＜記念講演＞
９月8日（木）15:15〜17:00
◆＜L＞Narrative Selves in a World of Stories.

Arthur W. Frank
University of Calgary

For a sociologist, what is crucial about the self is its capacity for affiliations, including but hardly limited to work relationships, friendships, marriages, and multiple forms of group memberships. A person's life chances, both material and ethical, depend crucially on how she or he recognizes others and is recognized by others as suitable (eligible, marketable) for affiliation.

Any self is formed within certain affiliations (family, friendships, schools). A central feature of this self-formation is learning stories. These include both stories that are told by established members of these groups and stories that develop in the course of the self's participation in these groups. These latter stories formulate that participation as the self's experience. Self, story, and experience each depend on and define the other terms.

Through group affiliations, people learn not only specific stories; more important, they learn what lives and events are narratable. People learn what counts as a story, and they learn who can be told which stories, under what conditions. People develop tastes for particular stories, just as they develop tastes for certain foods and styles of dress. They become comfortable with some kinds of stories and uncomfortable with others.

Adopting the concept of habitus from the work of Pierre Bourdieu and Norbert Elias, I call this formation of the self in stories narrative habitus. A person's narrative habitus comprises both the content of a corpus of stories and a generalizable sense of what events are narratable, how they can be narrated, and to whom particular stories can be told. Narrative habitus generates a person's sense that a particular story is their kind of story. Through our narrative habitus, we each recognize a story as being or not being for me. My self is that which both determines and is determined by a sense-sometimes tacit and sometimes self-reflective-of what stories someone like me attends to, appreciates the significance of, possibly enjoys, is moved by emotionally, and might retell to others.

Affiliation depends on the mutual recognition of narrative habitus; people recognize each other as candidates for affiliation based on the stories they tell. Simply stated, we know each other by how we hear each other narrating the world. And we know the world by how we narrate it ourselves and hear others narrate it-those others having been selected by whether their stories fit our narrative habitus.

For my interests, stories are selection/evaluation devices. Stories select aspects of the world as narratable, and in the narration, evaluations are made about actions and objects. The crucial issue is whether a self takes any particular story seriously. To use Bourdieu's terms again, to take a story seriously requires knowing (understanding, appreciating) what the story holds out as stakes of the game and taking those stakes seriously. Those who share a narrative habitus share a sense of what counts in life: what stakes (outcomes, goals, rewards) are worth doing something to achieve (taking risks, enduring hardship, deferring or giving up other gratifications). From myths to soap operas, stories are about people taking seriously certain stakes and acting to achieve those stakes. A story teaches whether particular actions were well advised: did the characters in the story select the right aspects of the world to attend to, and did they evaluate those aspects of the world properly, as reflected in their actions? As we hear most stories, our narrative habitus provides unreflective responses to these questions, depending on which stories have formed this narrative habitus.

As any of us passes through the world, multiple stories call out to us, asking us to take seriously the stakes they depend on. These stories include gossip, news stories, advertisements, myths and folk tales, literary works, legal testimony, popular song lyrics, and official reports. We may be asked to take seriously that owning a consumer product will make us happy, or that a development in international relations calls for political action. Some of the most crucial work we do, constantly throughout our days, is to make decisions-mostly without reflection-about which stories we will become caught up in.

On the basis of rapid pattern recognitions, we decide which stories and their stakes we will take seriously and which we will disregard. These decisions are crucial determinants of our lives; they are shaped by our narrative habitus, as the principle of what Bourdieu calls unchosen choices. Narrative habitus is durable-our unchosen choices will be consistent over time-but not fixed. Stories, as well as events, can change narrative habitus. People can be ambushed by a story, suddenly finding themselves taking seriously a story that they would not have imagined becoming caught up in. Religious conversion stories are reflexive exemplifications of being ambushed by an unexpected story, the seriousness of which cannot be evaded.

The narrative self is thus formed in stories, affiliated with other selves through the media of stories, and changed through stories that have unexpected effects. The self's narrative habitus affects life chances not only of material success (market chances, socio-economic attainment), but also of ethical competence. The self exists within a horizon of value, which also depends on narrative habitus. A person's sense of responsibility and obligation is formed by stories that depict the consequences of accepting or refusing relationships to others. Stories teach what sort of people any of us wants to be, and stories hook us up with other people who will facilitate or impede our becoming that sort of person.


＜メインシンポジウム＞
９月９日（金）（9:30〜12:00）
◆＜S＞「＜語り＞を聴き取る／＜語り＞を伝える〜シークエンス分析の実践論〜」

<企画・司会>
能智正博（東京大学）

< 話題提供者>
桜井厚（千葉大学）
茂呂雄二（筑波大学）
森岡正芳（奈良女子大学）

< 指定討論者>
南博文（九州大学）
遠藤利彦（京都大学）

< 企画趣旨>
第１回の質的心理学会大会では、「KJ法とグラウンデッドセオリー」というタイトルで、コード化・カテゴリー化に基づく質的分析の方法についてシンポジウムが行われた。しかしそれだけが質的分析法ではなく、例えばFlick(2002)は、それとはタイプの異なる分析法として「シークエンス分析」という分類を設け、そこに"会話分析"、"談話分析"、"ナラティブ分析"等を含めている。これらは、データをなるべく切り刻まずに、語りの流れや全体的な形（ゲシュタルト）を大事にしながら分析を進める点では共通する方法である。わが国でもこうした方法を用いる研究者は決して少なくないが、KJ法やグラウンデッドセオリー法ほどには技法の詳細が知られているわけではないように思われる。近年では、"語り"、"談話"、"ナラティブ"、"物語"といった概念を巡って質的な研究が行われることが多く、得られたデータの全体的な文脈を生かした分析法は、今後ますます重要になるであろう。

今回のシンポジウムでは、対象者の語りを「シークエンス分析」的にその流れや全体性のなかで理解し、それを研究としてまとめたり実践に用いたりしておられる第一線の研究者の方々をお招きして、語りがどのようなやり方で捉えられ、どのような形で他者に―研究であれば読者に、臨床であればクライエントやサービスの受け手に―伝えられているか、その方法と成果も含めて話題提供をお願いしている。その手続きは必ずしもすべてが明示化できるものばかりではないかもしれない。しかし、分析過程を事例的に入念に検討することで見えてくる、語りの「シークエンス分析」的手法の共通属性とそのバリエーションは、今後の質的心理学の発展の上でも重要な方法的基礎を提供することになると思われる。また、語りを捉えそれを整理したり提示したりすることのむずかしさも、今回のシンポジウムを通じていっそうはっきりしてくることが期待される。そのむずかしさにどのように対処すべきなのかということも、ディスカッションを通じて考えてみたい。