Transactionalism An Historical and Interpretive Study
By: Trevor J. Phillips Foreword by: Kirkland Tibbels Edited by: John Patterson & Kirkland Tibbels Š 2013 Influence Ecology, LLC. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means whatsoever without express written permission from the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Please refer all pertinent questions to the publisher.
ISBN 978-0-9904417-0-0 Influence Ecology books are available through the publisher. For more information, please write to the Program Coordinator, Influence Ecology, LLC, 407 Bryant Cir, Building A, Ojai, California 93023.
www.transactionalism.com
Foreword
What is transactionalism? This book is the result of what started out to be a simple search to find an answer to what I thought was a simple question: “What is transactionalism?” When I began my inquiry, I expected to search the internet and find everything I needed to know, like most subjects, nicely bundled into categories that would lead me to the most general and introductory information, then into the more advanced and highly specialized. What I was looking for was the former; what I found was the latter. It seemed odd at first, that a subject so widely utilized and referenced in so many discourses lacked an easy to find introductory source. Yet there were none. In September of 2009, a modest search of the term led me in many directions. A search for the phrase “an introduction to transactionalism,” for example, yielded zero results. Transactionalism simply had no codified or single source of reference and yet, with very little exception, how the term was described and explained remained fairly consistent across numerous landscapes of study. It was, for me, as though all of the learned professionals making good use of the premise were doing so in a wide variety of ways in their research and study, with a common understanding of what constitutes transactionalism, yet there was very little reference that pointed to a single and defining source on which they based their understanding. Rather than being led to an introductory text or set of works on transactionalism itself, I was pulled into academic and professional subject matter that incorporated a reliance on the term, including how ‘transactionalists’ views, positions, tenets, beliefs, etc. relate to their chosen subjects, some even sighting specific ‘transactionalist philosophers’ or ‘transactionalist psychologists’. But the trails ran cold when I attempted to find on what ground so many ‘transactionalists’ based their postulations and assertions. Transactionalism is characterized in many forms and varied derivations by numerous authors in academic and professional discourses from anthropology to zoology. While each reference a general set of ‘transactionalist’ principles and tenets common to the main idea
and theory of transactionalism, they do so with their own view and orientation in service of the topic or subject at hand. For example, take this statement by psychologist and author Alfred Lang: “Transactionalism – like most goods thrown onto the intellectual market . . . – comes in various versions.” This was the opening line to a chapter he wrote in a book entitled Children, Cities, and Psychological Theories - Developing Relationships. His contribution, “Transactionalism - What could it be?” is an editorial commentary on another chapter in the book written by psychologist Rolf Oerter, entitled “Transactionalism.” Oerter's brilliant attempts to characterize transactionalism as an action theory take the subject in a unique and useful direction, resting on the general theory, while also inspiring new insights – all the while making no reference to any single or common source. That is just one of numerous examples I continually confront. Names associated with transactionalism in some way, in the varied discourses and studies in the field of psychology, include the above plus the likes of Pepper, Altman, Rogoff, Vygotsky, Piaget, Ames, and many more. It became abundantly clear that this curious layman was not going to get a simple answer. At that time, finding material whereby transactionalism was interpreted for its own merit escaped me until, that is, I found an article written by Rebecca Aldrich in the Journal of Occupational Science. In her article, “From Complexity Theory to Transactionalism: Moving Occupational Science Forward in Theorizing the Complexities of Behavior,” was a brief summary of the tenants of transactionalism. This was the first solid reference I found pointing to a definitive source, that being pragmatist philosopher and educator, John Dewey. The article, not necessarily intending to educate the reader in transactionalist tenants in any more than a general sense, was the first time I had run across a summary description of transactionalism that spoke directly to the problem I was facing: the lack of a coherent and fundamental curriculum. Her article credited other excellent work by Malcolm Cutchin and Virginia Dickie, among others, that opened new directions for research on the subject that primarily focused on the writings of Dewey. By focusing my search for work on the topic that relied on Dewey, I began to find new ground. It was through this narrow window that I was able to locate a title and abstract of what appeared to be a single text that could help me understand what so many others seemed to already know and were attempting to utilize in their specific occupations and discourses: a fundamental and supporting work entitled Transactionalism - An Historical and Interpretative Study by Trevor J. Phillips. The principal reference and resource used by Phillips is primarily from the later
works of John Dewey and specifically from the book Dewey wrote with Arthur F. Bentley entitled Knowing and the Known. In it, Dewey and Bentley expand on Dewey’s previous work on the subject of ‘transaction.’
Most people concerned with any development of
transactionalism, at least in the field of psychology, would likely agree that Knowing and the Known is the most solid ground on which modern interpretations and development of transactionalism is sourced, but Dewey and Bentley don’t use or define ‘transactionalism’ explicitly in their work. Dewey was, as is illustrated in this thesis, against the use of such things as -isms – which makes the task all the more difficult. And true to form, this book, like so much of Dewey's and Bentley's writing, is not an easy read. For me, an explicit answer to the original question could not have been found in Knowing and the Known were it not for Phillips' thesis. This may be one reason why there are many works on the subject that make little or no reference to it or John Dewey's other work on the subject. It is easy to miss without the orientation provided by this text, and I speculate that this is the reason so few references to the book are found in other works on transactionalism in its many forms and derivations. Above, I mention the contribution on the subject by Rolf Oerter, whose work mirrors the common theory Dewey and Bentley posit, and curiously, without the benefit of (or any reference at all) to Knowing and the Known. Without the rich distinctions and work Dewey and Bentley offer in defining the difference between ‘interaction’ and ‘transaction’ for example, Oerter's interpretation can be hard to follow and difficult to apply. With it, and other important linguistic distinctions, it becomes a relevant and highly useful resource, expanding and enriching the theory in areas not covered in any work I have found to date. In the field of political science, it is common to find Karl W. Deutsch's name as synonymous with transactionalism. But any attempt to locate Deutsch's work correlated with the likes of Dewey, or elsewhere throughout the general discussion, requires a forensic journey through footnotes and references I have yet to take. There is some evidence that the discourses converge but the only direct coupling of Deutsch and Dewey I have been able to locate so far is on an alphabetical listing of notable American Unitarians – where, curiously, you will find them right next to each other. Fredrick Barth, a renowned social anthropologist, is rarely mentioned in the vast majority of the material I found on the subject, yet Barth’s work “…became described as
‘transactionalism’”1 and the use of the term in characterizing his research is well known in that particular field of study, but is little known elsewhere. In a 2005 interview Barth claims he didn’t and “…couldn’t have [coined the phrase]” and admits, “…it must have been around.” It isn’t clear to me whether Barth ever intended his work to carry such a label, and he certainly wasn’t committed to establishing a firm definition of ‘transactionalism’ per se. In fact, Barth, like so many, tends to shy away from the use of the term because of the misconceptions and confusions generated as a result of the association and dependency the term carries within the discourse of economics. Without a full understanding of what it means to ‘transact’, it is easy to associate the term ‘transactionalism’ with a purely objective, insensitive, and kind of ‘tit-for-tat’ orientation when discussing it in relation to other disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, politics, sociology, religion, or any other. In that same interview, Barth was asked what he “...thought of this phrase ‘transactionalism.’ ” He replied: Well, it clearly has invited people to pick up the wrong part, it’s not clearly enough conceptualized and argued. I’ve always heard these objections, that it’s so instrumental, and it’s so opportunistic, and it’s so immoral to have that kind of image of mankind. And that wasn’t my point. My point was that [human beings] see reciprocities, and that's sort of a mild term, but it’s a fuzzier way of saying the same thing. And I think that most of our basic relationships, all of our basic relationships, are social relations that are built around mutual transactions. And there’s no way you can escape it, because unless you look to the accounting of it your social and economic assets will be dissipated. So you have to face it, there’s nothing immoral about it, it’s not trying to make the most out of your grip on others. It’s trying, on the contrary, to create a satisfactory life, a rich mutual life together. One might think, given a statement like that, all there is to do is study Barth to find the answer to the question, but one quickly realizes that Barth, like Dewey, has it buried deep in the marrow of the bones of his distinct work – work which certainly supports what it is we are attempting to do here, but work not dedicated to distinguishing transactionalism explicitly. The more one looks, the more one finds ‘transactionalism’ discussed and debated, in its varied forms, described and characterized across practically every discipline, dealing in one way or another with the reciprocal nature of humankind – without any reference to 1
Robert Anderson, Interview with Fredrik Barth – Oslo, 5 June 2005, (Published in AIBR Vol. 2, No. 2 May-August 2007 p.xii)
transactionalism directly. This is especially evident in the work of renowned psychologist Jerome Bruner. “People act,” Bruner asserts, “in accordance with their perceptions and their choices, and they reciprocate accordingly.”2 In the premier statement in a chapter of his book Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, entitled “The Transactional Self”, Bruner writes, “If you engage for long in the study of how human beings relate to one another, especially through the use of language, you are bound to be struck by the importance of ‘transactions.’”3 Bruner, like so many others it seems to me, arrived at a kind of terminological problem with using ‘transactionalism’; opting instead to dress it up or play it down by characterizing it in different forms. Where you would expect the likes of Adam Smith or Georg Simmel to describe human beings as “the exchanging animal”4 - you may be surprised to find the same notion expressed by those whose core philosophies seem to otherwise differ greatly. As far as I can tell, at least on this sentiment, a wide and diverse group of great minds tend to agree: human beings are fundamentally transactional. Like Dewey, Bentley, Oerter, Barth, Bruner, and too many others to mention in this forward, a great fortune is there to be mined, but digging it out is not going to be an easy task. “The accessibility of transactionalism is limited,” Ms. Aldrich points out, as she acknowledges the “Herculean task...” scholars have before them. “Transactionalism evolved over the course of Dewey's lifetime5 and as such is not codified in a single source. Acquiring a thorough understanding of transactionalism entails dedicated study and organization of the ideas dispersed throughout Dewey's writings.” On this I agree, and as this text will attempt to convey, not just in the vast bounty of John Dewey's writings, but also from those whose contributions rest in the great fields of material yet to be harvested. There is no doubt that the time and study I had invested over the previous years helped me recognize the value and importance of Dr. Phillips’ work when I finally obtained it. My clumsy and often frustrating attempts at researching and understanding the subject had me prepared, anxious and hungry for what I found. I had practically foundered on the rich and specific knowledge I had struggled to disseminate and consume; I desperately needed a grounded and more general understanding and interpretation of transactionalism. I needed to get some history and context for what I was learning. I needed the general Jerome Bruner, Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, 1986 p. 59. Ibid, p. 57. 4 Gianfranco Poggi, Money and the Modern Mind, Georg Simmel's Philosophy of Money, University of California Press, p. 98. 5 Rebbecca Aldrich, “From Complexity Theory to Transactionalism: Moving Occupational Science Forward in Theorizing the Complexities of Behavior,” Journal of Occupational Science, Vol 15 (3), October 2008, p. 158. 2 3
knowledge to understand the highly specialized work I was finding. I recognized almost immediately that this manuscript was the answer to the questions I had accumulated and it made the specific work in all of the other books and academic papers far more relevant and meaningful. It took me nearly a year to gain access to the manuscript through academic channels. Resting comfortably in its original form, typed on that wonderfully crunchy, erasable onionskin typing paper, and bound in the heavy black covers university libraries used at the time for the preservation and cataloging of a doctorial thesis, was the precise help I had been looking for. The limited time constraints allowed for my possession of the manuscript, along with restrictions for its duplication, made it clear to me that if I were going to utilize it to expand the general knowledge required for the understanding of transactionalism it so aptly provides, I would need to acquire the rights and see it published. Another year went by before I was able to make contact with Dr. Phillips and subsequently gain the rights. I am forever grateful for the deliberate and good work a younger doctoral candidate chose to pursue as his dissertation, and I am inspired and especially thankful for his response to my query nearly fifty years after its submission. His acceptance of my offer to acquire the rights to it in order to make public the very thing missing and needed in order that we all may better grasp and understand what transactionalism is, where and how it may have originated, and how it continues to develop, is made possible because of Dr. Phillips’ generosity, cooperation, and delightful enthusiasm. This is the first of several planned works on the subject of transactionalism. It begins a formal process of producing a fully coherent body of work on the subject. With the help Dr. Phillips provides in this thesis, and with the help of many other committed professionals, the aim of creating a single reference as well as a source for the continued development of the philosophy of transactionalism is made possible. This endeavor is not aimed toward some purely academic exercise or to simply satisfy my intellectual curiosity; rather, its purpose is to bring into our ever-changing and ever-more-complex social discourse the fundamental ground on which we all may stand, together, in order to live good and satisfying individual lives. As our global community comes into view, there is a desperate need for a cooperative dialog to take hold as each of us, individually, confront the impact of our actions on our environment and on each other.
Perhaps the work starting here can lead to an entirely new modern philosophy, or if not something so ambitious, perhaps a framework to ground our thinking and acting. One that supports the inescapability each of us face in confronting the conditions of human life in our highly complex, often indifferent, technologically socialized existence. Maybe, as we pursue a good and satisfying life for ourselves and those for whom we care, we, in our own way, contributing as we are able, might arrive at a place, together, where we recognize and respect the diverse positions and worldviews that make up our global society. Transactionalism confronts the notions that keep us separate from each other and our environment. It offers a perspective and potentiality of action that embraces our role as participants in the creation of our current existence, especially in this highly advanced age where we are so willing and ambitiously testing the limits of our natural and social constraints. If we can‌if we are willing, we could bring into existence a satisfying condition of life that recognizes and honors the individual as a natural part of something significant, universal and complete. The opportunities and advantages available to us are great if, through cooperation, we are able to coexist, help, be helped, and heed the words of Barth and Bruner and face the facts of our transactional selves.
Kirkland Tibbels Ojai, California July 2014
For the only study on the Philosophy of Transactionalism go to www.influenceecology.com and www.transactionalism.com. This book is available on Amazon.com, Kindle, and in iTunes.