Comments on: The Relational Self: Comfort or Threat?

By: Sarah Luczaj

Sarah Luczaj — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:18:25 +0000

Hi Holly, many thanks for the link. I am indeed up to my neck in neuroscience and social science research ;-) and this is only background!

And no, I agree it isn’t really possible to have ‘no values attached’.

By: Holly

Holly — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:53:08 +0000

Sarah, this is really a comment on both this and your attachment parenting post, which are actually extremely related to each other through the underlying science. If you’re going to write about this academically, you might be interested in checking out the neuroscience and social science about relational self, early brain development, and attachment theory. (Big areas — lots of research!) Here is a general audience talk that introduces a handful of the big names/big findings — easy to watch or listen to while doing something else: http://www.youtube.com/user/theounceofprevention#p/u/2/2mKDWjahLrk

(P.S. Is it really possible to have “no values attached”? IMHO, neutral is a value. It lacks valence, but it’s on the scale.)

By: Sarah Luczaj

Sarah Luczaj — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:12:22 +0000

Thanks for your thoughts, Elsanne! I really like the attitude of exalting interconnection to correct the overemphasis on independence, (and of course vice versa in different contexts), and of keeping an inspiring vision, while realising that it is just that.

And personal growth through difficulties with others – indeed :-) is there any other way?!

By: Elsanne Barrows

Elsanne Barrows — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:01:30 +0000

This concept was fascinating to me, considering my work with “Tribal” style dance. We often exalt the circle, the community, the interconnectedness and the interdependence necessary for the dance to work. I see this as a Western antidote for excessive independence, much like Contact Improv Dance as well. I remind dancers that while we imagine a harmonious, ancient, matriarchal society in which we dance, it never existed in reality. Indeed, it doesn’t exist even within our circle, though I stubbornly refuse to release my utopian vision and encourage personal growth through difficulties with others as opposed to the more common “just leave, burn a bridge” strategies favored by some.

Just some thoughts.

By: Sarah Luczaj

Sarah Luczaj — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:01:57 +0000

Thanks so much for your comment and the references Dr Marc.

No self is actually my PhD research area, so watch this space – the topic will certainly come up!

By: Dr.Marc

Dr.Marc — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:01:22 +0000

To add a third possibility, there is the Buddhist idea of no self, brought into psychology in many places, but the one I am thinking of is Rosenbaum, R. & Dyckman, J (1996). No self? No Problem! In M. Hoyt (Ed.) Constructivist Therapies (vol. 2) pp. 238-274, or a similar article by the same authors in Family Process (1995) 34, 21-34. There is no thing as “self” and nothing is inside the self; the self, as it were, is action in context and relationship.