Yvonne Weeseman, H. Laarhoven, Michael Scherer-Rath
{"title":"Modes of Narrative Integration of Experiences of Contingency in Highly Sensitive Children: a Qualitative Pilot Study","authors":"Yvonne Weeseman, H. Laarhoven, Michael Scherer-Rath","doi":"10.1163/15709256-12341392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nNarrative integration of experiences of contingency describes the ways (modes) in which people assimilate the uncontrollability—or contingency—of life, while accepting, acknowledging and tolerating the existential fears accompanying these experiences, thus keeping contingency open. Contingency is defined as events being ‘possible (or not impossible) and also not necessary at the same time’. Experiences of contingency, caused by the interplay between life events, one’s worldview and ultimate life goals, disrupt one’s life story, challenging one’s basic needs for understanding, coherence and meaning.\nThe different modes of narrative integration are studied in six highly sensitive Dutch children, aged between 6 and 12 years old. A practice-based model by Kruizinga et al. (2017) is compared to a theoretical construct of religious philosophical contingency constructed by Wuchterl (2011; 2019). Practical and theoretical differences are discussed. This study confirms the findings by Kruizinga et al. (2017).\nFour modes of dealing with contingency are identified: Denial, Acknowledging, Accepting and Receiving. In mode four, Receiving, people transcend themselves (self-transcendence). Contrary to Wuchterl’s theory, vertical transcendence is not a prerequisite for narrative integration of contingency, or for keeping contingency open. We conclude that the model of narrative integration of experiences of contingency by Kruizinga et al. is a valid tool for further research. Possible applications in the field of spiritual care are discussed.","PeriodicalId":42786,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Theology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15709256-12341392","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15709256-12341392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Narrative integration of experiences of contingency describes the ways (modes) in which people assimilate the uncontrollability—or contingency—of life, while accepting, acknowledging and tolerating the existential fears accompanying these experiences, thus keeping contingency open. Contingency is defined as events being ‘possible (or not impossible) and also not necessary at the same time’. Experiences of contingency, caused by the interplay between life events, one’s worldview and ultimate life goals, disrupt one’s life story, challenging one’s basic needs for understanding, coherence and meaning.
The different modes of narrative integration are studied in six highly sensitive Dutch children, aged between 6 and 12 years old. A practice-based model by Kruizinga et al. (2017) is compared to a theoretical construct of religious philosophical contingency constructed by Wuchterl (2011; 2019). Practical and theoretical differences are discussed. This study confirms the findings by Kruizinga et al. (2017).
Four modes of dealing with contingency are identified: Denial, Acknowledging, Accepting and Receiving. In mode four, Receiving, people transcend themselves (self-transcendence). Contrary to Wuchterl’s theory, vertical transcendence is not a prerequisite for narrative integration of contingency, or for keeping contingency open. We conclude that the model of narrative integration of experiences of contingency by Kruizinga et al. is a valid tool for further research. Possible applications in the field of spiritual care are discussed.
偶然性经验的叙事整合描述了人们在吸收生活的不可控性或偶然性的同时,接受、承认和容忍伴随这些经验而来的存在性恐惧,从而保持偶然性的开放性的方式(模式)。偶然性被定义为“可能(或不是不可能)但同时也不是必要的”事件。偶然性的经历是由生活事件、世界观和终极人生目标之间的相互作用引起的,它扰乱了一个人的人生故事,挑战了一个人对理解、连贯和意义的基本需求。本文对6名年龄在6 - 12岁的荷兰儿童进行了不同的叙事整合模式研究。Kruizinga等人(2017)基于实践的模型与Wuchterl(2011)构建的宗教哲学偶然性理论结构进行了比较;2019)。讨论了实践和理论的差异。本研究证实了Kruizinga et al.(2017)的发现。将偶然性的处理方式分为否认、承认、接受和接受四种。在模式四,接收,人们超越自己(自我超越)。与乌赫特尔的理论相反,纵向超越不是偶然性叙事整合的先决条件,也不是保持偶然性开放性的先决条件。我们认为Kruizinga等人的偶然性经验叙事整合模型是进一步研究的有效工具。讨论了在精神护理领域的可能应用。