Dewey’s “transaction” and Gendlin’s “interaction first”

In “A Process Model (APM)” (Gendlin, 2018), Gendlin discusses the “interaction of body with its environment,” which seems to have been gradually developed into his philosophy from John Dewey and George H. Mead’s discussion of the “interaction of organism with its environment. The “organism” that interact with the environment refers to living things ranging from single-cell organism to plants, animals, and humans, and excludes non-living things such as stones and iron. In this respect, Dewey follows the traditional terminology, in contrast to Whitehead’s terminology in “Process and Reality” (Whitehead, 1929/1978), which extends the semantic range of an organism to non-living things such as stones. In terms of the semantic range of organisms, Dewey’s philosophy shares the same argumentative premise with APM, which takes living processes as the subject matter of consideration.

Let us look specifically at how classical pragmatists such as Dewey and Mead discussed the interaction between an organism and its environment.

Life denotes a function, a comprehensive activity, in which organism and environment are included. Only upon reflective analysis does it break up into external conditions - air breathed, food taken, ground walked upon - and internal structures - lungs respiring, stomach digesting, legs walking. (Dewey, 1925/1929, p. 9)

From this passage, it is clear that the argument is based on the sequence that, before reflective analysis, there is first the life activity of breathing, ingesting, digesting, walking, etc., which is secondarily broken down into air and lungs, food and stomach, and ground and legs. What is being rejected here is the idea that external conditions and internal structures are independent and self-existent beforehand and then influence each other in both directions. Instead, as Mead succinctly states below, they are in a relationship of “interdependence” that cannot exist without each other:

The organism ... is in a sense responsible for its environment. And since organism and environment determine each other and are mutually dependent for their existence, it follows that the life-process, to be adequately understood, must be considered in terms of their interrelations. (Mead, 1934, p. 130)

This interactional perspective with the environment can be found in the paper “A process concept of relationship” (Gendlin, 1957), which Gendlin contributed to the Counseling Center Discussion Paper before the publication of “Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning” (Gendlin, 1962/1997):

An organism ... lives in an environment, in inter-action with it. Hence the physiological, emotional and mental processes are in inter-action with, or toward, the environment. (Gendlin, 1957, p. 23)

Gendlin, at this time, called it an organism, not a body, that interacts with its environment. In this respect, he retained the terminology of Dewey and Mead.

As described above, “interaction” was the fundamental concept of Dewey’s philosophy. However, in his later years, Dewey became dissatisfied with the prefix “inter-” in the word “interaction” because he felt it did not say well what he wanted to say.

Unfortunately ... a special philosophical interpretation may be unconsciously read into the common sense distinction. It will then be supposed that organism and environment are “given” as independent things and interaction is a third independent thing which finally intervenes. (Dewey, 1938, p. 33; cf. Schoeller & Dunaetz, 2018, p. 135)

This dissatisfaction also is shared by later Gendlin:

Interaction is first—that's a quick way of making this point. It is better to let reality itself be interaction process. Even the prefix inter still assumes that the two things precede. But if we are not innocent about assumptions of reality, why keep the simplistic assumption that reality must be like a thing in space that first exists separately and only then interacts? (Gendlin, 1993, pp. 6-7)

In his later years, therefore, Dewey would use the word “transaction,” which means “transaction” in commerce, instead of interaction, to say what he wanted to say:

Borrower cannot borrow without lender to lend, nor lender lend without borrower to borrow, the loan being a transaction that is identifiable only in the wider transaction of the full legal commercial system in which it is present as occurrence. (Dewey & Bentley, 1949, pp. 133-4)

... a trade, or commercial transaction ... determines one participant to be a buyer and the other a seller. No one exists as buyer or seller save in and because of a transaction in which each is engaged. (Dewey & Bentley, 1949, p. 270)

The idea is that there is first an activity called a transaction, which is secondarily assigned to a lender and a borrower or a buyer and a seller.,

Gendlin did not carry over this paraphrase in its original form. However, he did paraphrase “interaction” by adding “first.” In this way, the idea itself, which is different from the idea of two independent and self-existing persons interacting with each other in both directions, is inherited from Dewey in APM:

How you are when you affect me is already affected by me, and not by me as I usually am, but by me as I occur with you. (Gendlin, 2018, p. 31)

References

Dewey, J. (1925/1929). Experience and nature (2nd ed.). Open Court.　

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: the theory of inquiry. Henry Holt.

Dewey, J. & Bentley, A.F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Beacon Press.

Gendlin, E.T. (1957). A process concept of relationship. Counseling Center Discussion Paper (The University of Chicago), 3 (2), 22-32.

Gendlin, E. T. (1962/1997). Experiencing and the creation of meaning: a philosophical and psychological approach to the subjective (Paper ed.). Northwestern University Press.

Gendlin, E.T. (1993). Human nature and concepts. In J. Braun (Ed.), Psychological concepts of modernity, (pp. 3-16).

Gendlin, E. T. (1997/2018). A process model. Northwestern University Press.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. (edited by C.W. Morris). University of Chicago Press.

Schoeller, D. & Dunaetz, N. (2018). Thinking emergence as interaffecting: approaching and contextualizing Eugene Gendlin’s Process Model. Continental Philosophy Review, 51, 123–140.

Whitehead, A.N. (1929/1978). Process and reality: an essay in cosmology. Free Press.