JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIVIST PSYCHOLOGY, 31(1), 6–21, 2018

Copyright 
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1072-0537 print / 1521-0650 online
DOI: 10.1080/10720537.2017.1298486

Dialogical Self as a Prerequisite for Intercultural Adult

Education

Barbara Schellhammer
Adult Education, Hochschule für Philosophie SJ, Munich, Germany

Most endeavors in adult education that seek to teach intercultural competence focus on techniques
and skills that lie outside of self: communication models, certain theoretical definitions of culture,
and practices of how to manage diversity. Underlying such approaches is a rather robust understand-
ing of self based on the Western traditional notion of monological, encapsulated consciousness. Yet
understanding otherness on the outside has to start within.

Dialogical self theory (DST) offers stimulating ways to overcome the limitations of a confined
ego-centered world view. In concepts of intercultural adult education, the need to acknowledge
alien parts within oneself and the ability to deal with this otherness have gone unaddressed for too
long. This not only results in educational problems but raises severe ethical concerns. The obvious
fact of the dynamic nature of cultures and individuals, and how both are interrelated, attests to the
understanding of learning as an active, dialogical process of building contextual knowledge. This
is of utmost significance in a rapidly changing world in which intercultural understanding will be
foundational in dealing with present and future global challenges. The question I address is this:
What does an educational model for adult learners look like that instills intercultural competence
through dialogue with the unknown other in self?

CHALLENGES FACING INTERCULTURAL ADULT EDUCATION

Over the last few decades, intercultural competence has become one of the key competencies de-
manded by a wide variety of professions. The reasons for this development are obvious and often
deliberated: The newest communication technologies—including the internet, worldwide media
coverage, powerful economic dynamics, migration, and frightening environmental changes—are
causing us to come together, no matter where we come from and regardless of whether we like it
or not. This process confronts us with vast and sometimes overwhelming complexities, unknown
otherness, and belief systems with their concomitant behaviors that can seem odd and unfamiliar,
maybe even threatening. In the midst of trying to understand the world around us, we are also con-
fronted with our fears, prejudices, and difficulties in finding our place. Training in intercultural

Received 2 June 2016; accepted 2 November 2016.

Address correspondence to Barbara Schellhammer, Kaulbachstr. 31a, 80539 München, Germany. E-mail:
barbara.schellhammer@hfph.de
 DIALOGICAL SELF AND INTERCULTURAL ADULT EDUCATION 7

competence seeks to address these issues by defining a set of competencies that will help people
communicate effectively across cultural differences. The aim is to prepare people to handle and
control intercultural encounters well in order to achieve their goals.
However, these approaches have two major limitations: The first pertains to a limited notion
of education, and the second to a static and narrow understanding of culture. I will briefly touch
on both to show where offerings of intercultural adult education have difficulties accomplishing
what they set out to do. This will also open the field for thoughts on how DST is able to help
mitigate these shortcomings.

Drawbacks of Current Concepts of Intercultural Education

To describe the drawbacks of educational concepts in intercultural training programs, I would

like to introduce the German word Bildung. Bildung is often translated as education. This is,
however, not fully accurate. The English word education is narrower, it has a lot more to do with
actively raising, training, teaching somebody who ought to learn from that process,1 whereas
Bildung also includes learning processes that do not occur in formal educational settings. Espe-
cially today, when education is frequently subject to reforms that cater to economic demands and
market necessities, it refers to particular methods, didactical settings, instructional designs, and
prescribed structures in which education takes place (Krautz, 2007; Lenzen, 2014; Nida-Rümelin,
2013; Nussbaum, 2012; Rau, 2004). What Bildung means therefore cannot be captured by “edu-
cation.”2 Whereas education in formal settings is usually tested and measured by certain criteria
stemming from a particular goal of the educational endeavor or ideal concerning how one should
become according to a certain historical and cultural worldview (e.g., Gagne, Wager, Golas, &
Keller, 2004), Bildung critically reflects on that goal or positioning. In a particular understanding
one could say, Bildung takes education as its object. In that specific notion it is understood as the
science of education, what is referred to as pedagogy in German. As Helmut Danner (1994, p. 3)
explained: “German science of education (‘Pädagogik’—pedagogy) reflects education in general
not only what is happening in schools.” In this reflective position and in its historical development
in the German tradition (e.g., Meister Eckhart, Humboldt, and Schiller), it is closer to philosophy
than to the social sciences (e.g., behavioristic approach, cognitive psychology; Danner, 1994).
Bildung is a dialogical term. It does not merely reflect on the educational process as such, but
encourages the person to reflect on him- or herself experiencing this process.3 Bildung means
both process and status of an individual in response4 to education and teaching. “The true end of
man,” argued Wilhelm von Humboldt, “is the highest and most harmonious development of his
powers to form a complete and consistent whole” (Humboldt, in Lessing & Steenblock, 2010,
translation, B.S.). In contrast to teaching and learning a set of certain competencies, Bildung is
a holistic term that targets and changes the whole person with regard to who he or she is. It is a
lifelong teleological process of becoming.
An important question then is this: becoming what or whom? Bildung means creating, form-
ing, and crafting—it has artistic and creative connotations. It is driven by a certain image of
humankind, by a Menschenbild (that is, a distinctive idea of what it means and what it should
mean to be a human being) at a certain time and in a certain place.5 This notion of humanity is
underpinned by personal and cultural values that motivate us to become who we seek to be. In
order to find out what this guiding source, this Menschenbild, might be, the person has to enter
8 B. SCHELLHAMMER

a process of self-reflection—that is, a dialogue with her- or himself and the world. Therefore
Bildung also always involves personal development. Reflecting on the collective image of hu-
manity and, intertwined with that, one’s personal values and goals, is also an ethical imperative:
Who do we want to become and why?6
In contrast to this understanding, most educational systems seek to teach competencies that
are measurable and comparable through standardized testing. This is also the case for a lot of
intercultural training programs. They make their participants believe they will be able to master
the intercultural encounter if they learn about another culture and equip themselves with a set of
soft skills and communication tools (Mecheril, 2013). This, however, underestimates the com-
plexity of human interaction. It is like learning a new language: Simply knowing the words is
not enough to understand the peculiarities of foreign people. Jürgen Straub pointed out that the
term intercultural competence sometimes comes with an energetic will to optimize, sometimes
with excessive ideas of panacea, as if life in extremely dynamic societies could be restrained
and managed through intercultural competence (Straub, Nothnagel, & Weidemann, 2010, p. 24).
Teaching mainly techniques and skills to deal with an unfamiliar culture often seeks to either sus-
tain or eliminate the otherness of the other. Both goals are motivated by the desire to have control
over the intercultural situation, over the other and oneself. Learning in this sense is driven by the
incentive to preserve the self, to not have to change. These approaches often follow a monological
strategy resting on the notion of the encapsulated self looking unilaterally from the outside into
another person,7 instead of becoming self-aware of how we change through entering the realm of
dialogue. It seems easier to “handle” the otherness of the other based on typologies (“the Chinese
are …” or “the Africans are …”) than to deal with uncertainties facing something unfamiliar.8
Another difficulty of predefined and linearly designed intercultural training programs lies in
the fact that people learn in different ways. Cultural influences have an impact on how people
learn.9 The instructional makeup of a program that works for one culture does not necessarily
work for another. Nevertheless, many of the models used to teach intercultural competence are
highly influenced by educational concepts that rest on linear, individualistic, and cognitive princi-
ples of learning.10 An example (derived from my own research) may illustrate this: In mainstream
Canadian society, it is perfectly fine for children to ask questions in order to learn from adults.
(“There is no such thing as a stupid question.”) For Inuit, however, asking questions is not only
considered rude but traditionally could even be dangerous. Living on the land and having to sur-
vive in ice and snow taught people to learn by demonstration and observation, by accomplishing
the necessary acts of survival together, not by asking questions and certainly not by questioning
what parents or relatives were doing.11 The traditional practice of learning by doing is still deeply
ingrained in the Inuit culture. Therefore, it is not surprising that after schools were introduced in
the Arctic, based on the Southern Canadian (Albertan) school system, teachers complained that
Inuit children had a hard time following classes, and that their elders and parents did not see the
relevance of sending their children to school.

Problems With the Concept of Culture

With regard to the concept of culture, many educational programs either highlight cultural differ-
ences by assigning certain sets of criteria to them (e.g., Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions or
Alexander Thomas’s cultural standards12 ) or negate differences by emphasizing common human
 DIALOGICAL SELF AND INTERCULTURAL ADULT EDUCATION 9

denominators. Neither approach is realistic or helpful when engaging in dialogue with someone
of a different cultural background.
Reductionist notions of culture (or cultural essentialism) diminish human plurality by
claiming that identities are formed by membership of a single social group (see Kermani,
2009; Maalouf, 2000; Sen, 2006). Also, they treat cultures as static entities and disregard
the fact that cultures are open systems that are constantly changing, although they may be
inert at the same time.13 This rather “thin” understanding gives people a sense of secu-
rity and orientation in complex intercultural situations, because multiple and shifting iden-
tities evident in every human being are easier to grasp in terms of a distinct, unchanging
essence.
Yet simply reducing cultural differences does not help to handle them. It is obvious that di-
versity is inherent in the human condition. One could also say, somewhat paradoxically, if there
is something that makes us alike, it is our difference. Or, as Clifford Geertz observed, “It may be
in the cultural particularities of people—in their oddities—that some of the most instructive rev-
elations of what it is to be generically human are to be found” (1973, p. 34). In science as in life,
trying to find universal agreement about what is real, true, or beautiful is hardly possible. The ten-
dency to value uniformity over variety and to overlook or diminish difference can be dangerous.
“[Living in a] world being so full of a number of things,” wrote Geertz (2000, p. 45), “rushing to
judgement is more than a mistake, it’s a crime.” There is a reason for the UNESCO Declaration
on Cultural Diversity to state, “[C]ultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity
is for nature” (UNESCO, 2001). Consequently, in its declaration UNESCO proclaims cultural
diversity as a human right.
Another difficulty with essentialist approaches to learning about another culture is that it can
be rather startling when the foreign person you are dealing with is not showing the behavior you
anticipated based on what you learned regarding the person’s culture. This experience reflects a
pretty robust understanding of self based on the individualist tradition of monological, enclosed
consciousness, of the “container self.” In this understanding the autonomous self is a rational agent
able to anticipate what happens through knowledge, analysis, and experience. Geertz viewed this
concept of the person as a “bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational and cognitive
universe” (Geertz, 1983, p. 59).
I would argue that educational endeavors that seek to teach intercultural competence need
to focus more on self and reciprocal dialogue than on skills and techniques, on “lists of com-
petencies” (Straub et al., 2010, pp. 18–19), and on capturing the otherness of the other in pre-
defined forms, like “cultural standards.” I therefore consider DST to offer a suitable theoretical
framework to help people develop themselves in order to self-consciously encounter the unknown
other.

DIALOGUE AND DST

DST offers a compelling analysis of self that shows how important it is to view education as a
continuous dialogue with the outside world and with oneself. This theory—not new in its main
assumptions, but newly framed and convincingly presented by Hubert Hermans and others (e.g.,
Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010; Ligorio & César, 2013)—is particularly pertinent to the
10 B. SCHELLHAMMER

context of intercultural education. Before I go on to explore aspects of this assertion, I would like
to sketch out some of DST’s principal tenets.
Drawing mainly on American pragmatism (William James’s understanding of self) and Rus-
sian dialogism (Mikhail Bakhtin’s notion of dialogue), DST proposes a decentralized, diversified
understanding of both the concept of self and of culture.14

Usually the concept of self refers to something “internal,” something that happens within the mind of
the individual person, while “dialogue” is typically associated with something “external,” processes
that take place between people who are involved in communication. The composite concept “dialogi-
cal self” goes beyond this dichotomy by bringing the external to the internal and, in reverse, to infuse
the internal into the external. (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010, p. 1)

In other words, culture leaves its traces in self and vice versa. Hermans argued that the self
evolves out of space and time—and so does culture. It is spatially and temporally extended, and
this extension, this range, is increasing as our societies are increasingly part of a process of glob-
alization. As a consequence, “a self emerges with a complexity that reflects the contradictions,
oppositions, encounters, and integrations that are part of the society at large and, at the same time
answers to these influences from its own agentic point of view” (ibid., p. 2). This means there is a
“basic similarity between the relationships among people and the relationship between different
parts of the self” (ibid., p. 127). In inner dialogues we experience self-conflict, self-criticism, and
self-agreement. Referring to this diversity within, Hermans talked of a “society of mind.” This
inner multiplicity can also be seen as an “inner culture” analogous to the notion of culture as a
“web of meaning” (Geertz, 1973) in the outside world.
We need a web of meaning that is both reliable and flexible in order to reach a minimum
degree of congruency and safety, as a prerequisite communicating authentically with others. The
inner and the outer spheres of culture are interwoven in many ways. We become aware of this
intrinsic connection, for example, once we realize that inner conflict tends to create conflict on
the outside, and whenever we experience conflict outside, it impacts us internally. Hermans &
Hermans-Konopka argued:

External conflicts (e.g., with other cultural groups) and internal conflicts (with shadow positions in the
self) are not to be viewed separately from each other. Confronting oneself—and coming to terms—
with the stranger in the self, is a precondition for coming to terms with the stranger in a multi-cultural
environment. (2010, p. 339)

Only if we have a strong sense of self—only if we are not afraid of losing our internal web
of meaning during an intercultural encounter—can we openly enter into dialogue with someone
coming from a different sociocultural or religious background. If we feel torn, uncertain, frail,
and insecure within, we are tempted to withdraw or to retreat behind our cultural or religious
walls and defend our traditions and belief systems, even using violence if necessary.15 Because
of these dynamic forces, globalization goes hand in hand with a strong counterforce: localization.
The counterdevelopments of globalization and localization are observable in multiple ways when
looking at current violent conflicts around the world, and they also take place within the “society
of mind” of an individual. They “can lead to identity confusion or lift the self up to a higher level
of integration” (ibid., p. 3).
 DIALOGICAL SELF AND INTERCULTURAL ADULT EDUCATION 11

Hermans and Hermans-Konopka described five major strategies in how the self responds to
increasing levels of uncertainty16 : (a) diminishing the complexity and inner confusions by retreat-
ing within, as a way fleeing from the world; (b) giving the lead to one powerful position (e.g.,
following a strong spiritual leader) or falling back into dominant internal default positions; (c)
tightening the boundaries between oneself and the other, even leading to forms of xenophobia;
(d) increasing the number of voices in the self or choices to act in the world—a rather paradoxical
reaction that leads to losing oneself or giving up; and (e) “going into and through this uncertainty
rather than avoiding it, in such a way that initial positions are influenced or changed, marginally
or essentially, by the encounter itself” (ibid., p. 4). According to Hermans & Hermans-Konopka,
this last reaction would be the response of the dialogical self. 17 They argued that the dialogical
self is the result of a learning process. It emerges out of a “process of positioning and counter
positioning, not only in relation to other people but also in relation to themselves” (ibid., p. 7).
You can actively position yourself as agreeing or disagreeing, as loving or hating, or as being
close or opposed to somebody or to yourself—however, you can also be passively positioned by
others or by parts of yourself.18
Finally, two further aspects of DST I find important with regard to intercultural education are
these: (a) The other is not only the actual other outside or opposite the self, but rather an intrinsic
part of it. This “other” is always entrenched as the “other in the self.” It may well be that what
we experience as the other has a lot to do with our experience of the other within ourselves. (b)
At moments when we dislike the habits or behaviors shown by the person we are dealing with, it
is likely that we are actually having a hard time dealing with difficult parts of us. These parts are
often repressed or banned; they are hiding in darker realms of our unconscious self, parts of us
that Jung (1971, p. 29) referred to as the “shadow.” It is a well-known psychological phenomenon
that the more we repress these unwanted parts, the more alien they become for us. As we become
strangers to our own selves, we lose the ability to openly encounter the unknown other. In addition,
we are prone to project the dislike and fear of our darker parts onto people who seem strange or
unfamiliar to us. As a consequence we make them responsible for our fearful emotions.
Although DST sheds light on the complex dynamics between self and world/culture and deliv-
ers an instrumental analytical frame, it rests on a rather skeptical, postmodern concept of self that
sees personal identity first and foremost as fragmented and decentralized. “The person shouldn’t
and couldn’t be one unity, at best it can force it [this unity] at her own and other people’s cost”
(Straub & Renn, 2002, p. 27, translation, B.S.). The dialogical self builds on difference and plural-
ity to the disadvantage of identity, autonomy, and unity (Zielke, 2006, p. 55). This can easily result
in losing the primary requirement to enter into dialogue, however: to have a distinctive stand, a
clear position, a coherent self. Martin Buber claimed that dialogue is only possible through the
“whole being” ( 1995, p. 11) and two basic movements: “The first movement he calls ‘the primal
setting at a distance,’ the second ‘entering into relation.’ The first movement is the presupposition
for the second, for we can only enter into relation with being that has been set at a distance from
us and thereby has become an independent opposite” (Friedmann, 2002, p. 92). This is important,
as the notion of a fractured or disintegrated self that seems to dissolve in relation comes close to
pathological forms of personality disorders. In addition, coherence, continuity, and consistency
are required to form a core set of I-positions that shape identity as a dynamic unity in plural-
ity (see Ricoeur, 1989; Straub, 2000; Zima, 2010). Especially in intercultural contexts, a core
understanding of self is needed to reflect on differences and similarities.
12 B. SCHELLHAMMER

THE ROLE OF DST FOR INTERCULTURAL ADULT EDUCATION

In this section I argue that DST can contribute significantly to mitigating the shortcomings of
educational concepts that mainly seek to equip people with intercultural competencies. I would
like to do so by stating the following theses:

1. DST and its concept of plural identity correlates with increasingly complex socio-
cultural pluralities, a phenomenon that presently presents grave challenges and yet
offers a multitude of opportunities.19 DST pertains to both the notion of culture and
education as outlined above and attests to the importance of dialogue for meaning-
ful personal and cultural development.

The fact that culture consists of several people is quite obvious, but to also understand the self
as inherently plural does not seem so evident.20 Yet the notion that a “society of mind” can be seen
as analogous to the global society is not only compelling and persuasive but, with a view to the
complex pluralities all over the world, it also offers a promising blueprint for educational concepts
inspired by the notion of Bildung as an open and inquisitive confrontation with this multifaceted
world. Barbara Zielke referred to people who migrated and still experienced an inner conflict
between the cultures in which they lived. She argued that the dialogical self manages to “bring the
multiculturalism—with all its difficulties and opportunities—‘into’ the person” (Zielke, 2006, p.
66). Similarly, Jürgen Straub (2015) drew on Eva Hoffman’s paradigmatic story in her book Lost
in Translation to show how a woman struggled but managed to form her “identity in plurality”
after migrating from Poland first to Canada and later to the United States. This confrontation with
plurality is a personal as well as a social experience: It becomes part of who we are as unique
persons and who we are as a culture. It does not take place in a vacuum but is impacted and shaped
by space and time. Through our response to the intercultural experience, we change internally
and we change our environment at the same time. We are both receiving and responding, we are
shaped and are shaping forces—both as individuals and as cultures. Therefore, a major part of
intercultural learning must be a self-reflective exercise dealing with one’s own inner diversity.
It cannot be sufficient to only learn about diversity and how to deal with it on the outside. DST
seeks to avoid the pitfalls of treating the self as individualized and self-contained, and culture
as abstract, static, and reified. Rather, it captures self and culture in terms of a multiplicity of
positions with mutual dialogical relationships. This entails the possibility of studying self and
culture as a composite of parts.
The encounter with a multitude of life concepts offers great opportunities, but it can also be
confusing and frustrating. In the process of finding peace of mind and a sense of security, we
position and counterposition ourselves in an attempt to organize the complexity both within and
outside us. Geertz’s understanding of culture as a web of meaning can also be applied to our
“inner culture.” Both webs are immensely complex and constantly shifting through the dialogues
we lead with others and with ourselves. Culture cannot be grasped by assigning a certain set of
criteria, nor can an individual be characterized by typologies or personality tests.
The essential task of adult education (Erwachsenenbildung) is to assist people in their search
for meaning, on their journey of finding balance, peace, and a sense of belonging. People should
be enabled to weave a web of meaning to support and structure their life, and from which they can
 DIALOGICAL SELF AND INTERCULTURAL ADULT EDUCATION 13

venture out to encounter otherness without fear of losing the thread, so to speak. This meaning
can be developed, tested, negotiated, established, or renewed in dialogue. Through dialogue our
cultural and personal webs of meaning are created. Staying within the metaphor of the web, one
could say that dialogues wrapped in symbolic acts (speech, language, rituals, behaviors) are the
knots of the mesh to which we cling. Thus, concepts of intercultural adult education are enriched
when they enable people to engage in meaningful dialogues, in which they learn to face up to and
cope with their temporal and spatial existence. It means encouraging them to honestly respond to
their needs and to also listen to parts in themselves that seem strange or that they might prefer to
hide or banish.
With regard to understanding people coming from a different culture, it means to be sensitive
to the meaning others have found in and for their own lives. This meaning is not something solely
private or subjective; rather, it is communicated in public. It finds expression in symbols and the
symbolic forms that can be observed, interpreted, and talked about. Reality comes into being in a
dialogical space, in the “in-between.” This is also the place where it can be found, examined, and
known. Talking about another culture will never be sufficient to truly understand it. Nevertheless,
this often is the strategy employed in intercultural training programs, in which one group learns
about the other and vice versa (Mecheril, 2013, p. 17). From the perspective of DST, forms of
intercultural adult education should target the in-between, moving from a focus on monological
competencies to the ability to openly encounter otherness. In this learning process, people enter
a dialogue not only with the other on the outside but also with the other-in-self. In other words,
they seek to foster the attitude of the dialogical self.

2. Concepts of culture and self cannot be seen as isolated; they are intrinsically in-
terconnected. Yet they are of a distinctly different quality, and that has important
implications for projects of intercultural adult education.

However self-evident, it is often underestimated and overlooked: Culture and self inherently
belong together. Our internal web of meaning, our inner culture, and the in which cultures we grow
up are deeply interrelated. Both culture and self are the result of their relation. This is of conse-
quential significance for intercultural encounters and therefore for concepts of intercultural adult
education. The way somebody feels about him- or herself (e.g., congruent, harmonious, whole,
and balanced or conflicted, alienated, irritated, and insecure) directly impacts his or her conduct
toward others. The reverse is also true: If we experience disharmony, tension, or dissonance on
the outside, it does something with us internally. These dynamics often fuse and create patterns
of behavior that result in rather robust and rigid stimulus-reaction-chain mechanisms that acquire
their own momentum. They develop a life of their own and start to affect us in negative ways as
we find ourselves trapped in vicious circles, struggling to find a way out. What we experience
historically, societally, and culturally on the outside casts an echo within.
A specific example from my own research may elucidate these dynamics. After many decades
of suppression and the terrible “residential school legacy” in Canada, many Aboriginal groups see
themselves as victims of the political strategy to assimilate indigenous people into mainstream
society by “killing the Indian in the child.”21 Sadly, the effects of the cultural loss can be seen
in high unemployment rates, a huge number of indigenous people in jails, and many incidences
of youth binge drinking and suicide among young Aboriginals. The government has apologized
for what happened in residential schools, many programs try to mitigate the personal and so-
14 B. SCHELLHAMMER

cial problems, and monetary compensation is being paid. Because of these historical and current
happenings, Aboriginal people tend to identify with their role as victims, both personally and
culturally. The government, on the other hand, feels to blame for what happened, so it identifies
with the role of the villain. Politicians express their responsibility, and they want to do their best
to ease the immense problems Canada faces with regard to its indigenous populations.
On both sides the patterns of identification have grown strong over the years, becoming a
part of their web of meaning and thus infiltrating their worldview and ethos (Geertz, 1973). In
their interactions, both groups have enforced their notion of self and their behavior. This has
led to powerlessness on the victim’s side, as Aboriginal people relinquished responsibility for
their lives, demanding instead that the government take care of them. In their view the govern-
ment is responsible for its wrongdoings and must make sure that their livelihood is compensated
for. Critical voices with regard to these sometimes extortive demands for compensation are sup-
pressed, criticized, and considered politically incorrect. By these voices I am referring to both
inner voices within individuals and open utterances among people. By not talking about these
dynamics or openly discussing negative feelings about each other, the inner reluctance or ani-
mosity toward each other grows. It also engenders unpleasant conflicts between different groups
in Canada, including forms of ethnocentrism and even racism on both sides (Schellhammer, 2014,
2015).
People tend to act in ways that reinforce their worldview, as they trigger behavior on the other
side that confirms preestablished stereotypes and prejudices. They find themselves entangled in
a fairly stable “inner culture” that is reinforced by a certain worldview on the outside. This “self-
as-container” (Gergen & Gergen, 2003, p. 125) holds people captive either in the victim or the
offender role, as they continue to see and interpret the world in this light.22 They are trapped in
monological ways of understanding otherness without reflecting on the complex dynamics of the
in-between that shapes the self-awareness and behavior on both sides. Monological assumptions
cause people to retreat and create boundaries within and outside, which makes the differences
grow even bigger.
So, it is not enough to learn about another culture to gain the ability to behave well and ade-
quately. One also needs to be able to deal with inner inconsistencies or insecurities, triggered by
the confrontation with something that feels challenging—which is often the case when we en-
counter something that strikes us as strange or unfamiliar, like someone coming from a different
culture. Our inner experience automatically colors our impression of the outside world. Often we
make other people responsible for how we feel. The more we understand ourselves and particu-
larly learn to understand and accept the unknown, frightening, or challenging parts in us, the less
we run the risk of releasing these feelings and judging the intimidating encounter with someone
who is different from us.
The imperative to develop a deeper self-awareness in intercultural settings is not only an epis-
temological requirement to gain accurate knowledge about otherness, it is also an ethical imper-
ative. We must do our best to avoid projections and unconscious rejections, trying to satisfy our
self-preserving motives. The attitude of the dialogical self means that we respond rather than react
in situations of uncertainty, as when confronted by unfamiliar or puzzling behavior. This means
engaging in a dialogue that opens the door to a new understanding of the other—and of myself
or, rather, my selves. Dialogue is the mean for development, and bridges the inner and the outer
world.
 DIALOGICAL SELF AND INTERCULTURAL ADULT EDUCATION 15

It is essential to note at this point, however, that this does not imply we can learn to understand
someone foreign to us solely by seeking a better understanding of ourselves. Meeting another
person is of a substantially different quality. Referring to Lévinas and Gadamer, Lisbeth Lipari
wrote, “[O]ne’s view of the other will inevitably be partial and incomplete and, in this sense, the
other will inevitably be radically and utterly unknown because otherness resides beyond one’s
categories of thought” (2009, p. 46). Besides the internal understanding of self, we need to take
into account the complete otherness of the outside world—this is of fundamental importance for
cross-cultural learning, as the third thesis argues below.

3. Learning is only possible in tension. A prerequisite for tension is difference and

diversity. It therefore should not be the main objective of intercultural education
to fully integrate or assimilate differences. Instead of aiming at complete corre-
spondence or full congruence, people should be enabled to engage in dialogue. This
dialogue in tension of differences is pivotal to learning and transformation, both
internally and externally.

Often we think that integration and congruence are ideal goals to strive for, be it in politics,
when governments try to integrate new citizens into mainstream society, or in psychology, when
we believe that the fully integrated person is harmonious, balanced, and able to lead a healthy and
virtuous life. This, according to Harry Frankfurt (2006), might be achievable through “whole-
heartedness.” By this he meant ascertaining oneself of one’s vision, life goals, and values, and to
have the things we “really care about” guide our behavior. Striving for this core of who we are
helps us to align our inner diversity toward genuine authenticity.
Although this sounds persuasive, on second thought, one might also find that full congruence
is the end of creativity; it is the end of flourishing and ultimately the end of life. It is stagnation
and demise. Learning and growth are only possible through confrontation with something that
lies outside of self, with something that is completely different and other than we are. In other
words, learning happens through relation: “[T]he word ‘I’ does not index an origin of action, but
a relational achievement” (Gergen, 2009, p. 133).23
Although we cling to habits, patterns, and well-known routines, most of what we experience is
different.24 Everything changes constantly, nothing stays the same. This is difficult for us, because
it is barely possible to predict the future with any certainty or to know how somebody might
react. It may even happen that we are surprised by ourselves, by the inner life we experience in
challenging situations that makes us behave in unexpected ways. Life is fluid and interrelated,
and yet it is essential for us to be part of something that is familiar, to be who we are as unique
individuals. It always has been and still is a great question in philosophy, what it is that constitutes
one’s self through space and time. Who am I in the midst of this diversity that constitutes me and
how can I say “I am” in all of these influences that shape me? (Brüntrup, 2014; Quante, 1999, p. 9).
Over the years and according to different cultural settings, people have found different answers
to these questions. In some traditions they view themselves as sturdy vessels steering through deep
seas, in others they see themselves as part of the ocean, moving with the tides and living off the sea.
What seems to be common to all of us, in spite of such different worldviews, is that we take our
answers and try to live within them. We create narratives of the world and of our role in it (Ricoeur,
2005; Straub, 2015; Straub & Zielke, 2005; Thomä, 1998). These narratives constitute the heart
of intercultural education: Its primary task is to create space for dialogue, to help people leave
16 B. SCHELLHAMMER

their shells of certainty, to encourage them to go into and through increasing levels of uncertainty
in a globalizing world and thus learn to cope with it (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010, p. 3).
In this tension of differences, something astonishing may happen, something that has to do with
Bildung, as outlined above. For it means that I am opening myself up to somebody strange and,
while I try to be courageous enough to be fully with the other, I experience myself, I find and
understand myself. On the occasion of the encounter I have to be present and I have to present
myself to the other. My narrative changes and yet it stays my narrative. This is what Hermans
& Hermans-Konopka called postdialogical certainty: a confidence that results from learning that
does not seek refuge in categories and typologies and that does not aim for clear-cut integration,
where pieces fit like a puzzle, to build a picture that can be framed forever. There is a reason why
writers like Max Frisch (1985) have stressed that we should not try to fully understand, to fully
be able to explain somebody else: Creating an image takes away the opportunity to grow, to be
surprised, amazed, and overwhelmed. It is the end of love. It imprisons us in our own notion of
the other—and of ourselves.25
Instead of thinking—or, rather, fearing—that we might lose ourselves by curiously venturing
into differences, we should learn to accept that it is the tension of difference that helps us to not fall
apart. It is the process of positioning and counterpositioning in dialogue that establishes self over
and over again. This sounds similar to what Alfred North Whitehead described as the abundant
process of education. According to his understanding of actuality as processes rather than as a
gathering of ontological facts, he criticized educational concepts that focus merely on piling up
knowledge. He cautioned against static, “inert ideas” without life, thoughts that are not tested,
utilized, or thrown into fresh combinations (Whitehead, 2012, p. 39). Whitehead contrasted the
linear approach of education with what he called a “cyclic” process of education, arguing that
life does not consist of neat little boxes we accumulate over time but develops through processes
that interrelate and thus build on one another, changing everything through their movements. This
process follows an organic, natural rhythm that also includes an aesthetic or artistic dimension,
one analogous to the arts or music.
Yet it is also important that we are not drawn into a confusing whirl of free-floating rhythm
without stepping back from it regularly to reflect on the learning experience. It is important to
order and hence “harvest” the new insights one has gained.26 The virtue of growth lies in the
positive tension between creative, open exploration and arranging, systematizing, and positioning.
Both movements need to draw from this relationship, which helps them to counterbalance each
other, and hence not to fall into extremes.
Martin Buber, the forefather of the dialogical principle, similarly argued that we may encounter
the world in two ways: On one hand, we live our categories, stereotypes, and labels; on the other,
we are able to let go of these to openly enter a dialogical space in which we have no predefined
notions of the other. The first attitude he calls I-It, the second I-Thou. In settings of intercultural
education, both are important. Being with the other person, listening deeply, and observing at-
tentively grants us insights we would not get if we were to filter impressions through predefined
categories or set prejudices. Yet these insights must be lifted and analyzed, they have to find
expression to be able to work with them. As Buber (1985) noted:

Take knowledge: being is disclosed to the man who is engaged in knowing, as he looks at what is
over against him. He will, indeed, have to grasp as an object that which he has seen with the force of
 DIALOGICAL SELF AND INTERCULTURAL ADULT EDUCATION 17

presence, he will have to compare it with objects, describe and analyze it objectively. Only as It can
it enter the structure of knowledge. (p. 40)

Yet this structured knowledge is still fluid; it needs to be funneled back into the dialogical
sphere. In this movement from I-Thou to I-It and back, we acquire knowledge that gets thicker
and thicker because it is able to tell us something about meaning—the meaning that other people
have found for their lives. We need to find words and categories to orient ourselves and to wrap
our thoughts into something tangible we can talk about, and yet we will never be able to fully
grasp this meaning. Buber found easy words to express what I am trying to say: “Without It man
cannot live. But he who lives with It alone is not man” (ibid, 34).
I-It and I-Thou, both can and should happen in dialogue. Dialogical projects of intercultural
education seek to create a space for people of different cultural backgrounds to meet and to learn
with and from each other (I-Thou). These projects should also facilitate a learning that takes place
on a meta-level, that seeks to address the encounter itself, the insights gained in the process. That
way participants gain knowledge that results from the encounter but that may be used in other
contexts, as well; they learn about their differences and how they can be generalized. In this
process, participants experience the alternating movements of stepping in and out, of change and
balance in opening oneself up to otherness, enriching and transforming the self through whatever
takes place in the dialogical moment.

CONCLUDING SUMMARY

Intercultural competence is one of the key competencies in demand around the world. Unfortu-
nately, most educational endeavors fail to prepare people to face intercultural encounters because
they reduce the complexity of this meeting with otherness to technical skills and clear-cut notions
of culture. Moreover, they make people believe they can “fix” things on the outside without being
touched or moved internally. However, intercultural competence entails so much more than just
knowledge and skills: It rests on an attitude that encompasses the whole being. Trying to find a
way to incorporate this holistic notion of Bildung into educational attempts to teach intercultural
competence, I have argued that DST offers significant insights that help explain the complex in-
terrelatedness of culture and identity. Making people aware of their “internal culture,” including
their alien shadow parts, is essential for them to able to respond to challenging cross-cultural
situations. They will be better prepared to deal with their fear, anger, distress, and annoyances,
realizing that they will not be able to control the situation and they will never be able to understand
the other person.
What seems particularly promising is the realization that this unbridgeable difference is fun-
damental to people’s understanding of self and for their own self-development, and that feeling
tension and uneasiness is natural—it has more to do with oneself than with the other person (who
will most likely feel the same). This awareness opens up the realm for dialogue in which neither
side has to assimilate, integrate, or even eliminate the other in order to sustain their selves. Rather,
this opens up a space where Bildung can take place—a correlation of dialogue on the outside with
the inside. However, for this dialogue to take place, it is necessary for DST to strengthen the syn-
thesizing entity of the self, and to expand on the explanation of what it is that makes us feel whole
in spite of our inner diversity.
18 B. SCHELLHAMMER

NOTES

1. Etymologically, the word education comes from the Latin educatio, which means raising, rearing, or
bringing up; and from educo, which means “I educate,” “I raise up,” or “I train.” This speaks to the fact
that an educator is actively impacting somebody else, who is rather passively receiving. Also, education
captures several terms that have very distinct meanings in German: Erziehung, which is usually referred
to as the process of raising a child, which takes mainly place at home but also in school, and rests on
the interpersonal relationship between the educator and the person being educated; and lehren/lernen,
which means teaching and learning as a more systematic, methodological, and intentional activity (see
Danner, 1994).
2. Obviously both terms, education and Bildung, have to be read and can only be understood in context.
Both have a long history—for example, pragmatism and social sciences in America and the “humanistic
theory of education” (Geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik) in Germany—and both currently struggle
with or are heavily influenced by “marketization” and globalization.
3. This is also what Paulo Freire (2007) had in mind with his dialogical, problem-posing concept of edu-
cation that makes people aware of their situation in order to free themselves from oppression.
4. Response means actively getting in touch, working through concepts and encounters, infiltrating ideas,
making the other present (auseinandersetzung); it is more than just reacting. This also captures what
responsibility means: It means that we have to act using our rational ability instead of reacting instinc-
tively. We are responsible for our learning, for our being in and with the world.
5. This is close to Aristotle’s understanding of the process of becoming as substance/subject consist-
ing of two principles: matter/material (hyle) and form/image (morphe). The latter dictates how the
former takes shape. Using the example of the sculptor, Aristotle explained how the teleological prin-
ciple of entelechy crafts a distinctive sculpture out of formless material. The idea, the telos, of what
the sculpture looks like is already there, it lies in the soul of the subject: It is the guiding principle
of the process of becoming. From birth on, the soul is influenced by its membership of a distinc-
tive group of people, by the polis in which the person grows up—in fact, we are social beings (zoon
politikon).
6. Clifford Geertz (1973) argued that human beings create webs of meaning that (for the most part
unconsciously) shape their worldview and make them behave in certain ways. Part of this world-
view is our notion of who we are as human beings, our Menschenbild. Bildung means trying to
step back, to look at one’s “web” from a meta-perspective (knowing that this is only partly possi-
ble, as there is no view from nowhere) in order to also actively shape it and not only to be shaped
by it.
7. Christoph Wulf talked here about a “closed self” that leads to egocentrism, logocentrism, and ethno-
centrism (Wulf, 2006, p. 47).
8. Christoph Wulf wrote, “It is not the pretense to understand the other, but the realization that the other
is different and not to be understood, which has to be the starting point of intercultural education. This
experience is difficult to endure” (Wulf, 1999, p. 61, translation, B.S.)
9. Quite a lot of research has been done in the area of adult education with regard to milieus and adult
socialization, revealing that how adults learn is affected by their social environment. See, for example,
Tippelt (1997) and Siebert (2011).
10. John Paul Lederach (1995) showed convincingly how dominant models of mediation were applied in
different cultural contexts without critically assessing their “situatedness.” His book is a fine example
of how one can reflect on cultural impact on learning.
11. See also McGregor (2011).
12. Another example of pigeon-holing cultures is the well-known book Clash of Civilizations by Samuel
Huntington (1996).
13. I refer to Clifford Geertz’s dynamic concept of culture here (Geertz, 1973).
14. “At the intersection between the psychology of the self in the tradition of William James and the dia-
logical school in the tradition of Mikhail Bakhtin, the proposed view challenges both the idea of a core,
essential self and the idea of a core, essential culture” (Hermans, 2001, p. 243).
 DIALOGICAL SELF AND INTERCULTURAL ADULT EDUCATION 19

15. Arno Gruen, a German psychoanalyst, described these inner dynamics and their impacts on the outside
world compellingly in his book, The Stranger in Us: “The enemy we believe to see in somebody else,
has originally to be found in us” (Gruen, 2014, p. 10, translation, B.S.).
16. Here interesting parallels can be found in Virginia Satir’s (1972) four communication stances of people
with low self-esteem.
17. Viktor Frankl (1975) similarly argued that the responsibility of dealing with difficult situations in life
starts within. He famously said that between stimulus and reaction lies a space, and this space ought to
be used to reflect and to respond instead of reacting instinctively. This is important because the reaction
or response automatically turns into a stimulus for the people around us. In the aforementioned “space”
lies the power to choose our response and therefore our freedom and the possibility to learn and grow.
18. Still, I wonder whether we can indeed position ourselves actively and consciously as loving, hating, or
feeling hurt. I would rather say that we can (and ought to) reflect on our loving, hating, or feeling hurt
and deal with it instead of it dealing with us. We can take a position in encountering an inner experience
as something that is us, while recognizing at the same time that this experience is not entirely who we
are.
19. See also Ziebertz and Herbert (2009).
20. Although several well-known philosophical and psychological concepts of self do acknowledge the
phenomenon of different parts of the self that can be in conflict, and ought to be aligned or orga-
nized for the self to function well (e.g., Plato, G.F.W. Hegel, Sigmund Freud, and George Herbert
Mead).
21. See Prime Minister Steven Harper’s Residential School Apology (2008)
22. For a striking description of the dynamics between victim, villain, and hero roles, see Gary Harper’s
(2004) The Joy of Conflict Resolution: Transforming Victims, Villains, and Heroes in the Workplace
and at Home.
23. In his Relational Being, Kenneth Gergen (2009, p. 134) also referred to the ideal of a person as a
coherent unity, which he traced back to the long tradition of Christianity, “with its emphasis on the
purity of the soul, and the clear divide between good and evil.” He further wrote that the “maturing
individual should thus aspire to a coherent way of thinking about the world, one that integrates disparate
facts into a single, over-arching theory” (ibid.).
24. This is an important notion in systems therapy. Often therapists ask their clients when they experienced
healthy times and happy moments. In other words, they ask their clients for differences—because these
differences, in fact, make a difference (Hegemannn & Oestereich, 2009, p. 23).
25. “In gewissem Grad sind wir wirklich das Wesen, das die andern in uns hineinsehen, Freunde wie Feinde.
Und umgekehrt! Auch wir sind die Verfasser der andern; wir sind auf eine heimliche und unentrinnbare
Weise verantwortlich für das Gesicht, das sie uns zeigen, verantwortlich nicht für ihre Anlage, aber für
die Ausschöpfung dieser Anlage. Wir sind es, die dem Freunde, dessen Erstarrtsein uns bemüht, im
Wege stehen, und zwar dadurch, dass unsere Meinung, er sei erstarrt, ein weiteres Glied in jener Kette
ist, die ihn fesselt und langsam erwürgt. Wir wünschen ihm, dass er sich wandle, o ja, wir wünschen es
ganzen Völkern! Aber darum sind wir noch lange nicht bereit, unsere Vorstellung von ihnen aufzugeben.
Wir selber sind die letzten, die sie verwandeln. Wir halten uns für den Spiegel und ahnen nur selten,
wie sehr der andere seinerseits eben der Spiegel unsres erstarrten Menschenbildes ist, unser Erzeugnis,
unser Opfer” (Frisch, 1985, p. 29).
26. Therefore Whitehead distinguishes between three phases or cycles that build on each other in the learn-
ing process: romance or exploration, precision and generalization, synthesis or transfer.

REFERENCES

Brüntrup, G. (2014). Reales und ideales selbst. In K. Viertbauer & R. Kögeler (Eds.), Das autonome subjekt: Eine denk-
form in bedrängnis (pp. 135–158). Regensburg, Germany: Friedrich Pustet.
Buber, M. (1985). I and thou (G. R. Smith, transl.). New York, NY: Scribner.
Buber, M. (1995). Ich und du. Stuttgart, Germany: Reclam.
20 B. SCHELLHAMMER

Danner, H. (1994). Bildung: A basic term of German education. Educational Sciences, 9, 1–29. http://www.helmut-
danner.info/
bildung.html
Frankfurt, H. (2006). Taking ourselves seriously & getting it right. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Frankl, V. (1975). Man’s search for meaning (I. Lasch, transl.). New York, NY: Pocket Book.
Freire, P. (2007). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Friedmann, M. (2002). Martin Buber: The life of dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge.
Frisch, M. (1985). Tagebuch 1946–1949. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch.
Gagne, R., Wager, W., Golas, K., & Keller, J. (2004). Principles of instructional design. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1983). Further essays in interpretative anthropology. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (2000). Available light: Anthropological reflections on philosophical topics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
Gergen, K. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gergen, K., & Gergen, M. (2003). Social construction: A reader. London, UK: Sage.
Gruen, A. (2014). Der Fremde in uns. München, Germany: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
Harper, G. (2004). The joy of conflict resolution: Transforming victims, villains, and heroes in the workplace and at home.
Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Harper, S. (2008). Statement of apology to former students of Indian residential schools. Ontario: Government of Canada.
Retrieved from http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100015644/1100100015649
Hegemann, T., & Oestereich, C. (2009). Einführung in die interkulturelle systemische Beratung und Therapie. Heidelberg,
Germany: Carl Auer.
Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology,
7(3), 243–281.
Hermans, H. J. M., & Hermans-Konopka, A. (2010). Dialogical self theory: Positioning and counter-positioning in a
globalizing society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Huntington, S. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Jung, C. (1971). Bewusstes und Unbewusstes. Frankfurt, Germany: Walter.
Kermani, N. (2009). Wer ist wir? Deutschland und seine Muslime. München, Germany: Beck.
Krautz, J. (2007). Ware Bildung. Hamburg, Germany: Dietrichs.
Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University
Press.
Lenzen, D. (2014). Bildung statt Bologna! Berlin, Germany: Ullstein.
Lessing, H. U., & Steenblock, V. (Eds.) (2010). “Was den menschen eigentlich zum menschen macht …” Klassische texte
einer philosophie der bildung. Freiburg/München, Germany: Karl Alber.
Ligorio, B. M., & César, M. (2013). Interplays between dialogical learning and dialogical self. Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishing.
Lipari, L. (2009). Listening otherwise: The voice of ethics. International Journal of Listening, 23, 44–59.
Maalouf, A. (2000). Mörderische Identitäten. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.
McGregor, H. E. (2011). Inuit education and schools in the Eastern Arctic. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia
Press.
Mecheril, P. (2013). “Kompetenzlosigkeitskompetenz”: Pädagogisches Handeln unter Einwanderungsbedingungen. In G.
Auernheimer (Ed.), Interkulturelle Kompetenz und pädagogische Professionalität (pp. 15–35). Wiesbaden, Germany:
Springer.
Nida Rümelin, J. (2013). Philosophie einer humanen Bildung. Hamburg, Germany: Körber-Stiftung.
Nussbaum, M. (2012). Nicht für den Profit! warum Demokratie Bildung braucht. Überlingen, Germany: Tibia.
Quante, M. (1999). Personale Identität. Paderborn, Germany: Schöningh.
Rau, J. (2004). Den ganzen Menschen bilden—wider den Nützlichkeitszwang: Plädoyer für eine neue Bildungsreform.
Weinheim/Basel, Germany: Beltz.
Ricoeur, P. (1989). Zeit und Erzählung (Zeit und historische Erzählung I). München, Germany: Fink.
Ricoeur, P. (2005). Narrative Identität. In P. Ricoeur (P. Welsen, Trans.), Vom Text zur Person: Hermeneutische Aufsätze
(1970–1999) (pp. 209–225). Hamburg, Germany: Meiner.
Satir, V. (1972). Peoplemaking. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
 DIALOGICAL SELF AND INTERCULTURAL ADULT EDUCATION 21

Schellhammer, B. (2014). Dialogisches Vorgehen in Kontexten interkultureller Bildung. Ein Plädoyer. Stimmen der Zeit,
232(7), 435–447.
Schellhammer, B. (2015). “Dichte Beschreibung” in der Arktis. Clifford Geertz und die Kulturrevolution der Inuit in
Nordkanada. Bielefeld, Germany: transcript.
Sen, A. (2006). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. New York, NY: Norton.
Siebert, H. (2011). Lernen und Bildung Erwachsener. Bielefeld, Germany: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
Straub, J. (2000). Identitätstheorie, empirische Identitätsforschung, und die “postmoderne” armchair psychology.
Zeitschrift für qualitative Bildungs-, Beratungs- und Sozialforschung, 1(1), 167–194.
Straub, J. (2015). Ein Selbstbildnis erzählen: Narrative Identität, Kontingenz, und Migration. In S. Walz-Pawlita, B. Un-
ruh, & B. Janta (Eds.). Identitäten/bibliothek der psychoanalyse (pp.17–42). Gießen, Germany: Psychosozial-Verlag.
Straub, J., Nothnagel, S., & Weidemann, A. (2010). Interkulturelle Kompetenz lehren: Begriffliche und theoretische Vo-
raussetzungen. In J. Straub, S. Nothnagel, & A. Weidemann (Eds.). Wie lehrt man interkulturelle Kompetenz? Theo-
rien, Methoden und Praxis in der Hochschulausbildung (pp.15–27). Bielefeld, Germany: transcript.
Straub, J., & Renn, J. (Eds.) (2002). Transitorische Identität. der Prozesscharakter des modernen Selbst. Frankfurt, Ger-
many: Campus.
Straub, J., & Zielke, B. (2005). Autonomie, narrative Identität, und die postmoderne Kritik des sozialen Konstruktivismus:
Relationales und “dialogisches” Selbst als zeitgemäße Alternativen? In F. Jäger & J. Straub (Eds.), Was ist der Mensch,
was Geschichte? Perspektiven einer kulturwissenschaftlichen Anthropologie. Jörn Rüsen zum 65. Geburtstag (pp.
165–210). Bielefeld, Germany: transcript.
Thomä, D. (1998). Erzähle dich selbst: Lebensgeschichte als philosophisches Problem. München, Germany: C. H. Beck.
Tippelt, R. (1997). Sozialstruktur und Erwachsenenbildung: Lebenslagen, Lebensstile, und soziale Milieus. In R. Brödel
(Ed.), Erwachsenenbildung in der moderne (pp. 53–69). Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.
UNESCO. (2001). Universal declaration on cultural diversity. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_
ID=13179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, 11.06.14.
Whitehead, A. N. (2012). Die Ziele von Erziehung und Bildung. Berlin, Germany: Suhrkamp.
Wulf, C. (1999). Der Andere: Perspektiven zur interkulturellen Bildung. In P. Dibie & C. Wulf (Eds.), Vom Verstehen des
Nichtverstehens (pp. 61–75). Frankfurt, Germany: Campus.
Wulf, C. (2006). Anthropologie kultureller Vielfalt: Interkulturelle Bildung in Zeiten der Globalisierung. Bielefeld, Ger-
many: transcript.
Ziebertz, H. G., & Herbert, M. (2009). Plurale Identität und interkulturelle Kommunikation. Interculture Journal (online
at Zeitschrift für Interkulturelle Studien), 8(7), 11–30.
Zielke, B. (2006). Das dialogische Selbst: Interkulturelle kommunikation “in” der Person? Journal für Psychologie, 14(1),
50–75.
Zima, P. (2010). Theorie des Subjekts. Tübingen/Basel, Germany: Francke.
Copyright of Journal of Constructivist Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.