This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Abbey, E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Blind Leading the Seeing: A Path to Self-Reflexivity

Clark University, USAeabbey{at}clarku.edu

Humans attempt to control the uncertainty of life by creating expectations. The construction of expectations is not foolproof, as uncertainty may be re-created when expectations do not match actualities. Ambiguity resulting from such a mismatch may be approached intolerantly, where individuals may create ‘false clarity’ through dichotomizing—shutting out information that does not match expectations. This intolerant process is particularly problematic when expectations for the self are violated, causing intolerance to be turned inward. In such instances, individuals may shut out aspects of the self that do not fit with expectations. Over many instances, intolerance can create a self that is also more a ‘false clarity’ than a real being. It is suggested that intolerance and the corresponding negative impact on the self can be avoided through the use of minimally binding expectations. Such expectations are hyper-flexible and thwart the construction of ambiguity by accommodating unexpected information rather than rejecting it. The concept of fate is an example of a minimally binding expectation. Bringing fate into meaning-construction about the self limits intolerant processes, thus promoting self-reflexivity. The self becomes less a falsehood created through intolerance and more an authenticity based on tolerance.

Key Words: ambiguity • fate • intolerance • reflexivity • self

Culture & Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 4, 409-415 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1354067X04045743


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Valsiner Cultural Psychology Today: Innovations and Oversights Culture Psychology, March 1, 2009; 15(1): 5 - 39. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. E. Molina and M. T. del Rio Child Sexual Abuse Interpretation as a Sign-Construction Process Culture Psychology, March 1, 2007; 13(1): 29 - 38. [Abstract] [PDF]