Intersubjectivity: The Key to Communities and Community Building

From the discussion above, it should be clear that processes such as Nonaka’s socialization, Wenger’s participation, and Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development entail an interhuman relationship, or intersubjectivity (Crossley, 1996; Rogoff, 1990; Rommetveit, 1974; Wertsch,1985).2 Intersubjectivity is the act of transcending the private and becoming one with the other. As Rommetveit (cited in Wertsch, 1985) states:

The basic problem of human intersubjectivity becomes . . . a question concerning in what sense and under what conditions two persons who engage in a dialogue can transcend their different private worlds. And the linguistic basis for this enterprise, I shall argue, is not a fixed repertory of shared ‘literal’ meanings, but very general and partially negotiated drafts of contracts concerning categorization and attribution inherent in ordinary language.

(Rommetveit, in Wertsch, 1985: 160)

Individuals bring different perspectives and preliminary interpretations to a situation and, through semiotically mediated negotiation, attain a state of intersubjectivity (Wertsch, 1985). Language and other cultural tools that mediate shared activity serve as a means of creating this temporary shared social reality. Thus, one way to view intersubjectivity is the result of an alignment of cultural elements.

Identifying common reference points for an activity (experiences and frameworks) helps develop intersubjectivity (Rogoff, 1990). Metaphors and analogies, for example, serve as good tools for gaining a sense of intersubjectivity. They develop understanding of a new concept through comparison with one that is already well understood. The depth of intersubjectivity reached, however, can vary. According to Crossley (1996), intersubjectivity can take two forms: radical and egological. In the radical phase, relationships involve an unconditional communicative openness between parties and a lack of self-awareness of each individual. The self and other become one. In the egological phase, the individual empathizes with the other by transposing him or herself into the other’s position. Both forms emerge in communities.

If intersubjectivity is responsible for the efficiency and effectiveness by which learning and activity are carried out, then the converse would also be true; breakdowns in intersubjectivity lead to inefficiencies in activity. This is only partially true. Activity theory argues that contradictions occur among various elements of an activity (or cultural) system. Rules, division of labor, and tools may be at odds with the overarching objectives or with each other. Though contradictions lead to breakdowns in intersubjectivity, they are also catalysts for change. If ‘holes’ in intersubjectivity are explored and new views of reality are constructed as a result, then the system progresses. If they remain obstacles to activity, then they negatively impact the system.

The impact on practice participation is obvious, but how does this impact building of communities? First, community building involves developing a stronger sense of intersubjectivity around practice. This may consist of merely surfacing what is latent, or it may require developing a completely new understanding of the practice itself. Addressing the intersubjectivity of the practice leads to the identity of the community.

What is more critical, however, is building intersubjectivity the concept of community. Most US organizations assume the primacy of the individual. Though they express in their vision espoused values of collective action, human resource systems promote radical individuals, their true basic assumptions. CoPs, which grew from a collective philosophy, challenge this culture. Thus, systematic processes for learning how to operate this way are necessary. Since learning and practice are inseparable, learning how to operate as a community of practice within a corporation and ‘practicing’ as a community of practice are integrated as well.