Working with Dream Metaphors 1
Running Head: Working with Dream Metaphors
Understanding and Working with Dream Metaphors from the Standpoint of
Co-Creative Dream Theory
Gregory Scott Sparrow
University of Texas Rio Grande Valley
Contact:
Gregory Scott Sparrow,EdD
217 E. Warbler Ave.
McAllen, TX 78504
(956) 367-2337
Abstract
Co-creative dream theory posits that the dream experience is indeterminate from the outset, andco-determined through the reciprocal interplay between the dream ego and the emergent content. Thus the dream imagery adjusts to the dreamer’s subjective stance through the course of the dream. Consequently, the dream report can be seen as one of many contingent outcomes based on 1) the dreamer’s range of possible reactions through the course of the dream, as well as 2) the broad constraints of underlying domains that account for the nature of the emergent content. From this dynamic relational view of the dream, the visual imagery itself can be regarded as the “interface” Ullman (1969) between the dreamer and the emergent domain content, or the “moment-to-moment vectoring” (Sparrow, 2013) of the encounter between dream ego and emergent content. The purpose of this presentation is to review the current state of co-creative dream theory and analysis as embodied by the FiveStar Method (Sparrow, 2013; Sparrow and Thurston, 2010) before introducing a feature that will effectively extend the model into a view of metaphor construction based on co-creative theory. By viewing dream content as representing broad content domains of human life that are rendered as specific metaphors during the dream encounter, we can discern where the dreamer stands in relationship to the developmental tasks associated with these emergent domains at this particular point in time. On a more practical level, I will also introduce a structured inquiry, as well as a series of questions consistent with this paradigm that can guide the dream worker in deconstructing dream metaphors in the process of co-creative dream analysis.
Understanding and Working with Dream Metaphors from the Standpoint of
Co-Creative Dream Theory
Introduction
During the dreaming experience, the images exhibit an autonomy independent of the dream ego, apparently taking their cue from some unconscious source. In any story created by a missing author, the images become objects to us, imbued with meaning only to the extent that we can intuit the author’s intention in communicating some underlying truth. We thus tend to believe that the dream image is the carrier of meaning that extends beyond its outward appearance; that is, it is always more than what it appears.
Given these implicit assumptions, the central task in content-focused dream work has been to analyze the dream images. The word “interpretation” was once used universally to describe this activity, but it has fallen into disfavor because it implies that dream work involves translating the dream images into equivalencystatements that make sense to the conscious self, much in the way that foreign words are simply translated into one’s dominant language. But modern dream analysts have favored a more sophisticated and less reductionistic approach, believing that the dream image is never merely a stand-in, or a sign for something or someone in the waking state. While it may tempting to believe, for instance, that a snake might represent a penis or one’s ex-spouse, most dream workers endeavor to assist the dreamer in understanding how the image serves as a metaphor that renders a broad domain of experience in relevant and specific forms, and that this domain might be expressing itself in intrapersonal and interpersonal ways, alike. A snake can be considered a specific representation of the broad domain of primitive, instinctual desire, which goes beyond Still, the question remains, What does one do with the image to derive the greatest benefit to the dreamer without imposing one’s own biases?
The Presentational Paradigm
In conventional content-oriented dream work, the dreamer’s report is treated as a given, and the imagery as the carrier of meaning. We might refer to this approach as the “presentational paradigm,” wherein the principle aim is to discern the relationship to one’s waking concerns conveyed by the characters, objects, and scenarios depicted in the narrative. The organizing questions around which the presentational paradigm revolves are, for example, “What does this image or dream refer to? and “How does the dream image express some aspect of my life?”
Following this line of thought, it is commonly accepted, at least implicitly, that the dream is fixed from the outset by the “unconscious mind,” or some equally autonomous source. Freud’s approach embodied this prevalent assumption. He believed that the manifest dream was strictly determined by an unconscious process that balances the impulses of repressed desire with the rules of acceptable conscious expression. It accomplishes this task by sufficiently disguising—through various defense mechanisms such as condensation and displacement—the actual sexual and aggressive impulses in order to arrive at a compromise that can achieve sufficient release while circumventing conscious censorship. Not only does the conscious ego presumably play no role in the manifest dream’s formation, but the images in the dream, however distorted they may be by the unconscious “dream work,” bear a one-to-one relationship to objects and familiar persons in the dreamer’s waking life. So the dream images are, according to Freud, partially disguised stand-ins for conscious referents. Freud’s view of the psyche in general, and dreams, in particular, relegates human beings to passive participants, as Ullman (1969) states:
The model is that of energy transfer within a closed system with the dreamer limited in his expression of novelty to his own particular repertoire of artful camouflage. True novelty is drained out in the insistence on the role of unchanging instinctual energies linked to infantile wishes in accounting for the fact of dreaming. Followed to its logical conclusion what emerges is an image of man as an impotent reactor - "a complicatedly constructed and programmed robot, perhaps, but a robot nevertheless (Chen, 1962).”
The Co-Creative Paradigm
In recent years, the presentational paradigm has come under challenge from those who have observed that dream ego exhibits the capacity for self-reflection and choice, and that the visual imagery, in turn, may change in apparent response to the dream ego’s changing subjective stance (Rossi, 1972; Sparrow, 2013; Sparrow & Thurston, 2010). Along these lines, there are various sources who have observed that the dream appears to be co-determined by two somewhat autonomous mechanisms or structures—the dream ego and the emergent dream content that interact in real time over the course of the dream. While Jung practiced within the presentational paradigm, he was one of the first to articulate the premise that dream imagery derives from the interplay of two sources, rather than one, when he said that the dream image…
…is the result of the spontaneous activity of the unconscious on one hand and of momentary conscious situation on the other. The interpretation of its meaning...can start neither from the conscious alone nor from the unconscious alone, but only from their reciprocal relationship (Jung, 1966; p. 386).
Jung’s view of the dream image as the product of the reciprocal relationship between conscious and unconsciousseemsto refute the position that the dream imagery is formed without the influence of the conscious self. It also suggests that the dream image resides, not in a fully formed state, but in an indeterminate state that assumes a specific form during the dream. His assertion that an archetype is a pattern rather than an image supports the premise that it takes form only when manifesting in consciousness, and he cited the importance of the individual and culture in contributing its formal, time-conditioned attributes.
Over the past century, the case for the co-creative paradigm has been slowly emerging in a variety of disciplines. Trends in philosophy, psychology, and physics have moved away from classical Realism, which views the world as independent from the observer, toward Idealism, or the belief that reality is ultimately constructed and mediated by the perceiver. While the uninitiated cannot appreciate the math and physics of this mind-boggling concept, one can more easily understand how this principle governs relationships at macro levels of organization. In interpersonal exchanges, for instance, we easily grasp the concept that our beliefs and attitudes influence how we perceive and react to others, and that others will, in turn, react from their own subjectivity to create a reciprocal, intersubjective exchange mediated by “synchronous feedback.” This principle of reciprocity is the central concept of systems-oriented family therapy, which is built around the premise that “reciprocity is the governing principle of relationships” (Nichols,p. 37). Of course, this sophisticated view of relational dynamics breaks down when conflict erupts and individuals resort to the blame game, or what Bateson referred to as “punctuated communication.” This occurs when two parties in conflict assign blame to each other by interpreting the other’s actions as the first cause. Systemic therapists, such as Bowen (1978) endeavor to reestablish mutual responsibility by describing the problem in the form of “process statements,” such as, “So, when you do x, he does y, and then you do z.” The therapist may also use “process questions,” such as “What do you think he would have done if you’d done x instead of y?” This form of communication between therapist and clients replaces the convenient, self-serving linear causality with a circular causal, or reciprocal framework, which serves to promote personal responsibility in both parties.
Among empirical researchers, the principle of systemic reciprocity is inherent in the concept of the “experimenter” effect, in which the experimenter’s expectations and biases threaten to contaminate the objectivity of the scientific process. The “double-blind” model, in which both experimenter and subject remain unaware of the experimental conditions, is the preferred way to safeguard the data from experimenter bias and participant compliance with perceived experimenter expectations, referred to as “demand effects.”
While most disciplines have shifted away from a purely objectivistic and presentational paradigm toward a reciprocal, co-created view of reality, the conventional content-oriented approach to dream interpretation still preserves the belief that the dreamer is somehow removed from the creation of the dream experience, and is merely a witness to the drama. It is perhaps ironic that dream content should be treated as independent from the dream ego when each manifests within the dreaming mind.
The emergence of a reciprocal or co-creative paradigm in dream theory was first articulated by Rossi, who asserted that there is “a continuum of all possible balances of control between the autonomous process and the dreamer’s self-awareness and consciously directed effort" (1972, p. 163), and that the interaction between these forces accounts for the creation of new awareness and identity, and the development of personality. Since Rossi’s seminal work, the co-creative paradigm has been translated into a systematic approach to dream analysis called the FiveStar Method (Sparrow, 2013; Sparrow and Thurston, 2010; Sparrow, 2014).
The idea that the dream’s construction may partake of more than one source has been intimated in the field of neuroscience, as well. The recent debate over the neurological substrate of dreaming has pitted the activation synthesis theorists (Hobson & McCarley, 1977; Hobson et al., 2000)—who originally asserted without qualification that dreams originate in the random neuronal firing in subcortical structures—against the cognitive theorists, who have argued that dreams evidence coherent structure and bear a meaningful higher-order continuity with waking concerns (Domhoff, 2010). Solm’s (2000) finding that dream recall ceases when portions of the prefrontal lobe are damaged has been hailed as a felling blow to those who have held the position that dreams are nothing more than meaningless, random subcortical activation. But the question remains, how do these structures interact in the course of a dream’s formation? Even Hobson admits to a systemic, and possibly reciprocal paradigm when he states that we have to treat the dreaming brain as “a unified system whose complex components dynamically interact so as to produce a continuously changing state” (Hobson, et. al, 2000). Such a statement would presumably align with a reciprocal, co-creative model of dreaming.
More recently, researchers (Kahan and LaBerge, 2010; and Wolman, 2006) have demonstrated empirically that we are by no means passive and non-reflective during our dreams, but rather exhibit the same metacognitive capabilities as we do in the waking state, albeit to a lesser degree. Other studies have shown that reflectiveness can be enhanced in ordinary (non-lucid) dreams through various pre-sleep exercises (Purcell, 1987; Purcell, Moffitt and Hoffmann, 1993) or “dream reliving” (Sparrow, 1983; Sparrow, Thurston & Carlson, 2013). And, of course, there are abundant studies attesting to the capacity of individuals to attain lucidity, or the awareness that one is dreaming during the dream (Stumbrys, Erlacher, Schädlich, andSchredl, 2012) through a variety of pre-sleep interventions. Taken together, these empirical findings provide a sound basis for an interactive, relational model for understanding the construction and meaning of the dream experience.
In essence, the co-creative dream paradigm is based on the increasingly supportable premise that dreaming is an interactive process that results in one of many contingent outcomes based on the dream ego’s moment-to-moment exchanges with the emergent dream content. From this standpoint, the dream imagery can be viewed, not so much as the content itself, but as a third element in the dream experience that stands between the dream ego and emergent content — as the “mutable interface” or “moment-to-moment vectoring” (Sparrow, 2013), or “creation de novo” (Rossi, 1972) of the unfolding relationship between dream ego and emergent content.
In addition to the increasing empirical support for the co-creative paradigm, the reciprocal relationship between dreamer response and imagery change can often be discerned in the dream narrative itself. However, dreamers will often underreport their reflective agency in their original dream report, and may need to be questioned further in order to tease out the presence of reflectiveness and volition. The low frequency of reflective statements in dream narratives may be due, in large part, to the fact that dreamers minimize their own subjective processes in the retelling of the dream because of the traditional emphasis on the visual imagery alone (Kozmová and Wolman, 2006). From this standpoint, researchers and participants alike have colluded in producing dream reports bereft of reflectiveness and volition. In the future, we must endeavor to offset the unexamined demand effects of any dream theory paradigm, and allow dreamers to report the demonstrated agency of the dream ego, or the absence thereof.
The Role of Metaphors
As Kuhn has asserted, “when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them,” and that “scientists see new and different things when looking...in places they have looked before” (1962, p. 110). He goes on to say that the emergence of a new paradigm raises new questions that have never been asked, and addresses problems that have never been solved. This is certainly true of the co-creative paradigm of dreaming. And yet, the practical question of how to analyze dream imagery remains an important feature of any effective dream work method.
In recent years, the language used to describe dream imagery has shifted from “symbol,” which too easily accommodates the single-referent assumption of the presentationalparadigm to “metaphor,” which is essentially a conceptualizing process that uses concrete imagery as a vehiclefor comprehending an abstract truth. Indeed, the key to understanding dream images in co-creative dreamwork is understand the construction and deconstruction of metaphor.
Montague Ullmann (1969) worked on this angle in a paper titled, “Dreams as Metaphors in Motion.” Just as Jung’s statement about the reciprocal relationship between conscious and unconscious in the (co)creation of dream image could have started a revolution, but did not, Ullman’s paper could have, if taken further, transformed the entire field of dream work by introducing the co-creative paradigm through the agency of metaphors. In this paper, Ullman expresses ideas much more in line with co-creative dream theory, but thereafter neither he nor his followers seem to align his dream work methods with this radical premise.
In his seminal paper, Ullman suggested that the dream ego, when encountering the emergent dream content, gives the content specific form based on prior experience. This moment-to-moment rendering of a broad domain of experience represented by the dream content is the centerpiece of co-creative theory. Ullman actually took our understanding of metaphor beyond Lakoff and Johnson (2003)’s, in my opinion. Both sources acknowledge that metaphors synthesize 1) a broad content domain or “target domain” (Lakoff and Johnson (2003)) which, in its abstractness is difficult to comprehend, with 2) a repository of personal experiences or “source domain” (Lakoff and Johnson (2003)) that enables a reduction of the content domain into a concrete, personally relevant representation. Lakoff and Johnson (2003) point out that this process is, at once, clarifying and reductionistic. That is, while it makes the content domain understandable in concrete terms relevant to the individual’s experience in the world, it reduces the dimensionality of the target domain, thus discarding other ways of experiencing it. For example, if “success” is the content domain of consideration, then two of the possible rendering success in a way that we understand it might be to say, “Success is winning the game,” or “Success is reaching the summit.” Since we all are familiar with playing games, and climbing mountains, both metaphors capture elements of success, the first by introducing competition and failure, while the second does not.