In this article, I discuss some implications deriving from different models of the notion of border, starting from interdisciplinary contributions and in particular from semiotics, psychoanalysis, cultural psychology, and topology. The starting point is a reflection on the notion of sign, as a device used to realize at the same time both a first form of discretization and to instantiate a system of relations with the environment. The article goes on to describe the importance of borders for the construction of human experience and for the processes of psychic and relational development. Lastly, the differences between three different forms of conceptualizing borders are discussed: rigid boundaries, permeable boundaries, and topological boundaries of the Möbius strip type. For each of the three models, the different implications will be presented and discussed.
BarrS. (1964). Experiments in topology. Dover Publications.
3.
BatesonG. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. Dutton.
4.
BickE. (1968). The experience of the skin in early object relationships. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 49(2), 484–486.
5.
BrownS. D. (2012). Memory and mathesis: For a topological approach to psychology. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4–5), 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276412448830
6.
De Luca PicioneR. (2015). The idiographic approach in psychological research: The challenge of overcoming old distinctions without risking to homogenize. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9307-5
7.
De Luca PicioneR. (2019). La topologia e la psicoanalisi: Scritture (im-)possibili del buco e della soggettività. [Topology and psychoanalysis: (Im-)possible writings of the hole and subjectivity]. La Psicoanalisi: Studi internazionali del campo freudiano, 63/64, 205–231.
8.
De Luca PicioneR. (2020). The semiotic paradigm in psychology: A semiotic weltanschauung for a possible universal definition of mind. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09555-y
9.
De Luca PicioneR.FredaM. F. (2014). Catalysis and morphogenesis: The contextual semiotic configuration of form, function, and fields of experience. In CabellK. R.ValsinerJ. (Eds.), The catalyzing mind: Beyond models of causality (pp. 149–163). Springer.
10.
De Luca PicioneR.FredaM. F. (2016a). Borders and modal articulations: Semiotic constructs of sensemaking processes enabling a fecund dialogue between cultural psychology and clinical Psychology. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 50, 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9318-2
11.
De Luca PicioneR.FredaM. F. (2016b). The processes of meaning making, starting from the morphogenetic theories of René Thom. Culture & Psychology, 22(1), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x15576171
12.
De Luca PicioneR.FredaM. F. (2016c). Possible use in psychology of threshold concept in order to study sensemaking processes. Culture & Psychology, 22(3), 362–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x16654858
13.
De Luca PicioneR.MartinoM. L.FredaM. F. (2018). Modal articulation: The psychological and semiotic functions of modalities in the sensemaking process. Theory & Psychology, 28(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354317743580
14.
De Luca PicioneR.MartinoM. L.TroisiG. (2019). The semiotic construction of the sense of agency: The modal articulation in narrative processes. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 53, 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-019-9475-9
15.
De Luca PicioneR.ValsinerJ. (2017). Psychological functions of semiotic borders in sense-making: Liminality of narrative processes. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 13(3), 532–547. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v13i3.1136
16.
EcoU. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Indiana University Press.
EspositoG.FredaM. F.De Luca PicioneR. (2016). Reflexivity or “reflexivities” in higher education: Conceptualizing unique reflexive process. In FredaM. F.Gonzàlez-MonteagudoJ.EspositoG. (Eds.), Working with underachieving students in higher education: Fostering inclusion through narration and reflexivity (pp. 32–42). Routledge.
19.
FreudS. (1961). The ego and the id. In StracheyJ. (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud: Vol. XIX (1923–1925) The ego and the id and other works (pp. 1–66). (Original work published 1923)
Granon-LafontJ. (1985). La topologie ordinaire de Jacques Lacan. Point Hors Ligne.
22.
GreimasA. J. (1983). Structural semantics: An attempt at a method. University of Nebraska Press.
23.
HerbstD. P. (1995). What happens when we make a distinction: An elementary introduction to co-genetic logic. In KindermanT. A.ValsinerJ. (Eds.), Development of person–context relations (pp. 67–82). Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
KlempeS. H. (2016). A philosophical vs. a psychological perspective on borders. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 50(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9333-3
25.
LaFranceM. (2009). Skin and the self: Cultural theory and Anglo-American psychoanalysis. Body and Society, 15(3), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034x09339099
26.
LotmanJ. (2005). On the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies, 33(1), 205–229.
27.
LotmanJ. (2009). Culture and explosion. De Gruyter Mouton.
28.
LuryC.ParisiL.TerranovaT. (2012). Introduction: The becoming topological of culture. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4–5), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276412454552
MarsicoG.TateoL. (2017). Borders, tensegrity and development in dialogue. Integrative Psychological and Behavioural Sciences, 51(4), 536–556.
31.
MeinongA. (1960). The theory of objects. In ChisholmR. M. (Ed.), Realism and the background of phenomenology (pp. 76–117). The Free Press of Glencoe.
32.
NedergaardJ. (2016). Theory of semiotic skin: Making sense of the flux on the border. Culture & Psychology, 22(3), 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x16650121
33.
NeumanY. (2003a). Mobius and paradox: On the abstract structures of boundary events in semiotic systems. Semiotica, 147, 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2003.087
34.
NeumanY. (2003b). Process and boundaries of the mind. Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
35.
PeirceC. S. (1935). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press.
36.
PickoverC. A. (2006). The Möbius strip: Dr. August Möbius’s marvelous band in mathematics, games, literature, art, technology, and cosmology. Basic Books.
37.
SalvatoreS. (2013). The reciprocal inherency of self and context: Notes for a semiotic model of the constitution of experience. Interacções, 9, 20–50. https://doi.org/10.25755/int.2840
38.
SalvatoreS. (2016). Psychology in black and white: The project of a theory-driven science. Information Age Publishing.
39.
SalvatoreS.FredaM. F. (2011). Affect, unconscious and sensemaking: A psychodynamic, semiotic and dialogic model. New Ideas in Psychology, 29, 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.06.001
SmedslundJ. (1995). Psychologic: Common sense and the pseudoempirical. In SmithJ. A.HarreR.van LangenhoveL. (Eds.), Rethinking psychology (pp. 196–206). SAGE.
45.
Spencer-BrownG. (1969). Laws of form. E. P. Dutton.
TateoL.MarsicoG. (2019). Along the border: Affective promotion or inhibition of conduct in urban spaces. Estudios de Psicología, 40(1), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2019.1569368
48.
ThomR. (1972). Stabilitè structurelle et morphogenese [Structural stability and morphogenesis]. Ediscience.
49.
ValsinerJ. (2007). Culture in minds and societies: Foundation of cultural psychology. SAGE.
50.
ValsinerJ. (2014a). An invitation to cultural psychology. SAGE.
51.
ValsinerJ. (2014b). Functional reality of the quasi-real: Gegenstandstheorie and cultural psychology today. Culture & Psychology, 20(3), 285–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x14542532
52.
ValsinerJ. (2018). Ornamented lives. Information Age Publishing.
53.
ValsinerJ. (2020). Where occidental science went wrong: Failing to see systemic unity in diversity. Psychology and Developing Societies, 32(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971333620903880
54.
WernerH. (1957). Comparative psychology of mental development (Rev. ed.). International Universities Press. (Original work published 1926)
WinnicottD. W. (1962). Ego integration and child development. In WinnicottD. W. (Ed.), The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development (pp. 56–63). Karnac Books.
