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

Of the 45 evaluation protocolsthat were analysed the following themes were most important for the participants: ‘Group as-a-wholeprocess’—the sense of sharing and development understandi

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 littleattention has been paid to evaluating the effectiveness of such endeavours, the techniques thatinfluence 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 communitymental health promotion project The research was conducted in order to delineate programmeoutcomes and the characteristics that had an impact on the participants’ lives The 3-month familysupport programme intended to introduce ‘philosophical dialogues’ as means to developing personaland communal understandings of what makes life worth living The programme was developed andimplemented on Crete under the auspices of a non-profit community organization appropriatelynamed ‘The Lyceum for Women’ The features of the programme that contributed and enhanced theparticipants’ tendencies to become not passive targets but active partners and stakeholders in theprocess will be clarified, as will the conceptualization and approach Of the 45 evaluation protocolsthat were analysed the following themes were most important for the participants: ‘Group as-a-wholeprocess’—the sense of sharing and development understandings in a ‘parea’ (in-group); ‘relationaloutcomes’—feeling of belonging, ‘reciprocated kindness’, and giving of self to others; personal andemotional outcomes-self-efficacy and empowerment; knowledge outcomes-learning about positiveemotions 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 ornarratives Moreover, philosophical understandings and ideas were meant to be applied ineveryday life As Plato stated, words can be a ‘pharmaca or pharmaki’, that is medicine or

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

* Correspondence to: Sofia Triliva, University of Crete, Department of Psychology, University Campus at Gallos, Rethymno, Crete Greece 74 100 E-mail: triliva@psy.soc.uoc.gr

poison and in today’s world of therapeutic dialogue, philosophy has become a therapeuticmedium through such movements as ‘Emotional Intelligence’, ‘Positive Psychology’, and

‘Philosophical Counseling’ These latest trends in psychology have become somewhat of aZeitgeist 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 worldfaded away from everyday use and application and were relegated to the realm of academicstudy and endeavour without having the practical impact on the everyday cultural practicesand ways of being for centuries, to make a ‘comeback’ when mainstream psychologyembraced them and made them popular again In order to develop some understanding onwhat constituted philosophical dialogues and to follow this convoluted path, we will beginour paper with a brief background on ‘philosophical dialogues in Ancient Greece’ and latertie 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 wasindelibly tied to the development of the Greek city-state (Vernant, 1989) Democracy as apolitical system, along with the development of ‘free or democratic’ citizens wereimportant aspects of the ancient Greek social context and they, in turn, aided thedevelopment of philosophical dialogue

In the Ancient Greek city states a large spectrum of dialogue forms developed, some ofwhich were: the theatrical (tragedy and comedy), political, judicial, and philosophical It isimportant to mention the dialogical character of theatrical performances, the political disputes

in the meetings of the congregations of the demos, every day discourse within themarketplace, and the symposium Citizens took part in social life by partaking in these variousforms of dialogue According to Aristotle (1992b), a person is a ‘political animal’ The personwho is unable to live within the social network because he is autarchic or self-sufficient iseither a god or wild beast (Politica, VII, 138a) Hence, the continuous communication of thecitizens within their city-state is an essential prerequisite for their eudaimonia

Philosophical dialogue was a form of discussion, conversation between two or morepeople, 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 thisfashion, dialogue was not a form of oral expression and interchange, based on a preexistingknowledge, but a strategy for inquiring into personal and social ‘truths’ Understanding wasnot 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 ofthe most important aspects of ancient philosophical reflection and syllogism

Dialogue and gnosis did not only focus upon the physical aspects of the world but, mostimportantly, the development of understanding of how people perceive and comprehend theirworld This anthropocentric focus of philosophical reflection expresses the Protagoranstatement that, ‘Man is the measure of things’ (Diogenis Laertios, 1994, IX, 51) Anotherviewpoint on philosophical dialogue is Socrates’ perspective that dialogue is a means forCopyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd J Community Appl Soc Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/casp

18 S Triliva and M Dafermos

pursuing an ethical form of life According to Socrates, gnosis of what is right or wrong is aprerequisite 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 oflife is not worthy of living’ (Plato, 1992, Apology, 38A)

The pursuit of truth via philosophical dialogue was and is an open process Dialoguesbegin with a question and end with an unanswerable question, which leaves theinterlocutors/discussants in a state of wonder, surprise or puzzlement It is this state ofinspired wonder and admiration that captures the transformation, the turning point inunderstanding, the apocalypse ‘People begin to philosophize now and began in thebeginning 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 isinteractive and a clash of opposing viewpoints This clashing or collision of viewpoints orworldviews is considered by the Ancient Greek philosophers as the most worthwhilemeans of pursuing truths ‘We are currently in conflict, not for the prevalence ordomination 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 whichliterally means ‘midwifery or of birth giving’ and is a method of extracting or wheedlingout answers (Giannikopoulos, 1989) Irony refers to a figure of speech or ‘trope’ wheresomething 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 tohim that which s/he understood as expert on the matter Moreover, he methodically putforth 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 thatknowledge that one arrogantly ‘possesses’ proves to be ‘false’ or deceitful The shakingand toppling of one’s dogmatic convictions brings about internal confusion and vacillationand opens the road for the common search for social truths Socratic irony leads to theunsettlement of entrenched viewpoints and understandings of the ‘common mind’ andmakes obvious internal inconsistencies, which in turn, creates the space for ‘knowingthyself’ and for understanding the ‘other’ The starting point for the pursuit of ‘truth’ is theawareness 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, toseek knowledge and understanding (Kanakis, 1990)

The Socratic denial of knowing «en oida o´ti ouden oida» one thing I know is that I donot know anything) constitutes a form of refined irony, which is further reinforcedwhen one takes into account the following utterance of the Delphic Article—‘Of allmen Socrates is the most wise’ (Diogenis Laertios, 1994, II 37; Plato, The apology ofSocrates, 1992, 21a) Although there appears to be an incompatibility between thesetwo statements, one can discern that there is an underlying connection between them,knowing thyself «gnoyi s’ auto´n», a self-critical stance, and the awareness of thelimits and inadequacies of ‘knowledge’ is presented as the highest form of wisdom It isthis ‘not-knowing stance’ together with the reflective process that allows for: (1) thedevelopment of layer upon layer of response, (2) the creation of a web of linguisticconnections that link people together by making them a part of a generative or

transforming process, (3) bringing forth emotional reverberations and a moving forth

of the interlocutors by the creation of joint knowledge, and (4) invites opportunitiesfor 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 talkingcontrol our beliefs and ways of being

There were no ‘ready answers’ in this form of interchange For Socrates this form ofcritical reflection in social context was a form of birth-giving, the spiritual birth of thesubject (see Plato, 1993 Theaititos, 150 b–c) Critical dialogues, and the dialecticalmethodology was not a pedagogical enterprise for Socrates, it had an ethical/philosophical/spiritual orientation These aspects of philosophical dialogue were further refined anddeveloped by Plato

Plato used the dialogical interchange between two interlocutors that argue and juxtaposetwo opposing points of view on issues that are socially negotiable Each argument anddilemma brings the interlocutors to a point of disequilibrium and hence an opportunity forcommunity Of primary importance is the fact that the two discussants are equal and thatthey jointly pursue meaning making and reaching understanding They discuss a myriad ofsocially/ 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 ofthe dialogues is not present as an active subject and his opinions are expressed in an indirectand 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 bypuzzlement and wonderment, which are the by-products of deep concentration, devotion,immersion and careful deliberation between people This process brings forth a certainbalance, psychic equilibrium, and in time, the attainment of eudaimonia

The concepts of eudaimonia, the virtues of courage, sophrosyne (temperance), holinessand the social virtues of honesty, forgiveness, justice, gratitude/humility and friendlinesswere both states of being and ways of being, that is praxis (Aristotle, 1992a; NochominenaEthics, III, 2, 1111a) Virtues are the praxis which are fulfilled of one’s own free will andpleasure Intention is predilection which is based on one’s judgement, conviction andrational volition

Relying upon this set of particular points of view which are outlined above and whichwere couched into a post-modern social constructionist perspective a group primaryprevention intervention was conceived, designed, implemented and evaluated with the aim

of re-introducing philosophical dialogues into the daily fabric of the lives of theparticipants for the purpose of conscious-raising, critical reflective appraisal and praxis(Freire, 1970, 1975, 1978) enhancement In line with the post-modern constructionistperspective critical reflection was both part of the intervention and its evaluation, primacywas given to personal lived experience, and an emphasis was placed on personal change,empowerment, and emancipation (that is a transformative approach and process) It iswithin 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 ofCopyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd J Community Appl Soc Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/casp

20 S Triliva and M Dafermos

the residents have moved to the city from the villages that exist in the wider prefecture andthis 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 theinfluence of the Greek Orthodox religion Nevertheless, houses are now multiple familydwellings, 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 afternoondiscussions have not been replaced by the ‘psychotherapy’ movement that has become sopopular in North America In Greek culture ‘psychotherapy’ and psychology in general areimports and not widely used or accepted as viable ways of getting help or developingunderstanding The cultural notions of ‘honor’, ‘shame’, ‘private’ and ‘public’ continue toappear in everyday discourse and undoubtedly impinge upon people’s subjectivities andactivities (Sant Cassia, 1992) These notions influence people’s willingness to participate in

‘therapeutic’ interactions especially in an open community group format Yet, with thefraying of communal dialogues and opportunities of interaction and the concomitant newworld dilemmas that people confront on a daily basis, some community members arewilling to participate in group interchanges and dialogue People are more likely toparticipate 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 beenrunning an ‘educational group’ as part of their wider programme which aims to upholdGreek traditions and culture and to bolster the institution that is the bedrock of Greekcultural existence, the family The ‘Lyceum for Women’ is a non-profit organization that isconsidered a learning environment in the greater Rethymno Prefecture The learningenvironment ‘Lyceum’ has evolved from the belief that knowledge and culture areinextricably intertwined, that knowledge is created through the interaction of people in arelational community, and that learning by doing will bring about personal and communalchange Up until very recently, the group was psychoeducational in nature and consisted oflecture presentations in areas such as child development and parenting The programmingfor the family currently entails an experiential format, with a focus on the family, itsmembers as individuals and as members of the wider social and communal system Thetheme 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 implementedand 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 onehand, the need to preserve stability in terms of upholding Greek traditions and culture, onthe other the recognition that ‘learning by doing’ will engender social and personal change.However, if one looks to the relatively recent psychological approaches concepts ofwisdom (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 wisdomand they call it ‘evolutionary hermeneutics’ They state that this method is based on theassumptions 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

have ‘adaptive value’ and in order to understand the meanings of these concepts it is best toanalyze 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 tounderstand the adaptive value of former responses, thereby providing a deeper and richercontext for present understanding’ (p 27)

This concept is clearly relevant for the Greek cultural context, useful in developingunderstandings in the community group format, and applicable to the social constructivistperspective Gaining experience through authentic and emotional involvement in a communalsetting was deemed to be helpful for the participants in clarifying their own wisdoms andintegrating 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 ofKaren Strohm Kitchener’s ‘reflective judgement model’ of wisdom were found helpful forthe community group intervention project Strohm Kitchener and Brenner (1990) postulatethat wisdom consists of knowledge that life is fraught with ambiguities, uncertainties, andproblems that need to viewed as such Their empirical findings on making judgments whenthere are no ‘right’ or ‘true’ answers by using ‘depth’ (reflexivity) and ‘breadth’ (empathicand intellectual understanding) along with a willingness to construct sound solutions and tocompare these constructed beliefs within particular contexts illuminated many areas of thecomplexity (personal and interpersonal) involved in confronting the quandaries that lifeputs forth Similarly, the uncertainties involved in life’s dilemmas, the appreciation offallibility (Meachan, 1990), people’s openness to change, and finding balance throughproblem finding and pondering (Kennedy Arlin, 1990) were definitions of wisdom thatwere also helpful for the intervention From this same literature, the work of JuanPascual-Leone (1990) on how wisdom is developed (integration of affect, cognitiveprocessing, spiritual and praxis) and the role that wise counsellors can play in itsdevelopment (restricting authoritarian interventions, fostering freedom, and allowing forthe integration of people’s agency and communion) were useful principles for the groupfacilitator

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 Theparticipants expressed their opinions and positions by examining questions that have noright or wrong answer By both posing questions and providing experiential activities it washoped that understandings, meanings, and points of reference would be developed by theparticipants on the subjects and themes touched upon

Relying on the work of Rogers (1967), Maslow (1971), Kolb (1984), Boud, Cohen, andWalker (1993), Heron, 1996, Jaques, (1991) and Freire (1970, 1975, 1978) experientiallearning activities were generated To Rogers (1967, 1980) experiential learning wasequivalent to personal change and growth He believed that all human beings have a naturalpropensity to learn and the teachers, counsellors or facilitators can reinforce this naturalinclination 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 theteaching–learning process Moreover, facilitators who share of themselves in the learningprocess promote participation, learning and transformation (Rogers, 1967, 1980) Since thethemes of the group had practical, social, and personal significance it was hoped that theprocess would allow for interplay of connections, emotional reverberations and a movefrom ‘wisdom to responsibility’ (Hoffman, 2002)

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

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 theintuitive, 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 derivefrom 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, philosophicaldialogues and narratives, and have been relied upon for centuries in developingunderstandings and cultural subjectivities

Since experience is the foundation of and the stimulus for learning and learning builds onand flows from past, present and future experience (Boud, Cohen, & Walker, 1993), theactivities used within the group were developed and applied so that the participants couldconstruct their own impressions and understandings and to allow for the input of theirfellow community members, being that meaning-making is socially and culturallyconstructed (Gergen, 1999; McNamee & Gergen, 1999) After the advent of participating

in an experiential activity, Kolb’s (1984) model raises the following questions: What wasnoticed? So, what does this mean? Now what? This type of questioning was used to helpthe participants step back and reflect upon the activity, interpret for themselves and planand experiment with change Experiential learning thus involves actively engaging with thephenomena 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, indynamic relation to others and using methods derived from cultural traditions

The active engagement of experiential learning as well as the relevance of the subjectmatter is captured by Paulo Freire’s (1970, 1975, 1978) work which outlined threeelements of the reflection-learning process was most relevant Freire (1970) emphasizedthe 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 andthe contradictions within them Learners are ‘knowing subjects’ and hence, are able todevelop a capacity to understand and through their own volition transform the reality inwhich 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 theseaspects of the learning process enhances understanding and helps the person to resolvedissonance and learned helplessness It is the means by which people come to under-stand, 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 canact deliberately and problem solve more efficiently on another occasion It is the union ofreflection to action, a vital dynamic to change and transformation, a kind of knowing thatallows people to intervene and change their world

In Freire’s (1970, 1975, 1978) schema reflection is a complicated and essentialcomponent of learning Learning becomes a personal process and it is not only theunderstanding of specific subject matter His view included the knowledge-volition-action

process which is crucial to bringing about personal and community change andtransformation and which leads to empowerment He emphasized that change andtransformation happen in ‘communion’ and are mediated by culture and context Totikidisand Prilleltensky, (2006) have more recently applied ‘the cycle of praxis’ in combining adiverse community’s interest in wellness with action.

These experiential learning tenets were strongly adhered to in the design andimplementation of the activities As stated earlier, the theoretical background for theprogramme module was a post-modern social constructionist perspective Morespecifically Harre and Gillett’s (1994) notion that, ‘in this view, our delineation of thesubject 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-culturalgroups become an important part of the framework of interpretation’ (pp 21–22) In thismanner, social collaboration, sharing in an open community group, and the development ofdialogue 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, andcontents on the group members an illuminative evaluation was undertaken The aims of theevaluation were: (1) to develop an understanding of the perceptions and experiences ofparticipants in the programme, (2) to discover the social meanings that programmeinteractions had for the participants, and (3) to point out how the experience derived fromthe programme affected the daily lives of the participants and perhaps their lives within thebroader communal setting Hence, the formal written evaluation that was conducted at theend 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 butfor 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 andpossible transformation of the participants within this socio-cultural milieu Being that thegroup was a mutual activity and joint action the question posited is: What is or are thegroup’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 participantswere 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 Greekheritage The goals of the group were discussed in the first session and consensus wasreached that the group would focus on discussing philosophical issues such as: what bringshappiness to our lives, how can we improve our lives, where is strength and life-force foundCopyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd J Community Appl Soc Psychol., 18: 17–38 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/casp

24 S Triliva and M Dafermos

within us, and what are human virtues and how are they developed The participantsvoluntarily attended the group The meetings were scheduled for 12 consecutive weeks andlasted approximately 2 hours.

The programme themes were constructed in collaboration with the participants On thefirst meeting of the group discussion was generated on what constitutes ‘positivepsychology’ This is a literal translation of a term used widely in the Greek language and itwas established by the group participants that it connotes, the experience of positivefeelings and emotions, psychological ‘balance’, fulfilment/eudaimonia, and sense ofwell-being These became the themes for discussion and experiential activity in 11remaining sessions of the group Table 1 presents the themes, format, goals and issues fordiscussion, and experiential activities that constituted the agenda of the group

As it is apparent from Table 1, the group discussions and activities were based onopen-ended questions that attempted to enrich the unfolding process and to help theparticipants reflect upon their experiences, personal lives, and on communal aspects oftheir 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 thequestionnaire during the last group meeting and returned it by post The questionnaireconsisted 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? Whathindered 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 participantcompleted three pages of written narrative feedback A three-phase method of analysis wasimplemented in order to delineate the programme outcomes from the participants’perspectives

In the first phase the participants’ responses were studied and coded by the researcherand two independent psychologists (one a psychologist with 25 years of experience inintervention programming and one a family therapist with 20 years of experience in familyand community intervention) in order to reach a consensus as to the forms of outcomes theparticipants described The evaluation questionnaires were read and coded first by theresearcher 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 thoseprogramme activities/experiences mentioned by the participants From this first stage ofdata analysis six categories of outcomes were delineated: Group ‘as-a-whole’ process,relational, personal, emotional, knowledge and facilitator characteristics The words used

Table 1 An outline of the themes, activities, goals, the theoretical (philosophical and ‘Positive Psychology’ literature)

Programme themes

Goals of meetings,discussions, and experiential

‘positive psychology’

The themes for discussion and activitydevelopment for the 12-session group

What do we aim at in

life or what makes

life worth living?

To develop personal andcommunal understandings ofwhat 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?

Activity: Make list of the group’s words of wisdom

Aristotle (1976); Baltesand Freund (2003); Baltes,Gluck, and Kunzman(2002); Plato (1956)What activities does a

fulfilled life contain?

To expand each participant’sunderstandings of their worldview(s),and concomitantly at the collectivelevel, to use these insights as abasis of enhancing and furtherdeveloping understandings of culture,conflict, coping and community

Sophrosyne: Personaland communal understandings: Whatdoes it mean? What makes my lifebalanced? What brings imbalance

to my life? How do I find balance?

Activity: The balancing act:

Eudaimonia: What is eudaimonia for me?

How did our ancient forefathers defineit? Where does it come from? How do wedefine and live it as a community?

Activity: One-week journal of moments

of fulfilment and well-being

Aristotle (1976);

Plato (1956)

Where can we find the

strength and energy to

make our lives better?

To learn from and about each other

by sharing stories, narrativesand understandings

Positive Affectivity: Positive feelings andtheir origins What are the positive emotionsand feelings? Where do they come from?

How do they affect my life?

Activity: Positive acts and strivings

Fredrickson (2002);

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

strength and energy to

make our lives better?

self-awareness and insight regardinggratitude and humility

What am I grateful for?

How do I express my gratitude?

Activity: My lifeand relationships as gifts

(2004); Emmonsand Shelton (2002);

Seligman (2002)

Where can we find the

strength and energy

to make our lives better?

To have fun and enjoy eachothers company

The use of humour in problemsolving: What makes humour

an elixir in life?

Activity: The sharing of funny anecdotes

Lefcourt (2002)

Where can we find the

strength and energy to

make our lives better?

To engage with eachother and inviteauthentic participation

Authenticity: What is it? How

do I display it? How do

I feel about it?

Activity: Show and tell of: drawing,story, or creation of meaning,vitality, connectedness

Averill (2002); Harter (2002)

Where can we find the

strength and energy to

make our lives better?

To discuss and explorenew ways of being with others Love, empathy and understanding:

How do I define these terms? How

do I live them? How do theyaffect my daily life? How dothey affect our lives? Whatacts do these experiences includewithin our lives and withinour community?

Activity: Self-focus and mirroring role- play

Batson, Ahmad, Lishner,and Tsang (2002);

Hendrick and Hendrick(2002); Pines (1999);

Plato (1956)

Where can we find the

strength and energy to

make our lives better?

To engage fully in the process

of meaning making

Hope: What is it? How do we live it?

How do we develop it in the face

of adversity? What are acts of hope?

Snyder, Rand,and Sigmon (2002)