The Multiple Self: Between Sociality and Dominance

Abstract

We begin from the current approaches to the multiple self -Bakhtin's concept of polyphony, Mair's community of self and Hermans' dialogical self theory. Polyphony assumes that the self consists of multiple different voices, which simultaneously exist and interact in complex dialogical relations. The metaphor of the community of self enables us to perceive how the individual, depending on a specific social context, can use different selves, as subsystems of constructs which are mutually incompatible. Dialogical self theory enriches the idea of the polyphonic self with the idea of the extended I, in which the voices of others appear as simultaneous external and internalized I-positions. Further on this paper proposes that the understanding of the multiple self is complemented by the implementation of the concepts of sociality and relations of domination. Then, a methodological approach is presented for the study of sociality and dominance in the multiple self. The paper also presents a case study of a successful student's community of self as an illustration of the implementation of this methodological approach. The case study shows that the student's community of selves is marked by tension between dominant voices and voices of resistance which always have the potential to change the balance of power, making the sense of self as a student both changeable and inconsistent. The other significant finding is that the role relationships which are established between some voices could serve to either establish or maintain the domination in the multiple self.

Defining the Self in Terms of Power, Plurality and Social Embeddedness–The Model of the Agonistic Self

“…Cooperation means that, in order to preserve the ability to prevail over exterior voices, the King (and his team) modifies its performance and actualizes both Advocate’s and its own ideology. For that, we postulate that the King uses role relationship, which suggests that even a relationship that could be considered synonymous with openness to the perspectives of others represents an element of a wider strategy for maintaining power (Džinović, 2020). In Jane’s case presented in the section on Advocate, we have seen how the Tutor manages to influence the Teacher to change the way it lectures (“It is important to use the materials to teach children certain life lessons… but I have to admit that I do this often… it is because I see that with the new generations I need to connect the curriculum with real-life situations”).…”

“…It is also unavoidable as it is impossible to extricate oneself from power relations. Finally, the positivity of the mechanisms of power is manifested in the constitutive role of the struggle for power in producing human subjectivity (Džinović, 2020;Foucault, 1979). Namely, social mechanisms of surveillance, confession, and examination produce discourses about individuals as beings to whom certain psychological characteristics, dispositions, and potentials are ascribed (Foucault, 1979(Foucault, , 1982.…”

“…The interview process proceeded with the questions concerning the relationships between voices. The questions regarding the dynamics were conceptualized based on the theoretical categories of dominance versus subjection and cooperation versus conflict (Džinović, 2020). Examples of questions were: Which voices are dominant and which are sidelined or silenced and why?…”

“…This paper presents a thorough consideration of the model of the multiple, decentralized, discontinued, socially embedded and culturally and institutionally contextualized self, whose dynamics are predominantly defined by power relations between different voices (Džinović, 2020). We propose for this model of the self to be labeled as agonistic .…”

“…Previously the model of the agonistic self has been proposed, in which the self was defined as a strategic situation that entails a temporary and dynamic relation of power between different voices (Džinović, 2020). This agonistic approach is based on the view of the self not as a permanent and singular psychological object behind the pronoun I, but rather as an event in which different voices of unequal power confront each other.…”