The roles or practices within the dialogic model exist in relationships that could be examined through another hermeneutic project. As I have engaged with the theoretical framework of the archetypal model, I have come to believe that I could enhance and enrich the model if I were to explore archetypal and depth psychology. I believe that including notions of shadow roles could further expand the circles of engagement, of alignment and willingness. Keirsey includes Paracelsus’ idea of monstrous and infantile characteristics in his discussion of the temperaments (1998). In Starhawk’s (1990 & 1999) work there are gilded and rust, inflated and deflated versions of the iron pentacle, which is connected to her model of group leadership.
A study of depth psychology would relate to the archetypes of dialogic process. My proposed theory and model of dialogue would be enhanced by combining the archetypal model with the mythic structures of the iron pentacle as personal mastery, and pentacle of pearl as world journey creating opportunity to develop a mythic narrative of dialogue as a life process. This would further the attempt to develop dialogue as a practice, as suggested by Isaacs:
“The practices I recommend for dialogue are not fully developed in the same way that some others mentioned are. After all, yoga and the healing arts have been under conscious development for several thousands of years. I believe that dialogue, to be effective in groups and in larger social settings, requires a similar kind of development, a set of practices that can help us to understand it and let it blossom” (1999a, p80).
Posted by John Bell on December 10, 2006
Tags: The Fifth Principle of Dialogue