The Co-Construction of Meaning
On Shame, Dialogue, and the Quiet Art of Understanding
There are moments in life when understanding does not arrive as a conclusion, but as a quiet unfolding.
Not as something we possess.
But as something we participate in.
My doctoral work began with such a realization—although I did not fully understand it at the time. I believed I was going to study shame. Instead, I found myself entering conversations where meaning itself was being created between human beings.
And that changes everything.
When Knowledge Stops Being an Object
The study behind this reflection was grounded in conversations with nineteen individuals connected to an incest center in Norway—most of whom had lived through sexual abuse in childhood.
We sat together in small groups. We spoke. We paused. Sometimes we fell into silence.
Stories emerged—slowly, carefully—like something fragile being brought into the light.
What became clear to me, quite early, was this:
I was not collecting data.
I was participating in the creation of meaning.
This stands in contrast to a deeply rooted assumption in research—that knowledge exists “out there,” waiting to be discovered by a neutral and methodologically skilled observer.
But human life does not unfold that way.
Rethinking Theory and Practice
We often separate the world into two domains:
- Theory: what we think
- Practice: what we do
But this division is more fragile than it appears.
The Spanish philosopher José Luis Ramírez reminds us that thinking itself is a form of action. And long before him, Aristotle described theoria not as detached contemplation, but as a way of living—an active engagement with the world.
To know something is not simply to hold it in the mind.
It is to be able to respond.
To act wisely.
To meet another human being with understanding.
This is what Aristotle called phronesis—practical wisdom.
And practical wisdom is never developed in isolation.
It is shaped in relationships, over time, in lived experience.
Meaning Is Not Found—It Is Made
One of the most important insights from my work is simple, yet profound:
Meaning does not lie hidden inside people, waiting to be extracted.
It is created in dialogue.
This is the essence of what sociologists James A. Holstein and Jaber F. Gubrium call the active interview.
In this perspective:
- The interview is not a neutral method
- The participant is not a passive informant
- The researcher is not an objective observer
Instead, both become participants in a shared process of meaning-making.
A story is not simply told.
It is shaped—between us.
In tone.
In trust.
In hesitation.
In silence.
A Voice from Experience
One of the participants once said something that stayed with me.
She spoke about how her own painful experiences allowed her to meet others differently—more openly, more honestly.
Not as an expert above them.
But as a human being who recognized something.
And then she said something remarkable:
That what had once been negative in her life could now be used in a positive way—in meeting others.
This is not theory.
This is lived philosophy.
This is phronesis in practice.
Shame Lives Between Us
Shame is a difficult word.
We try to define it, but it often escapes us.
Here again, Aristotle offers a different approach—not by defining shame abstractly, but by describing the situations in which it appears.
Shame arises:
- When we feel seen
- When we fear discredit
- When the opinion of others matters
Shame is not just internal.
It is relational.
It lives between us.
This became unmistakably clear in the conversations at the center.
One experienced staff member told me:
“I can’t recall a single conversation that hasn’t been marked by shame and guilt.”
Shame was always present—sometimes quietly, sometimes overwhelmingly—but always there, shaping how people understood themselves and their lives.
The Interview as an Ethical Space
When working with such themes, method is never neutral.
How we ask matters.
How we listen matters even more.
The active interview is not only a method.
It is an ethical stance.
It requires:
- Respect for the other person’s boundaries
- Awareness of power
- A willingness to be affected
As Andrea Fontana and James H. Frey argue, once we accept that neutrality is an illusion, we must choose our position consciously.
For me, that meant standing with the participants.
Not above them.
We Never Begin from Nowhere
At some point, another realization emerged—one that has stayed with me ever since:
We never enter a conversation empty-handed.
Martin Heidegger reminds us that we always come with pre-understandings. We already see the world in a certain way before we begin to interpret it.
And Hans-Georg Gadamer deepens this insight: understanding is always situated—formed by history, language, and tradition.
There is no neutral ground.
But this is not a weakness.
It is what makes understanding possible.
From Data to Meaning
In analyzing the material, I worked with a constructivist form of grounded theory inspired by Kathy Charmaz.
This meant:
- Seeing data as something constructed, not discovered
- Understanding categories as interpretations
- Accepting that analysis is shaped by the researcher
The material was extensive—hundreds of pages of transcribed conversations.
Gradually, patterns emerged.
Themes took form:
- Shame in the family
- Shame in the body
- Shame in self-image
- Shame in therapy
These were not objective truths.
They were ways of seeing—ways of bringing meaning into focus.
As Bruno Latour suggests: if we want to understand what connects things, we must look at how they are connected.
Meaning is not a thing.
It is a movement.
The Fragility of Trust
Ethics in this work was not a checklist.
It was a constant presence.
A question that followed me throughout:
- Have I been clear enough?
- Have I listened carefully enough?
- Have I respected what should not be spoken?
Trust is fragile.
And once broken, it cannot easily be restored.
But when trust is present, something else becomes possible:
A space where people dare to speak.
When the Interview Becomes Something More
One participant later reflected that the interviews had brought the group closer together.
They had not only shared experiences.
They had become more connected.
More human to one another.
And perhaps this is the deepest insight of all:
An interview is not simply a method for gathering knowledge.
It is a human encounter.
And sometimes—when we are careful—it becomes something that gives back.
A Closing Reflection
When I began this work, I thought I was studying shame.
In truth, I was learning something else.
That understanding is not something we achieve once and for all.
It is something we enter into—again and again—through dialogue, through listening, through presence.
Meaning is not given.
It is created.
And it is created together.
Final Words
In practical philosophy, we often ask:
What does it mean to live well?
Perhaps part of the answer lies here:
To live well is not only to think clearly.
But to meet others in such a way that meaning can emerge between us.
That is where understanding begins.
And perhaps—that is where dignity is restored.
References
Aristotle. (1984). The complete works of Aristotle (Vol. 2). Princeton University Press.
Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California Press.
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2005). Confronting the ethics of qualitative research. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18, 157–181.
Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (2002). The interpretive process. Sage.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview. Sage.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and method. Seabury Press.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1997). The new language of qualitative method. Oxford University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Harper & Row.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. Sage.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. Sage.
Latour, B. (1990). Science in action. Harvard University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Ramírez, J. L. (1995). Creative meaning. Nordic School of Planning.
But to meet others in such a way that meaning can emerge between us.