The dialogical self,
positioning, and ambiguous
signifiers
Peter Raggatt,
James Cook University,
Australia
1. The Dialogical Self as Life
History
1. How can the dialogical self be
understood from a life historical and
temporal perspective?
2. What are the developmental origins of
the dialogical self conceived in this
way? And,
3. How do positions crystallize over time,
leading to multiplicity?
Defining the Dialogical Self
I-positions can be internal or external, and a range of
dialogical tensions are thus possible:
“within the internal domain (e.g., ‘As an enjoyer of life I
disagree with myself as an ambitious worker’); between the
internal and external (extended) domain (e.g., ‘I want to do this
but the voice of my mother in myself criticizes me’); and within
the external domain (e.g., ‘The way my parents were interacting
with each other has shaped the way I deal with problems in my
contact with my husband’).” (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka,
2010, p. 7-8)
Some Features of Dialogical Self
Theory
1. The self and society are directly linked by placing internal
psychological processes in the broader context of external social
and societal processes.
2. Traditional (in the West) distinctions or boundaries between self
and other are challenged. There is recognition of the ‘other-withinself’.
3. The basic metaphor for the dialogical self - a conversation – is
embedded in the choice of terminology.
4. The conversation metaphor creates movement and space. The
self is multi-positioned and therefore fundamentally spatial in its
structural organisation
Dialogical Self as a Time-Space Matrix
• While this approach explicitly links the self to the
social, to movement, and to positioning in space,
there is little reference to the continuity or
fleetingness of positioning in the temporal and
historical domain.
• The question -- How does the dialogical self unfold
over time -- remains relatively unaddressed.
• From a narrative and life-historical perspective,
therefore, the dialogical self might be defined as a
time-space matrix.
• Bakhtin called this matrix the ‘chronotope’ (meaning,
literally: ‘time-space’)
Outline
1. The dialogical self as life history
2. Bakhtin’s concept of chronotope.
3. Ontogeny and Position Exchange Theory
(a) Identification and distanciation
(b) ‘I’ and the ‘Me’ as markers of psychological position
exchange
4. ‘Thirdness’, ambiguous signifiers, and dialogical triads.
(a) I – Me – Other Triads
5. A model for personal chronotopes using triads.
6. A life historical example – chronotopes in the case of
Charles
7. The Big Five traits as ambiguous signifiers
Overview of Argument
1. I begin with a short discussion of Bakhtin’s (1981) concept of chronotope.
2. I will then shift to a discussion of ontogeny – the early emergence of the
dialogical self. In the approach taken here the developing capacity to
‘distanciate’ first-person subject (‘I’) from third-person object (‘Me’) is taken
as a fundamental reference point for the emergence of dialogicality in the
self (Raggatt, 2010, 2012).
3. However, these internal movements or ‘position exchanges’ (Gillespie &
Martin, 2013) ultimately have their origins in the social domain.
4. Alloyed to the I–Me dyad, therefore, we need a third position anchored in the
social. This ‘other’ may be a specific person, it may be a generalized other,
or it may be some object in the world.
5. Following this line of reasoning I propose to use ‘dialogical triads’ of the
form ‘I – Me - Other’ as a means to ‘map’ the emergence of ‘personal
chronotopes’.
6. The personal chronotope is conceptualized as a thematically and historically
organized string or sequence of dialogical triads.
2. Bakhtin’s Concept of Chronotope
Chronotopes in Literature

“the intrinsic connectedness of temporal and
spatial relationships that are artistically
expressed…” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 84).

“Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh,
becomes artistically visible; likewise, space
becomes charged and responsive to the
movements of time, plot, and history. This
intersection of axes and fusion of indicators
characterizes the artistic chronotope”(p. 84).
Personal Chronotopes in a
Dialogical Self
1.
A composite of the synchronic and
diachronic
2.
Defined by (a) the simultaneity and (b)
the historicity or succession of Ipositions and Counter-positions as
these emerge in time-space
3. Ontogeny and Position Exchange
Theory
1.
Address the early development of the
dialogical self because this helps to
understand what happens later.
2.
Provide the grounds for using a triadic
approach to model mediation in personal
chronotopes.
Positioning Theories
Discursive Positioning - “Positioning Theory”
(Harre & van Langenhove, 1991; Harre &
Moghaddam, 2003)
Psychological (or Reflexive) Positioning –
“Dialogical Self Theory” (Hermans &
Kempen, 1993; Hermans & HermansKonopka, 2010)
Social Positioning – “Position Exchange
Theory” (Gillespie, 2010; Martin & Gillespie,
2011)
Principles of Position Exchange
Theory
1. All abstract psychological positioning begins from
the template of our social and physical positioning
in the concrete world (Martin & Gillespie, 2011)
2. Our capacities for intersubjectivity emerge from
psychological processes of identification,
distanciation and integration that begin in early
infancy
3. These processes involve an emerging capacity to
imaginatively move in both time and space beyond
the concrete here and now
Identification and
Distanciation
• Identification – a movement out of
one’s own situation to empathetically
participate in the situation of someone
else
• Distanciation – a movement out of
one’s own situation to reflect upon
one’s own situation
(Gillespie, 2010)
Early Psychological Position Exchanges
1. When do the ‘I’ and the ‘Me’ emerge as
linguistic markers of psychological position
exchange?
2. When do children first recognise themselves
in a mirror, suggesting that a link between the
‘I’ and the distanciated ‘Me’ has been formed?
3. And what can we learn from looking into a
mirror at our own reflection?
3(b) ‘I’ and the ‘Me’ as linguistic markers
of psychological position exchange
LOOKING INTO A MIRROR AT OUR OWN
REFLECTION
A disquieting experience characterized by
“a peculiar emptiness, ghostliness [and]
vaguely oppressive loneliness”
(Bakhtin, 1990, pp. 28-29).
4. ‘Thirdness’, Ambiguous
Signifiers, and Dialogical Triads
C. S. Peirce’s Epistemology
1. Firstnesses -- Involve the immediacy of
sensations, such as the sensation of color.
2. Secondnesses -- Involve interactions that are
unmediated, as when two bodies collide, but
regardless of any third.
3. Thirdnesses – Involve mediation. A first bound
together with a second by the mediation of a
third. Peirce called thirds ‘interpretants’. Thirds
involve cultural knowledge that mediates
meaning in the relation of firsts and seconds.
Interpretant (Culture)
(thirdness)
(secondness)
Object
Figure 1
Signifier
Peirce’s semiotic triad
Ambiguous Signifier (person, object, event)
(thirdness)
(secondness)
I-position 1
I (Me)
Figure 2 A dialogical triad
I-position 2
Me (I)
Ambiguous Signifiers
1. A person, object, event, or idea that constitutes
a third position – a mediator, a link to the
outside world
2. As mediator, movement is made possible
3. Are ambiguous, have multi-stable meaning
values, e.g., a Janus head, an object or symbol
with at least two meanings
4. Are fulcrums for distanciation
5. Help explain (internal and external) position
exchange, negotiation, and conflict
5. A Model for the Personal
Chronotope using Triads
6. A Life Historical Example –
Chronotopes in the life of
Charles
Personality Web Protocol –
Overview of Procedure
1. Participants make a list of about two dozen important
constituents from their life histories (important people,
events, objects, places).
2. Participant sorts these components into “self-relevant
facets” or clusters.
3. The facets are then given a self-descriptive label (e.g.,
‘dominant self’, ‘victim’).
4. Participants are also asked to rates all constituents, pairwise, for similarities and differences. These ratings are
then cluster analysed.
5. Participants are interviewed using the life history
constituents as cues in a semi-structured format.
Table 2 Taxonomy of Attachments Comprising the PersonalityWeb Protocol
People
1 Liked Associate 1
2 Liked Public
2
Figure
3 Disliked Associate3
4 Disliked Public 4
Figure
5 Other Important 5
Associate (i)
6 Other Important 6
Associate (ii)
7
8
Objects-inthe-World
Important
Possession (i)
Important
Possession (ii)
Symbolic
Object
Place-in-the-World
(i)
Place-in-the-World
(ii)
Clothing, Costume
(i)
Clothing, Costume
(ii)
Work of Art or
Imagination
1
2
3
4
5
6
Life
Events
Childhood Peak Experience
Childhood Nadir Experience
Adolescence Peak Experience
Adolescence Nadir Experience
Adulthood Peak Experience
Adulthood Nadir Experience
Body
Orientations
1 Liked Body Part
2 Disliked Body Part
3 Strong Body Part
4 Weak Body Part
Personality Web Instructions and Interview Probes
Positive Figures: “someone who has inspired you, occupied your thoughts, and guided
your actions”.
Negative Figures: "people who have occupied your thoughts and influenced your actions,
but with whom you associate strong negative thoughts and feelings".
Interview Probes: ego’s relationship to figure; story about figure; conversation with
figure; trait description of figure
‘Objects-in-the-World’: "including your most private mementos, and your most
important material possessions...but also objects to which you are attached
psychologically...(a flag, a logo... a public building, a national park...)".
Events: broken up into 'peak' and 'nadir' experiences. A peak experience was defined as
"a high point in your life; one of the most wonderful times in your life." Nadir
experiences were the opposite: "a low point; a bad time in your life".
Body Orientations: participants asked to "think about particular body parts that mean
different things to you". Then identify four parts (e.g., eyes, legs etc), that were
respectively "liked", "disliked", "strong" and "weak".
Interview Probe: "reflect on the associations and connections you draw from the
object/event/body part."
Task 1: Pair-Wise Rating of Attachments for Multidimensional Scaling
'the strength of association or connection between pairs of
attachments in terms of your sense of who you are -- your selfrelevant thinking, feeling, acting and experiencing.'
1
2
None/Weak
3
4
Moderate
5
6
7
8
9
Strong/V. Strong
Association in Thought, Feeling, Action & Experience
ATTACHMENT
1.
RATINGS
1
2.
2
3.
3
4.
4
5.
5
6.
6
7.
7
At the time of interview Charles was a 37 year old single gay man who
ran a successful small business. He was also a committed activist for
gay rights and had twice run for election to public office. Although he
was not elected Charles became a spokesperson for gay issues in his
local community. Charles feels his life had been enriched by his
commitments to gay politics. But at the same time he is keenly aware
that his successes were born out of significant challenges. Charles
identifies strongly with ‘manliness’ and masculinity. But, due in
significant part to his homosexuality, he has had to endure a series of
humiliations and rejections in the context of his masculinity. As a
child Charles was not interested in sports and he remembers that this
particularly disappointed his father. He felt he owed his father
something because of this. Charles joined the Navy at 15, inspired by
the archetype of the manly warrior. But at 17 he was discharged after
a (gay) affair with a fellow crew member was discovered. After this
experience Charles sought out a ‘cure’ for his homosexuality in a
charismatic church group. This, too, ended in humiliation when
Charles was publicly ex-communicated from the church after the cure
failed. Charles construes his activism in the gay community as a
dialogical response to the traumas inflicted by these and other
humiliations. At the same time Charles reports inner turmoil over his
strong sense of masculinity, which he construes as at odds with both
his sexual orientation, and gay stereotypes.
Table 3 Charles’ Web of Attachments Grouped into Voices of the Self
1. Humiliated Self
Rejected by father after first football match (aged 8) (made to feel I’d let him down; guilt)
Discharged from Navy (aged 17) (admitted homosexuality; fear, shame, confusion)
Excommunicated from Church (aged 19) (attempt to ‘cure’ myself; “they said I was demonically possessed”
Quentin Crisp (activist, but also a negative role model; “his extreme femininity was a negative influence”)
Crooked face: (“Barbara Streisand nose”; “Prince Charles ears”; “lips and teeth that aren’t aligned”)
2. Activist
Armistead Maupin (aged 15) (first gay public figure discovered; “his stories influenced my life”)
Quentin Crisp (activist, but also a negative role model; “his extreme femininity was a negative influence
Running for public office as Gay candidate (fear; pride; “gained respect from society”)
Attending NYC Gay Games (coming together of my world; met A. Maupin; achievement, success, pride)
Strong face (craggy; conveys strength of character)
Home (symbol of success)
3. Masculine Self
Father (“masculinity is what I have taken from my father”; father was sports champion as young man)
Joined Navy (aged 15) (“I was a man”; “I felt I was conquering the world”)
Men in military uniform (aggressive, hard, heterosexual)
4. Wild Self
Recurring sexual fantasy (various homo-erotic themes, memories and images)
Sex in jeans
Sex in boots
Body tattoo (“to celebrate my body”)
Figure 1 Charles' Web Of Attachments in the Multidimensional Scaling Solution: Dimensions 1 x 2
DIM. 2
Strong face
2.0
*
NYC Gay Games
*
Business
"ACTIVIST POSITION"
1.0
*
Ran for election
Armistead Maupin
o
*
role model
*
Home
*
Sex in Jeans
Sex with
*
military
officer
*
o
"WILD
POSITION"
0.0
DIM. 1
Tattoo
Military officer
Father
Joined Navy
*
*
o
*
Back
*
*
*
*
From Church
Discharged from Navy
-2.0
-1.0
*
Underwear
Quentin Crisp
Crooked face
*
Excommunicated
- 2.0
*
Sex in boots
“MASCULINE POSITION”
- 1.0
*
Rejected by father after
football match
o
*
0.0
Note: Kruskall's Stress 1 = 0.12; Multiple R2 = 0.75
"HUMILIATED POSITION"
1.0
2.0
Father (Ambiguous Signifier)
(thirdness)
(secondness)
Masculine Position
Figure
Humiliated Position
A dialogical triad in Charles
Quentin Crisp (Ambiguous Signifier)
(thirdness)
(secondness)
Humiliated Position
Activist Position
Figure 3 Another dialogical triad in Charles
Figure 5 Hypothetical tracking of personal chronotopes in the case of Charles
Personal Chronotope 1 Manhood vs. Humiliation
Charles on his father:
“I felt really pressured by my father for
most of my life to perform in a whole lot
of things, to be a man, to succeed, to be
strong….I always felt…that I had let him
down.”
Charles on Masculinity and
the Navy
“I was a man, the navy wanted me. I was
15…my father was just happy that I even
got through the interview process….It
was a good time for me. I felt like I was
conquering the world, I was going to go
and fight for my country….I like being a
man, those things don’t frighten me. In a
fight I can defend myself, I am proud of
that. It’s not a bad thing.”
“In my attempt to ‘cure’ myself after I was forced to leave
the navy, I questioned a lot of things about myself and I
went through the usual thing of trying to change and I
became a born again Christian….They attempted for a
year and a half to cure me by getting me to repeatedly
write out passages of the Bible….Of course…I continued to
fall from grace, I was honest about my falling from grace,
and they eventually said that I was demonically possessed.
Then one Sunday afternoon at a church service in front of
450 people, it was a big church assembly…[the pastor]
asked everybody to stand and turn there back, and he
asked me to leave the church…I was excommunicated.
And as I was walking out down the center isle and nobody
would face me, I was thinking that a lot of these people had
grown to become very good friends of mine over the time. I
was devastated. [The pastor] went into a spiel about how if
I was seen on the streets they were to cross the road, I was
not to be communicated with in anyway. Yeah, so, the
church was a major negative influence on me.”
Charles on the Church
Personal Chronotope 2 Masculine vs. Wild Self
Figure 5 Hypothetical tracking of personal chronotopes in the case of Charles
Charles on the Military Man
as Fetish Object
“I am very much a role player and I do like men in
uniform, a variety of uniforms. I’d like to be in the
aggressive position, I would like to be stimulating and
satisfying their every whim and wish. And they have
got to be straight, to be straight, and I am showing
them a good time. Absolutely, I have to be the
pleaser….This is, this is the fag getting his own back
on the heterosexual world, by giving them a taste of it
and seeing that they like it. And the uniform becomes
important because they [military men] are the most
aggressive. They are perceived to be the hardest
mountain to climb…. I suppose it’s all about the fag
being more of the man than the man is, so to speak.”
Personal Chronotope 3 Humiliation vs. Activism
“My other positive figure was both positive and negative
at the same time and that is Quentin Crisp….He is
positive because of his strength of character…but his
extreme femininity and eccentricity was also a negative
influence. It was like I only wanted to take pieces of
him….”
Charles
Conclusion
1.
I have argued that semiotic mediation is crucial to the
dynamics of positioning processes in the dialogical self.
2.
From a developmental point-of-view, I have suggested that the
concept of ‘thirdness’ provides an important tool for
understanding the emergence of personal chronotopes in timespace. Ambiguous signifers reveal how chronotopes are built
from semiotic relations.
3.
Also from a developmental point of view, I have suggested that
early experiences of multiplicity instantiated in I - Me
distanciation provide the basic mechanisms for the later
elaboration of chronotopes.
4.
Finally, using case examples, I have shown how this approach
allows us to plot the formation of I-positions, counter-positions,
and chronotopes, via an analysis of dynamic relations in life
history data.
7. The Big Five Traits as Ambiguous
Signifiers
Traits and Narrative Identity
Raggatt, P. T. F. (2006). Putting the five-factor
model into context: Evidence linking Big Five
traits to narrative identity. Journal of
Personality, 74 (5), 1034 - 1071.
Raggatt, P. T. F. (2012). Has ‘Average Joe’ got
inner conflicts? Positioning the self and the
meaning of mid-range scores on the Big Five
traits. European Journal of Personality.
History Of Big Five Model
1. Lexical hypothesis, so has social
origins
2. Aggregated normative data
3. Factor analysis yields semantic space
4. Mid-range scores are most numerous,
hence most individuals are a blend of
traits.
1
The Big Five Traits Descriptors (Costa & McCrae)
Extraversion
Sociable, Impulsive, Dominant, Strong, Optimistic, Adventurous
Neuroticism
Emotional, Anxious, Fearful, Vulnerable, Self-Conscious, Depressed
Openness to Experience
Independent, Intelligent, Imaginative, Artistic, Creative, Cultured
Agreeableness
Trusting, Affectionate, Nurturant, Tactful, Straightforward, Modest
Conscientiousness
Hardworking, Dutiful, Reliable, Organized, Ambitious, Achieving
Big Five as Social Psychological Construct: Extraversion x Neuroticism
N
E
I
S
- Nomothetic orthogonal space underpinned by lexicon
- Individual fixed in space
- Assumes a blend of characteristics and behaviours at mid-ranges
E
I
Strong E
Somewhat E
I
E
???
Big Five as Intra-Psychological Construct: Extraversion x Neuroticism
N
E
I
S
- Ideographic distanciated space underpinned by positioning
- Individual not fixed in space; three positions are represented
- The trait Extraversion-Introversion is an ambiguous signifier
Extraversion-Introversion
(thirdness)
(secondness)
I-position 1
(= E)
I-position 2
(= I)
Figure 8 Extraversion-Introversion as an ambiguous signifier
Research Question
Do those at the mid-range on a Big Five
trait report more I-position conflict
within that domain than those scoring
Hi/Lo on the trait? For example, those
scoring in the mid-range for
Extraversion (E) will report I-position
conflict in the E domain while those
scoring high and low on E will not.
Measures
• NEO PI-R (Costa & McRae, 1992)
• I-Position Inventory – a checklist of
salient I-positions generated in
previous research (Hermans, 2001;
Raggatt, 2006)
Prediction
Conflict Hypothesis:
Participants scoring in the mid-range on a Big
Five trait will report more trait-congruent Iposition conflict in that domain than participants
who score either high or low on the trait
concerned. For example, those scoring in the midrange for Extraversion (E) will report I-position
conflict in the E domain while those scoring high
and low on E will not.
Sample
• 147 adults completed the NEO PI-R and
the I-Position Inventory(IPI)
• Mean Age: 33.3 years, SD = 15.1 years
• Range: 17 years to 75 years
• 46 males; 101 females
Table 1 Trait-congruent I-positions across the Big Five domain
Extraversion
I-as-…
Neuroticism
I-as-…
Openness
I-as-…
Agreeableness
I-as-…
Conscientiousness
I-as-…
+Fighter
+Dominating
+Enjoyer of life
+Brave
+Strong
+Confident
+Optimist
+Positive
+Bold
+Loud
+Adventurous
+ Happy
+Victim
+Negative
+Jealous
+Guilty
+Vulnerable
+Pessimist
+Weak
+Sad
+Fearful
+Humiliated
+Avoider
+Freedom seeker
+Idealist
+Independent
+Mystic
+Believer
+Dreamer
+Artistic
+Creative
+Spiritual
+Religious
+Warmth Seeker
+Sacrificing
+Understanding
+Modest
+Accepting
+Nurturing
+Loving
+Caring
+Loyal
+Compliant
+Humble
+Forgiver
+Colleague
+Professional
+Doer
+Organised
+In Control
+Achiever
+Successful
+Hard Worker
+Career-Oriented
+Committed
+Serious
Introversion
Stable
Closed
Disagreeable
Unconscientious
I-as-…
-Quiet
-Reserved
-Shy
-Privacy Seeker
-Risk Avoider
I-as-…
-Calm
-Secure
-Stable
-Proud
-Winner
I-as-…
-Realist
-Dependent
-Non-believer
-Traditionalist
-Doubter
-Practical
I-as-…
-Defiant
-Vengeful
-Stubborn
-Betrayer
-Demanding
-Judging
I-as-…
-Avoider
-Messy
-Disorganised
-Lazy
-Amateurish
Table 2 Opposing I-Positions Pairs across the Big Five Domain
Extraversion
Neuroticism
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Bold / Reserved
Vulnerable/
Secure
Independent /
Dependent
Forgiver /
Vengeful
Organised /
Disorganised
Loud / Quiet
Negative /
Positive
Freedom-seeker / Sacrificing /
Risk avoider c
Demanding
Professional /
Amateurish
Dominating /
Shy
Humiliated /
Proud
Religious /
Non-believer
Accepting /
Stubborn
Doer / Avoider
Strong / Weak a
Victim / Winner
Artistic /
Practical
Compliant /
Defiant
Hard-worker / Lazy
Optimist /
Pessimist a
Fearful /
Calm
Idealist / Realist
Loyal / Betrayer
Adventurous /
Risk avoider c
Sad / Happy b
Table 6 t -test comparisons: Mid-range vs. high/low trait domain groups on
I-position conflict scores for that domain
* p <.05, one-tailed. N = 147
Trait
Groups
Trait-congruent
I-position Conflict Scores a
Trait Mean SD
n
Big Five Trait Domain
Group
Comparisons
df
t
Extraversion
1. Mid-Range
2. High/Low
74
73
E
1.80
1.22
1.79
1.45
145
2.16*
Neuroticism
Mid-Range
High/Low
72
75
N
2.33
2.24
1.91
2.05
145
0.29
Openness
Mid-Range
High/Low
74
73
O
2.73
2.15
2.14
1.86
145
1.75*
Agreeableness
Mid-Range
High/Low
75
72
A
1.78
1.16
2.02
1.37
145
2.18*
Conscientiousness
Mid-Range
High/Low
74
73
C
2.45
2.21
2.23
2.09
145
0.69
Table 4 Pearson correlations: Mean trait-congruent I-position ratings with Big Five
trait scores
** p < .001, one-tailed. † p < .01, two-tailed. N = 147
.
Mean Trait-Congruent
I-Position Ratings
Big Five Scores
E
N
O
A
C
E-congruent positions
.64**
-.39†
.27†
-.30†
.14
N-congruent positions
-.40†
.69**
-.04
-.12
-.29†
O-congruent positions
.19
.03
.32**
.17
.23
A-congruent positions
.21
-.06
.05
.53**
.24†
C-congruent positions
.28†
-.14
-.03
.20
.77**
Conclusions – Trait Study
1. For three of the five major trait domains we found that
individuals scoring in the mid-range prioritized conflict
among I-positions in that domain (significant for E, O,
and A, with a non-significant trend also observed for C)
2. Therefore, mid-range trait scores are linked to identityrelated conflict, rather than balance, harmony or
flexibility in the domain concerned.
3. Aggregating trait scores masks underlying processes
involving conflict.
4. Are traits really continuous constructs?
5. Are the Big Five made up of apples and oranges, but
also bananas, pineapples and Brussell’s Sprouts?
Summary
1. At the beginning of this talk I posed the questions: How can the
dialogical self in its extension be understood from a temporal and life
historical perspective?
2. In order to address these questions I have adapted Bakhtin’s concept
of the chronotope to this task.
3. I argued that early experiences of multiplicity arising out of ‘position
exchange’, such as I - Me ‘distanciation’, provide the basic
mechanisms for the later elaboration of chronotopes.
4. I suggested that Peirce’s concept of thirdness provides an important
tool for understanding mediation in the emergence of chronotopes.
5. In particular, ‘ambiguous signifiers’, symbolic objects with multistable meanings, reveal how chronotopes are built from semiotic
relations.
6. Using a case example, I have shown how this approach allows us to
plot the formation of I-positions and counter-positions by analysing
dynamic relations among life history data.
7. From the perspective of dialogical self theory, the case of Charles
illustrates how time, symbolic mediation (culture), and the ambiguity
of critical events are all fundamental to the dynamics of positioning
processes in a dialogical self.