Philosophical dialogues as path to a more positive psychology journal of community applied social psychology

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology
J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
Published online 2 July 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/casp.909

Philosophical Dialogues as Paths to a More
‘Positive Psychology’
SOFIA TRILIVA* and MANOLIS DAFERMOS
University of Crete, Department of Psychology, University Campus at Gallos, Rethymno, Crete Greece 74 100

ABSTRACT
Although family support programmes have been in place for several decades in Greece very little
attention has been paid to evaluating the effectiveness of such endeavours, the techniques that
influence their outcomes and the receptiveness to their messages. The purpose of this paper is to give
an overview of research findings collected during the first qualitative research phase of a community
mental health promotion project. The research was conducted in order to delineate programme
outcomes and the characteristics that had an impact on the participants’ lives. The 3-month family
support programme intended to introduce ‘philosophical dialogues’ as means to developing personal
and communal understandings of what makes life worth living. The programme was developed and
implemented on Crete under the auspices of a non-profit community organization appropriately
named ‘The Lyceum for Women’. The features of the programme that contributed and enhanced the
participants’ tendencies to become not passive targets but active partners and stakeholders in the
process will be clarified, as will the conceptualization and approach. Of the 45 evaluation protocols
that were analysed the following themes were most important for the participants: ‘Group as-a-whole
process’—the sense of sharing and development understandings in a ‘parea’ (in-group); ‘relational
outcomes’—feeling of belonging, ‘reciprocated kindness’, and giving of self to others; personal and
emotional outcomes-self-efficacy and empowerment; knowledge outcomes-learning about positive
emotions and enjoying the simple things in life; and group facilitator outcomes-sharing stories, ‘gives
of self to the community’. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: philosophical dialogues; positive psychology; community family support program;
Greece

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Philosophical dialogues were part of the community traditions in ancient Greece and many
of the teachings, accounts, and works of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were dialogues or
narratives. Moreover, philosophical understandings and ideas were meant to be applied in
everyday life. As Plato stated, words can be a ‘pharmaca or pharmaki’, that is medicine or
* Correspondence to: Sofia Triliva, University of Crete, Department of Psychology, University Campus at Gallos,
Rethymno, Crete Greece 74 100. E-mail:

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Accepted 6 October 2006


18

S. Triliva and M. Dafermos

poison and in today’s world of therapeutic dialogue, philosophy has become a therapeutic
medium through such movements as ‘Emotional Intelligence’, ‘Positive Psychology’, and
‘Philosophical Counseling’. These latest trends in psychology have become somewhat of a
Zeitgeist and have impacted upon research and practice all over the world, including
Greece. Publications such as Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence (1995) and Lou
Marinoff’s Plato not Prozac! Applying philosophy to every day problems (1999) have been
translated into the Greek language and read widely.
It was a convoluted path that was taken, in that the traditions of Greece’s ancient world
faded away from everyday use and application and were relegated to the realm of academic
study and endeavour without having the practical impact on the everyday cultural practices
and ways of being for centuries, to make a ‘comeback’ when mainstream psychology
embraced them and made them popular again. In order to develop some understanding on

what constituted philosophical dialogues and to follow this convoluted path, we will begin
our paper with a brief background on ‘philosophical dialogues in Ancient Greece’ and later
tie these historical underpinnings to the community programme that was developed,
implemented and evaluated.

Historical context: Ancient Greek epistemological and practical underpinnings
The appearance of philosophical reflection and particularly philosophical dialogue was
indelibly tied to the development of the Greek city-state (Vernant, 1989). Democracy as a
political system, along with the development of ‘free or democratic’ citizens were
important aspects of the ancient Greek social context and they, in turn, aided the
development of philosophical dialogue.
In the Ancient Greek city states a large spectrum of dialogue forms developed, some of
which were: the theatrical (tragedy and comedy), political, judicial, and philosophical. It is
important to mention the dialogical character of theatrical performances, the political disputes
in the meetings of the congregations of the demos, every day discourse within the
marketplace, and the symposium. Citizens took part in social life by partaking in these various
forms of dialogue. According to Aristotle (1992b), a person is a ‘political animal’. The person
who is unable to live within the social network because he is autarchic or self-sufficient is
either a god or wild beast (Politica, VII, 138a). Hence, the continuous communication of the
citizens within their city-state is an essential prerequisite for their eudaimonia.
Philosophical dialogue was a form of discussion, conversation between two or more
people, a particular type of oral interchange of ideas on a specific topic, a give-and-take,
which was escorted with nods, gestures, and emotional discharge. Dialogue was presented as
a nodal strategy for probing deeply into ideas and for inquiry into the nature of ‘truth’. In this
fashion, dialogue was not a form of oral expression and interchange, based on a preexisting
knowledge, but a strategy for inquiring into personal and social ‘truths’. Understanding was
not considered a monologue, but a form of dialogical inquiry between people (1994,
Diogenis Laertios, III 48–49). This dialogical and interlocutory inquiry into gnosis is one of
the most important aspects of ancient philosophical reflection and syllogism.
Dialogue and gnosis did not only focus upon the physical aspects of the world but, most

importantly, the development of understanding of how people perceive and comprehend their
world. This anthropocentric focus of philosophical reflection expresses the Protagoran
statement that, ‘Man is the measure of things’ (Diogenis Laertios, 1994, IX, 51). Another
viewpoint on philosophical dialogue is Socrates’ perspective that dialogue is a means for
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


Philosophical dialogues and ‘positive psychology’

19

pursuing an ethical form of life. According to Socrates, gnosis of what is right or wrong is a
prerequisite of eudaimonia. As a consequence, in order to achieve eudaimonia it is essential
to examine one’s ethical stance and worldview, as Socrates states, ‘An unexamined way of
life is not worthy of living’. (Plato, 1992, Apology, 38A).
The pursuit of truth via philosophical dialogue was and is an open process. Dialogues
begin with a question and end with an unanswerable question, which leaves the
interlocutors/discussants in a state of wonder, surprise or puzzlement. It is this state of
inspired wonder and admiration that captures the transformation, the turning point in
understanding, the apocalypse. ‘People begin to philosophize now and began in the
beginning due to wonderment «yaumazein» (Aristotle, 1973 Metaphysics, 982B, 13).
This same opinion was voiced by Socrates who believed that ‘wonderment/ marvel’
was the fundamental tenant of philosophy (Plato, Theaititos, 1993, 115d).
Not only is philosophical dialogue a form of discussion it entails an ingredient that is
interactive and a clash of opposing viewpoints. This clashing or collision of viewpoints or
worldviews is considered by the Ancient Greek philosophers as the most worthwhile
means of pursuing truths. ‘We are currently in conflict, not for the prevalence or

domination of his over mine view, but for both of us to engage in a friendly battle for truth’
(Plato, Filibos, 1956, 14 b–c). In today’s epistemological world, this would be the process
of ‘deconstructing expert knowledge’.
There are two instances (or two phases) of the Socratic method of carrying out dialogues:
irony and ‘maieutiki’ which has been translated into dialogistic/dialogical but which
literally means ‘midwifery or of birth giving’ and is a method of extracting or wheedling
out answers (Giannikopoulos, 1989). Irony refers to a figure of speech or ‘trope’ where
something contrary or disparate to what is said is to be understood (Vlastos, 1991, p. 21).
Socrates appeared ignorant and asked of the person he was in dialogue with to explain to
him that which s/he understood as expert on the matter. Moreover, he methodically put
forth questions that unsettled the arrogance of his interlocutor and which led him to a state
of bewilderment or disconcertment. This tactic was applied in order to demonstrate that
knowledge that one arrogantly ‘possesses’ proves to be ‘false’ or deceitful. The shaking
and toppling of one’s dogmatic convictions brings about internal confusion and vacillation
and opens the road for the common search for social truths. Socratic irony leads to the
unsettlement of entrenched viewpoints and understandings of the ‘common mind’ and
makes obvious internal inconsistencies, which in turn, creates the space for ‘knowing
thyself’ and for understanding the ‘other’. The starting point for the pursuit of ‘truth’ is the
awareness of the problem, which is the conscious understanding of the contradictory nature
of supposed knowledge. Puzzlement brings about psychic tension and an urge to search, to
seek knowledge and understanding (Kanakis, 1990).
The Socratic denial of knowing «en oida o´ti ouden oida» one thing I know is that I do
not know anything) constitutes a form of refined irony, which is further reinforced
when one takes into account the following utterance of the Delphic Article—‘Of all
men Socrates is the most wise’. (Diogenis Laertios, 1994, II 37; Plato, The apology of
Socrates, 1992, 21a). Although there appears to be an incompatibility between these
two statements, one can discern that there is an underlying connection between them,
knowing thyself «gno
yi s’ auto´n», a self-critical stance, and the awareness of the
limits and inadequacies of ‘knowledge’ is presented as the highest form of wisdom. It is

this ‘not-knowing stance’ together with the reflective process that allows for: (1) the
development of layer upon layer of response, (2) the creation of a web of linguistic
connections that link people together by making them a part of a generative or
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


20

S. Triliva and M. Dafermos

transforming process, (3) bringing forth emotional reverberations and a moving forth
of the interlocutors by the creation of joint knowledge, and (4) invites opportunities
for community. These ideas are echoed today in ‘social-constructionism’ and
‘poststructuralist’ systemic perspectives on therapeutic intervention which are based
on the premise that our culturally accepted ways of thinking, feeling, and talking
control our beliefs and ways of being.
There were no ‘ready answers’ in this form of interchange. For Socrates this form of
critical reflection in social context was a form of birth-giving, the spiritual birth of the
subject (see Plato, 1993 Theaititos, 150 b–c). Critical dialogues, and the dialectical
methodology was not a pedagogical enterprise for Socrates, it had an ethical/philosophical/
spiritual orientation. These aspects of philosophical dialogue were further refined and
developed by Plato.
Plato used the dialogical interchange between two interlocutors that argue and juxtapose
two opposing points of view on issues that are socially negotiable. Each argument and
dilemma brings the interlocutors to a point of disequilibrium and hence an opportunity for
community. Of primary importance is the fact that the two discussants are equal and that
they jointly pursue meaning making and reaching understanding. They discuss a myriad of

socially/ communally important issues, such as: the gods, the laws, the virtues, knowledge,
justice, freedom, being wealthy or poor, wisdom and more. In the Platonic dialogues there
is no dogmatic teaching or preaching of a pre-existing or established ‘truth’. The narrator of
the dialogues is not present as an active subject and his opinions are expressed in an indirect
and oblique manner via the positioning of the two interlocutors (see the Platonic dialogues,
Lysias, Protagoras, Lahis, Kriton, Eythefron, Gorgias, Menon, Eythydumos, Ion, Faidon,
Symposia, Faidros, Sophistis and chapters I, II–X of Politea). The quest is energized by
puzzlement and wonderment, which are the by-products of deep concentration, devotion,
immersion and careful deliberation between people. This process brings forth a certain
balance, psychic equilibrium, and in time, the attainment of eudaimonia.
The concepts of eudaimonia, the virtues of courage, sophrosyne (temperance), holiness
and the social virtues of honesty, forgiveness, justice, gratitude/humility and friendliness
were both states of being and ways of being, that is praxis (Aristotle, 1992a; Nochominena
Ethics, III, 2, 1111a). Virtues are the praxis which are fulfilled of one’s own free will and
pleasure. Intention is predilection which is based on one’s judgement, conviction and
rational volition.
Relying upon this set of particular points of view which are outlined above and which
were couched into a post-modern social constructionist perspective a group primary
prevention intervention was conceived, designed, implemented and evaluated with the aim
of re-introducing philosophical dialogues into the daily fabric of the lives of the
participants for the purpose of conscious-raising, critical reflective appraisal and praxis
(Freire, 1970, 1975, 1978) enhancement. In line with the post-modern constructionist
perspective critical reflection was both part of the intervention and its evaluation, primacy
was given to personal lived experience, and an emphasis was placed on personal change,
empowerment, and emancipation (that is a transformative approach and process). It is
within this epistemological context that this applied research project took place.
Sociocultural context
Rethymno is a city of 31 700 people that has a long history dating back to the Minoan Era.
Currently it is a university city and its major industries are tourism and agriculture. Most of
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


Philosophical dialogues and ‘positive psychology’

21

the residents have moved to the city from the villages that exist in the wider prefecture and
this has occurred in the past 20 years and has literally changed the structure and culture
of the city. Cretan traditions, dialect, and ways of being still predominate as does the
influence of the Greek Orthodox religion. Nevertheless, houses are now multiple family
dwellings, open community areas are limited and the old traditions of sitting on your stoop
or in a small enclosed courtyard with your neighbours in the afternoons passing time,
discussing personal issues, and knitting have long been eclipsed. Those afternoon
discussions have not been replaced by the ‘psychotherapy’ movement that has become so
popular in North America. In Greek culture ‘psychotherapy’ and psychology in general are
imports and not widely used or accepted as viable ways of getting help or developing
understanding. The cultural notions of ‘honor’, ‘shame’, ‘private’ and ‘public’ continue to
appear in everyday discourse and undoubtedly impinge upon people’s subjectivities and
activities (Sant Cassia, 1992). These notions influence people’s willingness to participate in
‘therapeutic’ interactions especially in an open community group format. Yet, with the
fraying of communal dialogues and opportunities of interaction and the concomitant new
world dilemmas that people confront on a daily basis, some community members are
willing to participate in group interchanges and dialogue. People are more likely to
participate however, when the socio-cultural context’s traditional ways of knowing,
understanding, and meaning-making are taken into consideration and adhered to.
For the past 25 years or so, the Lyceum for Women in the town of Rethymno has been
running an ‘educational group’ as part of their wider programme which aims to uphold

Greek traditions and culture and to bolster the institution that is the bedrock of Greek
cultural existence, the family. The ‘Lyceum for Women’ is a non-profit organization that is
considered a learning environment in the greater Rethymno Prefecture. The learning
environment ‘Lyceum’ has evolved from the belief that knowledge and culture are
inextricably intertwined, that knowledge is created through the interaction of people in a
relational community, and that learning by doing will bring about personal and communal
change. Up until very recently, the group was psychoeducational in nature and consisted of
lecture presentations in areas such as child development and parenting. The programming
for the family currently entails an experiential format, with a focus on the family, its
members as individuals and as members of the wider social and communal system. The
theme for the lyceum group last year was: Philosophical dialogues as a means to a more
‘positive psychology’. The purpose of this paper is to present the procedures implemented
and the formative qualitative evaluation of the processes and outcomes of the programme.

More recent theoretical contexts
On the face of it the aims of the Lyceum for Women might seem contradictory: on the one
hand, the need to preserve stability in terms of upholding Greek traditions and culture, on
the other the recognition that ‘learning by doing’ will engender social and personal change.
However, if one looks to the relatively recent psychological approaches concepts of
wisdom (Baltes, Gluck, & Kunzmann, 2002; Baumeister & Vohs, 2002; Sternberg, 1990,
2003) one sees how these apparently disparate social needs may be intertwined.
Csikszentmihalyi and Rathunde (1990) take an interesting perspective to studying wisdom
and they call it ‘evolutionary hermeneutics’. They state that this method is based on the
assumptions that there are some concepts that relate to the evaluation of behaviour
(wisdom and virtues being two such concepts) that have been used for centuries and that
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp

22

S. Triliva and M. Dafermos

have ‘adaptive value’ and in order to understand the meanings of these concepts it is best to
analyze how some components of them remain constant (p. 25). As these authors put it:
‘The aim is to integrate the experience of previous generations with our own, trying to
understand the adaptive value of former responses, thereby providing a deeper and richer
context for present understanding’ (p. 27).
This concept is clearly relevant for the Greek cultural context, useful in developing
understandings in the community group format, and applicable to the social constructivist
perspective. Gaining experience through authentic and emotional involvement in a communal
setting was deemed to be helpful for the participants in clarifying their own wisdoms and
integrating them with diverse points of view, gaining interpersonal validation for them,
forming them into unfolding stories, and possibly developing them to the realm of praxis.
In addition to the above, from the psychological literature on wisdom, some aspects of
Karen Strohm Kitchener’s ‘reflective judgement model’ of wisdom were found helpful for
the community group intervention project. Strohm Kitchener and Brenner (1990) postulate
that wisdom consists of knowledge that life is fraught with ambiguities, uncertainties, and
problems that need to viewed as such. Their empirical findings on making judgments when
there are no ‘right’ or ‘true’ answers by using ‘depth’ (reflexivity) and ‘breadth’ (empathic
and intellectual understanding) along with a willingness to construct sound solutions and to
compare these constructed beliefs within particular contexts illuminated many areas of the
complexity (personal and interpersonal) involved in confronting the quandaries that life
puts forth. Similarly, the uncertainties involved in life’s dilemmas, the appreciation of
fallibility (Meachan, 1990), people’s openness to change, and finding balance through
problem finding and pondering (Kennedy Arlin, 1990) were definitions of wisdom that
were also helpful for the intervention. From this same literature, the work of Juan
Pascual-Leone (1990) on how wisdom is developed (integration of affect, cognitive

processing, spiritual and praxis) and the role that wise counsellors can play in its
development (restricting authoritarian interventions, fostering freedom, and allowing for
the integration of people’s agency and communion) were useful principles for the group
facilitator.
The themes of the group-work programme examined the questions that philosophers,
especially the ancient Greek philosophers, pondered. The Socratic ‘dialogistic/ dialogical’
method was applied as a way of developing dialogue, interaction and communication. The
participants expressed their opinions and positions by examining questions that have no
right or wrong answer. By both posing questions and providing experiential activities it was
hoped that understandings, meanings, and points of reference would be developed by the
participants on the subjects and themes touched upon.
Relying on the work of Rogers (1967), Maslow (1971), Kolb (1984), Boud, Cohen, and
Walker (1993), Heron, 1996, Jaques, (1991) and Freire (1970, 1975, 1978) experiential
learning activities were generated. To Rogers (1967, 1980) experiential learning was
equivalent to personal change and growth. He believed that all human beings have a natural
propensity to learn and the teachers, counsellors or facilitators can reinforce this natural
inclination. Group facilitators, who set up a positive non-threatening climate for learning,
find ways to strike a balance between the emotional and intellectual components of the
teaching–learning process. Moreover, facilitators who share of themselves in the learning
process promote participation, learning and transformation (Rogers, 1967, 1980). Since the
themes of the group had practical, social, and personal significance it was hoped that the
process would allow for interplay of connections, emotional reverberations and a move
from ‘wisdom to responsibility’ (Hoffman, 2002).
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


Philosophical dialogues and ‘positive psychology’

23

Being that experiential activities are structured and designed to appeal to the ‘aesthetic’
manner of expression and communication (Eyford, 1989) the work of Abraham Maslow
(1971) was used as a basis for understanding ‘the primary processes of cognition’ (Maslow,
1971, p. 86) and the role of feelings, intuitions, and aesthetic experiences in self-realization
or actualization. According to Eyford (1989), ‘the primary processes of cognition are the
intuitive, creative, mystical, imaginative, spiritual and emotional aspect of human nature’
(p. 32) and they are the processes that need to be tapped into, since they are the wellsprings
of peoples’ beings. Meaning, significance, motivation and inspiration-purpose in life derive
from these processes. It is essential to point out that these forms of processing and coming
to understandings have been part of traditional Greek myths, epics, theatre, philosophical
dialogues and narratives, and have been relied upon for centuries in developing
understandings and cultural subjectivities.
Since experience is the foundation of and the stimulus for learning and learning builds on
and flows from past, present and future experience (Boud, Cohen, & Walker, 1993), the
activities used within the group were developed and applied so that the participants could
construct their own impressions and understandings and to allow for the input of their
fellow community members, being that meaning-making is socially and culturally
constructed (Gergen, 1999; McNamee & Gergen, 1999). After the advent of participating
in an experiential activity, Kolb’s (1984) model raises the following questions: What was
noticed? So, what does this mean? Now what? This type of questioning was used to help
the participants step back and reflect upon the activity, interpret for themselves and plan
and experiment with change. Experiential learning thus involves actively engaging with the
phenomena being studied, rather than passively thinking about the activity or event. Hence,
the activities focused on personal growth and critical self-reflection, this of course, in
dynamic relation to others and using methods derived from cultural traditions.
The active engagement of experiential learning as well as the relevance of the subject
matter is captured by Paulo Freire’s (1970, 1975, 1978) work which outlined three

elements of the reflection-learning process was most relevant. Freire (1970) emphasized
the need for community interaction, experimentation, responsibility and creative outputs:
 Consientization—the process through which learners perceive, understand and are
mobilized by their deepening awareness of the social, political and cultural contexts and
the contradictions within them. Learners are ‘knowing subjects’ and hence, are able to
develop a capacity to understand and through their own volition transform the reality in
which they are embedded.
 Problematization—mental focusing on those parts of learning, which require attention
and change, which prove difficult and frustrating. Thinking about and working out these
aspects of the learning process enhances understanding and helps the person to resolve
dissonance and learned helplessness. It is the means by which people come to understand, unravel and transform the realities in which they are embedded.
 Praxis—The internal dialogue that corresponds with the process of experiencing.
Attempts at figuring out how and why specific actions succeed or fail so that we can
act deliberately and problem solve more efficiently on another occasion. It is the union of
reflection to action, a vital dynamic to change and transformation, a kind of knowing that
allows people to intervene and change their world.
In Freire’s (1970, 1975, 1978) schema reflection is a complicated and essential
component of learning. Learning becomes a personal process and it is not only the
understanding of specific subject matter. His view included the knowledge-volition-action
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


24

S. Triliva and M. Dafermos

process which is crucial to bringing about personal and community change and

transformation and which leads to empowerment. He emphasized that change and
transformation happen in ‘communion’ and are mediated by culture and context. Totikidis
and Prilleltensky, (2006) have more recently applied ‘the cycle of praxis’ in combining a
diverse community’s interest in wellness with action.
These experiential learning tenets were strongly adhered to in the design and
implementation of the activities. As stated earlier, the theoretical background for the
programme module was a post-modern social constructionist perspective. More
specifically Harre and Gillett’s (1994) notion that, ‘in this view, our delineation of the
subject matter of psychology has to take account of discourses, significations,
subjectivities, and positionings, for it is in these that psychological phenomena actually
exist. . .. Thus the discourses constructed jointly by persons and within socio-cultural
groups become an important part of the framework of interpretation’ (pp. 21–22). In this
manner, social collaboration, sharing in an open community group, and the development of
dialogue on different socio-psychological issues were taken to be the underlying processes
in personal and interpersonal meaning making and personal transformation.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE
In order to investigate the impact of the group experience, its themes, processes, and
contents on the group members an illuminative evaluation was undertaken. The aims of the
evaluation were: (1) to develop an understanding of the perceptions and experiences of
participants in the programme, (2) to discover the social meanings that programme
interactions had for the participants, and (3) to point out how the experience derived from
the programme affected the daily lives of the participants and perhaps their lives within the
broader communal setting. Hence, the formal written evaluation that was conducted at the
end of the programme addressed questions regarding its content, participants’ perceptions
of the outcomes, and how the group experience impacted on their lives.
These questions were considered significant not only for the programme evaluation but
for allowing for the building of a grounded theory framework (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and
in this manner studying the programme impact, what makes it effective or ineffective,
and the theoretical contexts and techniques that might impact on the meaning making and

possible transformation of the participants within this socio-cultural milieu. Being that the
group was a mutual activity and joint action the question posited is: What is or are the
group’s emergent outcome(s) or result(s)?

PLAN OF INQUIRY
Participants and format of participation
As many as 60 people attended the open group meetings on a regular basis. The participants
were mostly women (only 1–5 men attended the group regularly) and ranged in age from 20
to 82 years of age. They were all people who live in Rethymno and they were all of Greek
heritage. The goals of the group were discussed in the first session and consensus was
reached that the group would focus on discussing philosophical issues such as: what brings
happiness to our lives, how can we improve our lives, where is strength and life-force found
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


Philosophical dialogues and ‘positive psychology’

25

within us, and what are human virtues and how are they developed. The participants
voluntarily attended the group. The meetings were scheduled for 12 consecutive weeks and
lasted approximately 2 hours.
The programme themes were constructed in collaboration with the participants. On the
first meeting of the group discussion was generated on what constitutes ‘positive
psychology’. This is a literal translation of a term used widely in the Greek language and it
was established by the group participants that it connotes, the experience of positive
feelings and emotions, psychological ‘balance’, fulfilment/eudaimonia, and sense of

well-being. These became the themes for discussion and experiential activity in 11
remaining sessions of the group. Table 1 presents the themes, format, goals and issues for
discussion, and experiential activities that constituted the agenda of the group.
As it is apparent from Table 1, the group discussions and activities were based on
open-ended questions that attempted to enrich the unfolding process and to help the
participants reflect upon their experiences, personal lives, and on communal aspects of
their being. These questions as much as the topics were the ‘philosophical dialogues’.

Method and approach to the analysis
Forty-five regular participants responded to the anonymous questionnaire, which was used
in evaluating the outcomes of the programme. The participants were given the
questionnaire during the last group meeting and returned it by post. The questionnaire
consisted of the following open-ended questions:
— In your own words describe what you gained from the 12-week community programme.
— Did you participate actively in the activities? What helped you to do this? What
hindered this process?
— How did the dialogue on positive feelings, thoughts and experiences affect your life?
— What did the group leader do that you liked? What did not help?
— How can the sessions be improved?
— Did the parts of the programme fit together? How or how not?
— Which activities did you find most meaningful for you? Why?
These questions were addressed in an open-ended essay format and each participant
completed three pages of written narrative feedback. A three-phase method of analysis was
implemented in order to delineate the programme outcomes from the participants’
perspectives.
In the first phase the participants’ responses were studied and coded by the researcher
and two independent psychologists (one a psychologist with 25 years of experience in
intervention programming and one a family therapist with 20 years of experience in family
and community intervention) in order to reach a consensus as to the forms of outcomes the
participants described. The evaluation questionnaires were read and coded first by the

researcher and than by the first psychologist. The two coding trials were compared,
overlapping categories were defined, and in the very few instances (six categorizations)
where there was disagreement the third psychologist’s coded the responses. In this way,
consensus was reached on all responses and categories were identified for those
programme activities/experiences mentioned by the participants. From this first stage of
data analysis six categories of outcomes were delineated: Group ‘as-a-whole’ process,
relational, personal, emotional, knowledge and facilitator characteristics. The words used
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


An outline of the themes, activities, goals, the theoretical (philosophical and ‘Positive Psychology’ literature)
Issues for discussion
and experiential activities

DOI: 10.1002/casp

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)

What is ‘positive psychology?’

To delineate as a group what is
‘positive psychology’.

The themes for discussion and activity
development for the 12-session group.

What do we aim at in

life or what makes
life worth living?

To develop personal and
communal understandings of
what wisdom is and can be.

Wisdom: What does it mean for me? How does
it affect my life? How is it connected to who
we are and what we do?

What activities does a
fulfilled life contain?

To expand each participant’s
understandings of their worldview(s),
and concomitantly at the collective
level, to use these insights as a
basis of enhancing and further
developing understandings of culture,
conflict, coping and community.

What makes living
worthwhile?

To raise community consciousness
and feeling and social empowerment
in each of the participants
and in the group as a whole.

Where can we find the
strength and energy to
make our lives better?

To learn from and about each other
by sharing stories, narratives
and understandings.

Activity: Make list of the group’s words of wisdom
Sophrosyne: Personal
and communal understandings: What
does it mean? What makes my life
balanced? What brings imbalance
to my life? How do I find balance?

References: Research and
theoretical underpinnings

Aristotle (1976); Baltes
and Freund (2003); Baltes,
Gluck, and Kunzman
(2002); Plato (1956)
Aristotle (1976);
Plato (1956)

Activity: The balancing act:
Diagrammatic representation
of all that needs to be balanced in life
Eudaimonia: What is eudaimonia for me?
How did our ancient forefathers define

it? Where does it come from? How do we
define and live it as a community?
Activity: One-week journal of moments
of fulfilment and well-being
Positive Affectivity: Positive feelings and
their origins. What are the positive emotions
and feelings? Where do they come from?
How do they affect my life?
Activity: Positive acts and strivings

Aristotle (1976);
Plato (1956)

Fredrickson (2002);
Isen (2003); Seligman
(2002);Watson (2002)

S. Triliva and M. Dafermos

Programme themes

Goals of meetings,
discussions, and experiential
exercises

26

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Table 1.

To deepen each participant’s
self-awareness and insight regarding
gratitude and humility.

Where can we find the
strength and energy
to make our lives better?

To have fun and enjoy each
others company.

Where can we find the
strength and energy to
make our lives better?

To engage with each
other and invite
authentic participation.

Gratitude and relationships:
What am I grateful for?
How do I express my gratitude?
Activity: My life
and relationships as gifts
The use of humour in problem
solving: What makes humour
an elixir in life?
Activity: The sharing of funny anecdotes

Authenticity: What is it? How
do I display it? How do
I feel about it?

Berscheid (2003); Emmons
(2004); Emmons
and Shelton (2002);
Seligman (2002)
Lefcourt (2002)

Averill (2002); Harter (2002)

Activity: Show and tell of: drawing,
story, or creation of meaning,
vitality, connectedness
To discuss and explore
new ways of being with others.

Where can we find the
strength and energy to
make our lives better?

To engage fully in the process
of meaning making.

Love, empathy and understanding:
How do I define these terms? How
do I live them? How do they
affect my daily life? How do
they affect our lives? What

acts do these experiences include
within our lives and within
our community?
Activity: Self-focus and mirroring role- play
Hope: What is it? How do we live it?
How do we develop it in the face
of adversity? What are acts of hope?

Batson, Ahmad, Lishner,
and Tsang (2002);
Hendrick and Hendrick
(2002); Pines (1999);
Plato (1956)

Snyder, Rand,
and Sigmon (2002)
Continues

27

DOI: 10.1002/casp

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)

Where can we find the
strength and energy to
make our lives better?

Philosophical dialogues and ‘positive psychology’

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Where can we find the
strength and energy to
make our lives better?


28

Programme themes
Where can we find the
strength and energy to
make our lives better?

Goals of meetings,
discussions, and experiential
exercises
To embellish and illuminate
the participants’ ways of
meaning making and
to exchange
these wisdoms.

Issues for discussion
and experiential activities
Activity: Stories of hope and courage
Meaningfulness and the psyche:
How do we make sense of what
transpires each day? What are the
processes involved in meaning

making within our life and within the group?
How does meaning making affect
our psychical experiences? How does
meaningfulness affect our community life?
Activity: I know what counts

References: Research and
theoretical underpinnings
Baumeister and Vohs
(2002); Levine (2000);
Seligman (2002)

S. Triliva and M. Dafermos

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Table 1. (Continued)

DOI: 10.1002/casp

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)


Philosophical dialogues and ‘positive psychology’

29

by the participants in describing what the group ‘as-a-whole’ outcome were words such as:
‘Being part of the group was helpful;’ ‘Talking and hearing the others tell their stories;’
‘We became one, a parea’ (in-group) and other descriptions focusing on the whole group

and the dynamic process involved in participation. In the relational outcomes they
described the impact of participation on their relationships and changes or personal
transformations that they put forth in their relational worlds. Sentences such as ‘the
dialogue helped me open up to new ways of communicating’ were used. The personal and
emotional categories were the two that were the most difficult for the coders to disentangle
and they focused on changes that the critical reflexive process brought about. The
knowledge outcomes consisted of cognitive changes or understandings, for example, ‘I
learned. . .’ The impact of the group facilitator was described by the participants in ways
that focused on her way of relating to the group and its members.
In the second phase of analysis the 135 pages of written narratives were read by the
researchers in order to develop some understandings as to the meanings the participants
gave to these experiences and how they made sense of all that transpired. This phase was
instituted in order to illuminate the richness of subjective meaning-making and to
counteract the ‘ascribed’ meanings that the categorizing of narratives may have ‘imposed’
in the first phase (Emerson & Frosh, 2004). The goal of this phase of analysis was to search
for and identify the segments of the transcripts that described ‘sense-making’ and
‘meaning-making’ efforts by the participants and how such constructions were linked to
the group context. The researchers discussed these written narratives in order to capture the
moments of ‘philosophizing’ within the narrative which were a product of the community
interaction and dialogue. With this, identifying how the participants generate and transform
their own meanings.
In the third and final stage of the analysis, the evaluation narratives were re-read and
analysed with the goal of discovering how participation in the group had impacted upon the
members’ abilities to bring about changes and personal transformations in their lives. In
other words, how the social discourses and dialogues (the group process) provided the
scaffolding, which enabled the participants to assert agency in their lives and intervene and
somehow change their world.

ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES
In the three-stage process of outcome analysis, each programme evaluation questionnaire

was read and coded in an attempt to delineate what was the impact of the programme
according to each participant, that is what were the personal outcomes of the programme
and what made the programme effective. After all the coding was completed, compiled and
agreed upon the following themes and results emerged.

Group ‘as-a-whole’ process outcomes
Of the 45 responses that were received and analysed 44 mentioned community sharing and
building as being an integral component of the programme and an important process and
outcome. They referred to the group as an ‘oasis’ and as a process of developing
community ties and finding a ‘syntrofia’ (company). They called the group a ‘parea’
meaning ‘in-group’ and connoting a sense of familiarity, sharing and support giving. As
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


30

S. Triliva and M. Dafermos

one participant put it, ‘In this ‘parea’ we are learning by sharing’. The participants
emphasized the structuring and building of ‘communal understandings’ with such
comments as, ‘learning from each other about myself and about the others in the group’.
The support and acquiring ‘voice’ components of the process were also underlined, ‘there
is a place and a time where people will listen to what I have to say’ and ‘in this context we
can all interact and speak and in this way understand what is happening in our worlds’.
‘Sharing our stories’ and the learning that transpires from such sharing was also mentioned,
as were the collective experiences: ‘At some moments I felt like we were all a big family’;
‘Some of the ladies felt like I do and explored similar experiences’ and ‘I listened to what

others said and felt like I was not the only one with problems and who is always trying to
figure out things’. These ‘group as-as-a-whole process’ outcomes, communal sharing, and
collective understandings were the most prevalent in the evaluation protocols and appeared
to help in building a sense of community. These dynamic processes were also linked to
feelings of ‘belonging’, a decrease in anxiety and fear, and praxis such as reaching (through
communication, offering of support, and via acceptance) out to people within the group and
toward significant others.

Relational outcomes
The ‘relational’ category of outcomes was the second most frequent one described by the
group participants and was closely related to the interpersonal aspects of the previously
described category. The participants described their experiences by writing, ‘that I can
understand my thoughts, ideas, and actions better when I discuss them with others’, ‘that if
I can talk openly to people I scarcely know, I can certainly do the same to my family
members’, and ‘felt accepted by a wider circle of people’. These relational outcomes
appeared to be highly valued by the participants.
Intimacy and belonging were also described by the participants with words such as, ‘I
felt closer to the community and more accepting of others’, ‘that there is a whole
community of people out there that I can share things with’, and ‘that we belong only when
we are open to talk about ourselves and to hear others’. This widening of the interpersonal
world and the richness in feeling that it can provide was an integral part of the participation
process for many of the members of the group. The sharing of personal experiences in a
non-threatening way increased people’s understandings of each other and helped them see
the commonalities they share as well as their differences.
Several participants made connections between these relational understandings and the
positive affectivity involved with ‘positive actions’ such as: reciprocated kindness—‘After
the gratitude talk, I found myself being nicer and more thoughtful of others’; giving of the
self to others—‘That by opening up yourself you become open to others, that is sharing,
giving and taking’; forgiveness—‘The letter I wrote, the things other people wrote made
me feel that forgiveness is possible and I did forgive the person I wrote the letter to’; and

delving into establishing interpersonal understandings— ‘After the activity on what is
important in life, I went home and explored family values with my whole family’. The
agentic component of the descriptions emphasizes the importance of the experiential
activities in raising consciousness and bringing about change and praxis (Freire, 1970,
1975, 1978). The positive emotional impact of forgiveness that McCullough and vanOyen
Witvliet (2002) propose is highlighted. The importance of gratitude lived as a virtue that
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


Philosophical dialogues and ‘positive psychology’

31

opens peoples’ hearts and expends their perspectives (Roberts, 2004) was also emphasized
by the participants.

Personal and emotional outcomes
These two categories of outcomes are analysed concomitantly because they were difficult
to disentangle and render distinct. The participants talked about how their self-awareness
was enhanced by the reflective exercises and interchanges, one participant wrote, ‘As the
ancient Greeks said, ‘know thyself’ and this knowing comes about through interaction and
sharing with others’, and another, ‘In the group we understand ourselves by listening to and
talking to others’. In a sense the participants described how the web of dialogue links
people together.
The increased empowerment, emancipation from self-rejection and self-punishment,
sense of worth through vital engagement, insight and personal agency were also described
as personal outcomes by the participants. Along these lines, they mentioned: ‘Like I had

more power and strength to deal with things that I avoided, just opening my mouth helped’;
‘Many negative thoughts I was able to put a stop to, I was too responsible for everybody and
everything, this was something I learned by listening to the other people’; ‘I was able to see
how I do not ask my husband for things. . .and expect him to read my mind’; ‘Felt confident
and real when I talked about personal things in the group’; ‘That I could do things, that I
was strong enough to face even old skeletons’; ‘That I could try new ways of expressing
myself’; ‘By interacting with others and talking I discovered other ways of being and
acting’.
The participants tied this sense of personal gain to emotional outcomes. They discussed
having ‘less anxiety and worry about that which is uncertain’ and ‘feeling less isolated just
by listening’. One participant tied these ‘emotional outcomes’ to sharing and belonging in a
wider community, ‘by listening and talking to others, I felt stronger like we were all one
‘fist’ united and stronger, though different’. Other participants wrote that ‘courage’ is
developed by participating openly and that active ‘social’ engagement bolsters one’s ability
to face difficult situations and people.
As many as 38 participants mentioned the gains that ‘wisdom’ brings. They narrated the
following: ‘Felt like a ‘philosopher’, something that even our language does not allow to
women, this was personally empowering for me’; ‘Balance or wisdom come from knowing
that there are so many possibilities, twists, turns and contradictions and we all feel and live
this’; and ‘sophrosyne, felt not as restraint but as freedom’. Gaining ‘balance’, ‘wisdom’,
and ‘sophrosyne’ appeared very important to the participants and they underscored the
sharing and ‘dialogue’ components of the programme as being essential in bringing about
such gains. Many participants linked these personal and emotional outcomes to ‘maturing’,
‘developing emotionally and psychically’, and ‘embellishing and gaining depth in one’s
psychic world’. There words encompass the Greek cultural view that the ‘psyche’ is not
only psychological and emotional but also spiritual.

Knowledge outcomes
Of all the categories of outcomes the ‘knowledge’ outcomes was referred to the least. This
may attest to the greater influence of the experiential activities as opposed the contents of the

programme module. Another possible explanation is that the participants did not focus on
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


32

S. Triliva and M. Dafermos

learning but on the integrative aspects of wisdom, eudaimonia, and sophrosyne which
transcend the realm of the cognitive and which are ‘discovered through an introspective
process and manifested in words or works of transcendent truth and beauty’ (Robinson,
1990, p. 23). Or, as Freire (1970, 1978) explains through introspection and reflection
(consientization and problematization) learning becomes a personal matter. Nevertheless, of
the content outcomes focused on, learning about ‘positive emotions’ and eudeimonia,
‘sharpening one’s senses to enjoy the simple things in life’, and ‘that meaning making is an
intellectual, emotional and behavioural activity, and that it is important for whom I am and
how I lead my life’. Several participants mentioned that the ‘knowledge’ they gained about
‘wisdom’ and ‘eudaimonia’ helped them see how they can be shapers of their experience and
not products of it. As one participant put it: ‘I learned that pondering life’s problems makes
me wiser because only by asking ‘what is all this about’ can I face uncertainty wisely’.

Group facilitator outcomes
For the group facilitator the participants emphasized her way of relating that made the
difference for them. They emphasized things such as, narrates, ‘. . .tells stories well’,
encourages, ‘. . .gets everyone to participate’, uses humour, empowers, ‘. . .helps us to
reflect upon our problems and encourages us to make changes . . . asks the right questions
for everyone to answer for themselves’, and ‘gives of self to the community’. In this set of

responses the narrative sharing is underlined as is the encouragement and openness
of generating alternatives and participating socially in meaning making. The importance of
narrative, telling, and the use of image and metaphor were outlined by the participants who
found these aspects of the interchange to be the most influential part of the group-work
process. The facilitator outcomes seem to follow what Nelson and Prillentensky (2005)
describe as the role of an ‘inclusive host’ and ‘listener conceptualizer’ (pp. 222–223).That
is making participants feel safe, accepted, and comfortable to voice their opinions and
concerns, and helping them to listen and come to understandings that are derived from their
own and their fellow group members’ narrations and experiences.
Overall, the participants underlined the collective, communal, and relational aspects of
the interactive conversations and activities of the group. They joined together with some
trepidation and fear, began in their own ways to relate to each other and to the group as a
whole, eventually began to move slowly individually and collectively, and were
transformed and transforming into new ways of understanding, being and acting. The joint
activities, dialogues, and the ‘common’ or ‘communal’ that the group context brought to
the forefront developed into new understandings, subjectivities and possibilities for action.
This rich social interaction constructs a melded interplay of meanings, emotional
reverberations, embracing all sides of social and personal dilemmas. This in turn brings
about new forms of relatedness through open dialogue, reflective practices and through
these processes communal linkages are made. These aspects of being and relating are
intertwined. A story that one participant narrated in her evaluation is very telling of this: ‘A
few days ago I was talking to a couple of women I have known for a long time and we were
discussing how values have changed in our life time. One of the two said, ‘you have thought
these things out and speak of them with such eloquence’. I replied, ‘we have spent many
hours talking in the ‘Wednesday Group’, this talk has broadened my lenses, made me think
deeply about things and even my vocabulary has become enriched. I am grateful to the
group’.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/casp


Philosophical dialogues and ‘positive psychology’

33

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FINDINGS
In aiming for a more integrative view, it was evident from what transpired during the
meetings and from the illuminative evaluation that for some participants this form of
interaction, reflexivity and meaning making helps in finding a solution to a problem, while
for others, their understandings of how they and their fellow community members
conceptualized and live wisdom, eudaimonia, sophrosyne and fulfilment are enriched. For
still others, their conceptions and stance on meaning is broadened and grounded in
experiential communal wisdom. The open-group format was reminiscent of the old
‘syntrofia’ (keeping company) of years past, a communal activity that then (and now in this
new format) is a way of nurturing the development of individuals, families and communities
through collaborative interdependence, enriching the mutuality in developing understandings, and using dialogue and narrative to support the participants continuous process
of generating and transforming meaning (Gergen, 1999). The fact that such endeavours had
been a part of ‘traditional’ ways of knowing, that reflexivity is most definitely what went on
in an ancient world ‘lyceum’ and is sorely needed today, helped in reifying the social
preconditions and techniques used. The participants who evaluated the programme did not
focus so much on the contents as they did on the group processes and the personal meanings
derived from their group experience. They described how in essence they entered the
divergent dialogues and discourses that became available in the group context and how their
personal and collective ‘selves’ were transformed by the process of joining, participating,
interacting and discussing. Along with ‘syntrofia’, new constructions of what is real,
important, positive, wise, good and pleasing emerged. The participants did not describe the
predominance of one reality or worldview but an opening of subjectivities and
understandings to new ways, different perspectives, and possibilities for action. As

Vygotsky (1962) put it, ‘A shared narrative is what matters. Reason does not turn the trick’.
(p. 107)
The participants who replied to the evaluation questions indicated both individual and
collective transformations, which are taken as indices of strong emotional, intellectual and
interpersonal growth. Since the development of understandings of individual and collective
worldviews happens naturally in groups and these forms of understanding are relational in
nature, the group was viewed as and possibly acted as a mutual community via the creation
of new experiential references and habits (Gergen, 1999). New ideas, solutions, and efforts
are generated by the interaction with the others who participated, as one person put it, ‘I
understood that dialogue and talk with others helps me make sense of my problems’ and
‘. . .understand that each person has gifts, potentials, powers and strength’. Furthermore,
several participants pointed out that dialogue helps in ‘Looking inside myself and beyond
myself’ and ‘. . .experience what it means to analyse and examine all the different voices
inside me and outside me’. Others talked about voice in this fashion: ‘. . .put my feelings
into words and express them’, ‘. . .find my voice and feel confident in using it’, and ‘. . .use
my intuition as a guide to making decisions and expressing myself’. These outcomes can be
viewed as products of the process of participation, sharing, and simply ‘telling’ one’s story,
opinion, or ‘truth’. Perhaps they can be viewed as McNamee and Gergen (1999) write:
Meaning and language is generated within the process of relationships. In effect, all
that we propose to be real and good (ontology and morality) is born of human
interchange. . . .relational responsibility, that is toward means of valuing, sustaining,
and creating forms of relationship out of which common meanings—and thus
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


34

S. Triliva and M. Dafermos
moralities—can take wing. By using the term responsibility. . .as a conversational
resource; it is a term that may enter conversations in ways that might sustain and
support the process of constructing meaning as opposed to terminating it.
. . .Relational responsibility, then lies within the shared attempt to sustain the
conditions in which we can join in the construction of meaning and morality (p. xi).

The participants of the group came into dynamic interaction with their community of
people. Each participant came into open-dialogue with others, which in turn created
linkages between people, their emotional, social, political and behavioural worlds. The
power of speaking, reflecting and interacting perhaps empowered and enabled the
participants to feel and know how to go on with the dilemmas they confront possibly
through the social negation processes that are inherent in any group. The group participants
became social partners in developing understandings, from the flow of the common
dialogues and their worlds of language become connected.
The experiential nature of the activities was commented upon with words such as: ‘The
things I learn in the meetings stay with me, they are not forgotten easily’, and
‘remember . . . what I learned in the meetings, I will forget words but not the exercises’. The
reflexivity brought about transformation and change and as two participants stated,
‘. . .learned that self-direction and change begins by willing to try something new’ and
‘. . .discover new possibilities and other ways of understanding’, possibly reverberating
Shotter’s (2002), In this view, then, our ‘inner’ lives are structured by us living ‘into’ and
‘through’, so to speak, the opportunities or enablements offered us by ‘others’ and
‘otherness’ both around us and within us. Thus our mental life is never wholly our own. We
live in a way which is both responsive, and in response to, what is both ‘within us’ in some
way, but which is also ‘other than’ ourselves (p. 45).
Many participants wrote about their change in understandings with regard to wisdom
and how it is not something for ‘professors’ and ‘the wise’ and how each person can
‘nurture their own philosophies and epistemologies and expand them via the dialogue with
others’. Could this be manifestations of ‘sustaining and constituting . . .. developing new

forms of intelligibility . . . (the) development of intelligibilities that invite, encourage, or
suggest alternative forms of action’ (McNamee & Gergen, 1999, p. 10)? Could it possibly
be evidence of what Csikszentmihalyi and Rathunde (1990) call ‘evolutionary
hermeneutics?’ These communal dialogues that are based on the traditions of the broader
macro-culture appear to be supporting and facilitating the creation of meanings in a
collaborative fashion, and in this way, the women together (in this very small
micro-culture) are constructing their world. These webs of understanding and connections
may be what McNamee and Gergen (1999) describe in the following passage:
The practice of relational responsibility may proceed with a set of latticed concerns,
questions, deliberations, and other actions moving outward from the individual to
embrace the ever expanding domain of relatedness. Each of these conversational
moves, in turn, may broaden and deepen our forms of discourse and enrich the range
of reasonable actions in such a way that cultural participants are more fully (or less
lethally) coordinated (p. 19).
Taken as a whole the processes and outcomes echo the work of Vygotsky (1978) and his
view that development and personal maturation are social processes that is that they entail
socialization of cognitive, affective and social skills, including internalization of them.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


Philosophical dialogues and ‘positive psychology’

35

Moreover, these inter-subjective understandings are peoples’ ways of seeking to
comprehend psychological processes in a social way, not as products of isolated
intra-psychic mechanisms, but as forming the interface of reciprocally interacting

subjectivities (Atwood & Stolorow, 1984). The participants’ ‘voices’ narratives, stories and
self expressions were expanded and with this possibly their potential repertoire of personal
and communal relationships (Gergen, 1999). As Harre´ and Gillett put it ‘. . .show that the
person is not an isolated cognizer or interpreter of the world but is engaged with others in
practical, ceremonial, and communicative activities, constituting forms of life in which
language is taught and learned. . .. Thus the discourses constructed jointly by persons and
within socio-cultural groups become an important part of the framework of interpretation’
(pp. 21–22). The shared experiences of the group helped the members gain more social and
perhaps more powerful understandings about the comprehensibility, meaningfulness and
manageability of their lives.
For many of the participants the group-work process was in itself the most important
aspect of the intervention. Most participants openly mentioned the process of social
collaboration and sharing as paths to wisdom and to personal empowerment. This
substantiates Baltes, Kluck, and Kunzmann’s (2002) statement that wisdom can be
understood as the ancient idea of good life, in which conceptions of individual and
collective well-being are tied together. It also coincides with Sternberg’s (1998, 2003) and
Kramer’s (2000) multiple self systems view of wisdom (cognitive, conative, affective),
multiple points of view, in conjunction with the person in his or her context coming into
balance. Wisdom was viewed as strength by the participants, a way of understanding and
striving toward personal and interpersonal fulfilment and well-being (Baltes & Freund,
2003; Kramer, 2000). Another important aspect of seeking ‘wisdom, eudaimonia and
syprhosyne’ was the inter-generational learning component of the programme. It is
important to note however that this was an open group and that approximately 20
participants did not come on a regular basis. Moreover, five participants mentioned that
such open discussions where everybody that is present can say what s/he wants create
confusion and chaos, as one participant put it: ‘Everybody here can come and say whatever
is on their mind, it is too confusing and some people monopolize the conversation with
their problems instead of their ideas’.
There are, unfortunately, few places in society where persons of several generations can
meet on an equal basis, share in the joys and vicissitudes of life, develop dialogues and

exchange understandings and stories. The local ‘wisdoms’ can certainly be preserved,
embellished, and brought to life in this fashion. Moreover, the scaffoldings of a sense of
community can be set in place and possibly ‘social capital’ can be created (Nelson &
Prillentensky, 2005). As Nelson and Prilletensky point out empowerment is relational in
nature and is both a process and an outcome, a process of critical reflection, community
sharing and participation, and interpersonal validation and respect.
Through the years the programming of ‘The Lyceum for Women’ has become integrated
into the daily fabric of life in Rethymno. Due to its longevity, non-profit nature, and the
focus of the programming it has become part of the broad-scale social system(s) of the
community. These are characteristics that Caplan and Caplan (2000) propose as being
essential in prevention programming. Its programming focuses on multiple levels and
dimensions of the lives of individuals and the community and is sensitive to the
developmental processes of individuals, groups and of the community system(s) as a
whole. Since it is sustained, led, and operated by women it is perhaps characterized by
community leadership in the developmental tradition, fostering empowerment of others
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


36

S. Triliva and M. Dafermos

and modelling the skills of doing so, bringing into the public life an environment that
supports personal and interpersonal growth and relationships, an evolving sense of self that
is connected with others in a web of interconnections (Bond, Belenky, & Weinstock, 1998).
The participants who attended regularly and evaluated the programme seemed to focus
upon the more ‘positive’ aspects of this community mental health promotion endeavor but

there are some drawbacks to the study in that it was not a systematic independent
evaluation, the participants were self-selected, and the group facilitator was also the
researcher and writer of this article. Producing qualitative research that is deeply attentive
to process is a difficult endeavour since knowledge-producing activities are fraught with
power differentials and barriers. These drawbacks are important to note and to state
because they are limiting. Nevertheless, it is hoped that this analysis has accomplished
what Harre´ and Gillet (1994) emphasize about such research undertakings, ‘Reveal the
structure of meanings existing in the lives of the human group to which the subject of an
investigation belongs’ (p. 20).

REFERENCES
Aristotle. (1973). Metaphysics. Athens: Papadima (In Greek).
Aristotle. (1976). In J. A. K. Thompson -Trans. (Ed.), Nicomachean Ethics. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Books.
Aristotle. (1992). Nicomachean Ethics. Athens: Cactus (In Greek).
Aristotle. (1992). Politica. Athens: Cactus.
Atwood, G. E., & Stolorow, R. D. (1984). Structures of subjectivity: Explorations in psychoanalytic
phenomenology. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press & L. Erlbaum Associates.
Averill, J. R. (2002). Emotional creativity: Toward ‘Spiritualizing the passions’. In C. R. Snyder, &
S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 159–185). NY: Oxford University Press.
Baltes, P. B., & Freund, A. M. (2003). Human strengths as the orchestration of wisdom and selective
optimization with compensation. In L.G. Aspinwall, & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology
of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology
(pp. 23–35). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Baltes, P. B., Gluck, J., & Kunzmann, U. (2002). Wisdom: Its structure and function in regulating
successful life span development. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 327–347). NY: Oxford University Press.
Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., Lishner, D. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). Empathy and altruism. In C. R. Snyder,
& S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 485–498). NY: Oxford University
Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J.
Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 608–618). NY: Oxford University Press.
Berscheid, E. (2003). The human’s greatest strength: Other humans. In L. G. Aspinwall, & U. M.
Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions
for a positive psychology (pp. 37–47). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Bond, L. A., Belenky, M. F., & Weinstock, J. S. (1998). The politics of prevention: Community
women as leaders in the developmental tradition. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 19(2),
105–115.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D. (1993). Introduction: Understanding learning from experience. In
D. Boud, R. Cohen, & D. Walker (Eds.), Using experience for learning (pp. 1–20). Buckingham:
The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Caplan, G., & Caplan, R. B. (2000). The future of primary prevention. The Journal of Primary
Prevention, 21(2), 131–136.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1990). The psychology of wisdom: An evolutionary
interpretation. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom, its nature, origins, and development (pp.
25–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diogenis Laertios. (1994). Collected works. Athens: Cactus (In Greek).
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


Philosophical dialogues and ‘positive psychology’

37

Emerson, P., & Frosh, S. (2004). Critical narrative analysis in psychology, a guide to practice.
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Emmons, R. A. (2004). The psychology of gratitude: An introduction. In R. A. Emmons, & M. F.

McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp. 3–16). London: Oxford University Press.
Emmons, R. A., & Shelton, C. M. (2002). Gratitude and the science of positive psychology. In C. R.
Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 459–471). NY: Oxford
University Press.
Eyford, G. A. (1989). Learning about Japan: Some theoretical bases. In Paul. S. Denise, & Ian. M.
Harris (Eds.), Experiential education and community development (pp. 19–36). New York:
Greenwood Press.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2002). Positive emotions. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of
positive psychology (pp. 120–134). NY: Oxford University Press.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. NY: The Seabury Press.
Freire, P. (1975). Cultural action for freedom. Monograph Series, No. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Educational Review.
Freire, P. (1978). Pedagogy in progress: The letters to Guinea-Bissau. NY: The Seabury Press.
Gergen, K. J. (1999). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Giannikopoulos, A. (1989). Education in classical and pre-classical time. Athens: Gregory (In
Greek).
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Harre´, R., & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursive mind. London: Sage Publications.
Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 382–394). NY: Oxford University Press.
Heron, J. (1996). Helping whole people learn. In D. Boud, & N. Miller (Eds.), Working with
experience: Animating learning (pp. 75–91). London: Routledge.
Hoffman, L. (2002). Family therapy an intimate history. New York: Norton.
Isen, A. M. (2003). Positive affect as a source of human strength. In L. G. Aspinwall, & U. M.
Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions
for a positive psychology (pp. 179–195). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Jaques, D. (1991). Learning in groups (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Kanakis, I. (1990). The Socratic method as a means for teaching and learning. Athens: Gregory
(In Greek).

Kennedy Arlin, P. (1990). Wisdom: The art of problem finding. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom, its
nature, origins, and development (pp. 230–244). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kramer, D. A. (2000). Wisdom as a classical source of human strength: Conceptualizing and
empirical inquiry. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 83–101.
Lefcourt, H. M. (2002). Humor. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 619–631). NY: Oxford University Press.
Levine, M. (2000). The positive psychology of Buddhism and yoga: Paths to a mature happiness.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marinoff, L. (1999). Plato not Prozac! Applying philosophy to everyday problems. NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Maslow, A. H. (1971). The further reaches of human nature. NY: The Viking Press.
McCullough, M. E., & vanOyen Witvliet, C. (2002). The psychology of forgiveness. In C. R. Snyder,
& S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 446–458). NY: Oxford University
Press.
McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1999). Relational responsibility: Resources for sustainable dialogue.
London: Sage Publications.
Meachan, J. A. (1990). The loss of wisdom. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom, its nature, origins, and
development (pp. 181–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, G., & Prillentensky, I. (2005). Community psychology: In pursuit of liberation and wellbeing. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
Pascual-Leone, J. (1990). An essay on wisdom: Toward organismic processes that make it possible.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom, its nature, origins, and development (pp. 244–278). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp


38

S. Triliva and M. Dafermos

Pines, A. M. (1999). Falling in love. NY: Routledge.
Plato. (1956). In W. H. D. Rouse -Trans. (Ed.), Great dialogues of Plato: A modern translation. New
York: New American Library.
Plato. (1992). The apology of Socrates. Athens: Cactus (In Greek).
Plato. (1993). Theaititos. Athens: Cactus (In Greek).
Roberts, R. C. (2004). The blessing of gratitude: A conceptual analysis. In Robert. A. Emmons, &
Michael. E. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp. 58–78). London: Oxford
University Press.
Robinson, D. N. (1990). Wisdom through the ages. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom, its nature,
origins, and development (pp. 13–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, C. (1967). On becoming a person. London: Constable.
Rogers, C. (1980). A way of being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sant Cassia, P. (1992). The making of the Greek family: Marriage and exchange in nineteenth-century
Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. NY: The Free Press.
Shotter, J. (2002). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London: Sage
Publications.
Snyder, C. R., Rand, K. L., & Sigmon, D. R. (2002). Hope theory: A member of the positive
psychology family. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp.
257–276). NY: Oxford University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Understanding wisdom. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom, its nature, origins,
and development (pp. 3–9). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2, 347–365.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basis of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures, and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strohm Kitchener, K., & Brenner, H. G. (1990). Wisdom and reflective judgment: Knowing in the

face of uncertainty. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom, its nature, origins, and development (pp.
212–229). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Totikidis, V., & Prilleltensky, I. (2006, February). Engaging community in a cycle of praxis.
Multicultural perspectives on personal, relational and collective wellness. Community, Work
and Family, 9(1), 47–67.
Vernant, J. P. (1989). Myth and thought in Ancient Greece. Athens: Zaharopoulos (in Greek).
Vlastos, G. (1991). Socrates: Ironist and moral philosopher. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. MIT: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Watson, D. (2002). Positive affectivity: The disposition to experience pleasurable emotional states. In
C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 106–119). NY: Oxford
University Press.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp