Transactionalism

An Historical and Interpretive Study

By: Trevor J. Phillips Foreword by: Kirkland Tibbels Edited by: John Patterson & Kirkland Tibbels © 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 2 Jerome Bruner, Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, 1986 p. 59. 3 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.

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 onion-

skin 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 can…if 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.