HEGELIAN ANALYSIS OF REVERSAL THEORY

Resurrexit Spiritus part 1

Dr. Marcus Aurelius Roe (2023)

This article series comprises a phenomenological philosophical treatise beginning from within my specialisation, psychology appropriately. In the first three articles, I rework Reversal Theory into a coordinated system of structured motivation. I then expand out from this new phenomenology to theories of society, virtues, fatherhood, civilisation, and spiritual human evolution.

Reversal Theory focuses upon polar states within four domains: means-ends, rules, social transactions, and relationships. This theory predicts human reactions that spur contradictory switches between states, such as buying ice cream after exercising or seeking refuge from the boredom of studying with a movie from a favourite genre. These differing states present certain perspectives, expectations, and goals, guiding common categorisation of tasks or decisions with certain traits.

Means-ends domain has means and ends states, having to do with task focuses of craft involvement or product orientation. Rules domain has conform and rebel states, having to do with acceptance or rejection of things. Social transaction domain involves self-mastery and others-mastery states to do with power. Relationships domain has self and others states, to do with relationships with the self and others.

TO SYSTEMISE

Historically, Reversal Theory domains are resistant to theoretical relationships due to their reactive, dependent, and sometimes paradoxical states, however the underlying psychology of an individual actor is common to them all. If individual psychology itself is the commonality of the four domains in Reversal Theory, then what is it specifically? Is there a backbone on which the eight states might find structure?

Critical analysis for such a dynamic theory of motivation must aim for identification of any unqualified differences in motivation. For this end, a field of activity must be selected for the object of analysis. This object must be able to fulfil any four of the eight states equally yet retain potentiality for other real differences in motivations between individuals. After identifying such a field that defies Reversal Theory in this first article, I will extract the actual difference in the second article. I will then reconstruct and integrate the missing component in the third article.

OBJECT

The classic example of artists comes immediately to mind. Consider two painters who generate paintings demonstrating equal skill. One paints a realistic copy of a photograph while the other paints purely according to artistic prerogatives. What is the difference according to Reversal Theory?

ANALYSIS

Within the means-ends domain there is little difference to be found between the artists. Either could be serious or playful and the dynamic cannot define the difference. Some may claim arts are decidedly means-oriented however artists engage arts for both craft and product. An artist focused on realism can find just as much joy in their techniques as one following their imagination.

Rules are dependent upon the surrounding society. Both artists could conform to different social circles. Neither can power nor caring transactions define the difference between the artists. Both artists could be equally motivated by self-improvement, prestige, emotional appeals, or inspiring others.

The relationships domain may at first appear fit for the purpose. Perhaps there is enough evidence to contend the photo-realistic artist is painting to profit themselves. However, an artist seeking a profit may be doing it for the benefit of neighbours. The profit might be used to pay for medical bills of destitute family or some charitable endeavour. Likewise, the second painter can be just as selfish or social in their motivations.

PROBLEM

These domains do not distinguish between the motivations of the painters as described above. There is something missing between the mimic and the creator that will account for the difference. It must have to do with some common element between the domains.

Apter (2001) writes that states are “‘nature’s’ way of ensuring, in the normal way of things, that the individual has the possibility of every type of psychological satisfaction.” What would “nature’s” interest be in doing this? Regardless of interest, those most psychologically fit to environment were selected for an ability to seek experience. For what purpose? The contrastive value.

EROSIC

The usual philosophical use of the word eros implies reasoned affection. This affection is based in the beauty of things, that is the good to be expected of them. This simple erosic affection is often described as a sort of movement toward truth in phenomenology. Erosic affection is indicative of much more encompassing all under eros, including erotic. The perspective of the erosic eye includes both universal and particular truths, whereas philosophy extends from just past the end of the particular and infinitely deep into universals. So, a movement toward universal truths, as opposed particular, is a definition better aligned to philosophical thought, generally.

Perhaps the difference between the activities of the artists has to do with their individual erosic judgements within the works. One is attempting a more absolute reflection of reality, placing less of the self in the art. The other attempts a more abstractive representation of creative imaginary reflections composite of reality, cultural traditions, and personality.

Beauty is experienced as contrast against other things of a similar category to extract the subjective meaning for the particular, the basic good, relative to everything else. The process of beauty judgement requires difference to exist for definitional value. This is the purpose of the reversals in experience, to provide the tools for definition. The second artist can definitely be said to be engaging more of their own erosic judgements.

The individual erosic judgement event can be labelled here as a “psychomenon”, the reasoned evaluation and selection of the perceived greatest good. Reason stands at its core. Psychomenal contrasting relies on binary oppositions in attributes, such as abstract or concrete and calm or anxious. Binary oppositions exist between all options. Not all erosic activities rise to the level of the psychomenal, this is largely dependent upon the level of reason involved.

INTENTION

Intentional behaviours become most psychomenal when the contrast is apparent, recognised, and remembered. Intentional behaviours inspired by psychomena move in the direction of culture, art, religion, and philosophy. This indicates it is not limited to any specific definition in philosophy or domain of psychology. The missing element needed to deepen Reversal Theory, and therefore structural phenomenology, must transcend most modern schools of philosophy, approaching something similar to Hegel’s own construct.

Memories of psychomena, or learned preferences, compile across a lifetime and manifest as structures of human experience that grant meaning. A deeper level of this meaning can be described as spiritual understanding. This spiritual understanding informs intentional behaviours, signifying the presence of psychomenal activity. Spiritual understanding changes throughout the human lifetime. These changes can force massive shifts in motive.

Can spiritual understanding and psychomena provide clues to differences between the artists in the example? How do shifts in motive occur and are there perceivable patterns? The next article will deconstruct the elements of Reversal Theory and attempt a reformation that reflects patterns aligned to spiritual understanding and motivation domain shifts.

REFERENCES

Apter, M. J. (Ed.). (2001). Motivational styles in everyday life: A guide to reversal theory (1st ed). American Psychological Association.