 (4): 518–536.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354313488844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Toomela, A. 2016. What are higher psychological functions? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 50 (1): 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Valsiner, J. 2007. Culture in minds and societies: Foundation of cultural psychology. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. ———. 2014. An invitation to cultural psychology. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Valsiner, J. & De Luca Picione, R. (2017). La regolazione dinamica dei processi affettivi attraverso la mediazione semiotica. Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia. 8, (1), 80-109.Google Scholar
  51. Wallon, H. 1933. Les origines du caractère chez l’enfant, 1949. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  52. Winnicott, D.W. 1971. Playing and reality. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raffaele De Luca Picione
    • 1
  1. 1.SInAPSI CenterUniversity Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations