All meaningful knowledge is for the sake of action, and

All meaningful action is for the sake of friendship

John Macmurray

Objective thinking is concerned with understanding how the world IS, independently of me and my subjectivity. The aim is to reduce the ‘human element’ (my subjectivity) as close to zero as possible.

Subjective thinking is concerned with my experience of the world. I undoubtedly see the world in a unique way, but I can try to share my unique vision so that others may participate in it. I gaze on Van Gogh’s paintings and have an experience.

Intersubjective thinking occurs when a subject is in relationship with another subject. It is qualitatively different from the other kinds of thinking and the hardest to define. From the ‘outside’ it is not normally possible to see if intersubjective or subjective thinking is taking place.

There are three archetypal experiences of intersubjective thinking. The first occurs at the start of our lives. Newborn infants recognise their own mothers and for many hours engage in moment to moment interaction with the face and body of the mother (or alternative care giver). 

Experiments by Professor Colwyn Trevarthen and others have shown that week old babies know the difference between their mother responding to them in real time and seeing their mother making generic responses to a baby (or them at another time).

Babies are comforted by their mother responding to them and distressed by the random or generic responses. In other words, from the very beginning of life we can tell the difference between being in relationship with someone, with its moment to moment changes, and being in the same place as someone but not in relationship to them.

The second archetypal experience of being in relationship is ‘being in love’, when you love someone who is loving you back. You yearn to spend time in their company and moment to moment are aware of the response you are receiving. There is a real connection in place.

This is not to do with the presence or absence of emotion. I can ‘be in love with’ someone who is not interested in me. I can idealise them, be infatuated with them, project all sorts of feelings on to them. Although I may not intend to, I am treating the other person as an object and engaging in subjective thinking rather than intersubjective thinking.

Many romantic movies chart the course of moving from normal subjective thinking, when one person could be changed for another, to intersubjective thinking when something about the uniqueness of the other person has become essential (and hence a sign of true love).

The third archetypal experience of intersubjective thinking is friendship. In its purest form this involves delighting in the sense of connection with another person with no ulterior motives or distractions. Yet for many of us this ‘pure’ experience may be rare. 

I am with some friends having a good time, maybe playing a game or a sport or enjoying food and drink together. We’re all feeling some positive emotions. Are we engaging in subjective or intersubjective thinking?

If my friends are essentially interchangeable, meaning I would be having just as good a time with other people (and not really noticing the difference), then to that extent I am engaging in subjective thinking. But to the extent that it does matter who I am with, and I am touched by the uniqueness of those persons, then I am experiencing intersubjective thinking. 

In practice the two are mixed up and hard to separate. We may well have many brief moments of connection with all sorts of people. 

It is hard to describe intersubjective thinking. I think of it as a two way flow of energy: a channel is opened and thoughts and emotions are flowing back and forth. There is a sense of connection. This may only be fleeting, as there are many barriers to intersubjective thinking.

So what are these? First of all, my own experience of early childhood comes into play. If my parents were emotionally distant, or abusive or addicted to drugs, then my capacity for relationship building has been damaged. 

I will find it hard to trust and be emotionally open. Psychologists and Social Workers know how it can take a lot of therapeutic work to make up for the negative effects of such a difficult start to life.

But there is more. Maybe my parents were loving, and tried to meet my every need. They were consistently kind, accepting and encouraging. Does this guarantee that I have a good capacity for intersubjective thinking?

Unfortunately not! I could have what psychologists call a ‘narcissistic personality’. I could be in love with myself (or an image of myself) but unable to be truly open to another. I can seek association with others to advance my social status, relieve boredom or provide sexual pleasure without really connecting with anyone.

So there are many factors that can stop me from being able to engage in intersubjective thinking… all of which have to be multiplied by two. The other person is subject to all of the same potential barriers that I am!

Furthermore, our society largely lacks the models and language for understanding intersubjective thinking, beyond its fascination with the phenomenon of ‘falling in love.’ Recently, many psychologists, attachment therapists and others have begun to seek to fill the gap.  

To generalise a little, I believe that for most of us our experience of intersubjective thinking comes more in flashes than as a continual presence. Without it life can feel meaningless but the way life is organised can limit opportunities for connection.

Most of the world’s population, for most of history, have believed that in addition to relating to other humans it is possible and desirable to relate to ‘something greater’: ‘the universe itself’; ‘the whole of life’; ‘the great Spirit’; or ‘God’. 

Our objective thinking will never be able to verify that such relating is possible, though it can look at the impacts of such beliefs. Does the belief that you are relating to a greater being have an impact on your capacity to form other relationships? If so, is this impact positive or negative?

For example, a belief in a harsh, critical Deity could make someone  fearful and afraid of making mistakes. Alternatively, a belief that you are in relationship with a loving and wise Being could make you more tolerant of others’ weaknesses, and kinder and more forgiving. 

Most of the old people I know describe their relationships as being the most important dimension of their lives, much more so than their material possessions or social achievements. At the very least, this is a dimension of life that needs to be taken seriously. 

In my 1984 finals exams at Oxford University I rather pretentiously wrote that ‘the Philosophy of Relationship is yet to be written’. That is still largely true though a number of Psychologists and therapists are sketching out the territory, understanding that it is the quality of the therapeutic relationship that has a greater impact on psychological healing than any other factor. 

Intersubjective thinking is so important I intend to make it a major focus in the coming years.

All I am trying to do here is set up a ‘placeholder’, to keep open the idea that if we can think objectively and subjectively then logically there is also the possibility to think intersubjectively.