Scene understanding

When explaining Scene Understanding, ^{Marinas (2007)} points out four poles: saying it all, silence, full word, and empty word – between which the given word and listening moves as elements of the annunciation which reveals the subject that narrates.

These four poles of Scene Understanding show a level of expressiveness. Even silence reveals what the subject of the given word thinks, feels, does, says and does not say. Full word is marked by life impulse and full meaning; and the empty word “has no meaning” (^{MARINAS, 2007}, p. 68), but both reveal existentiality, a space where experiences, feelings, ways of life are found and developed internally. A notion of listening, characterized by the author, enables the given word, with which the subject highlights the experienced facts. Listening demands respect for the feelings revealed by the narrator; those who listen, according to this conception, resize the experienced facts, instigated by the word used in the narration. Therefore, it creates a loop that embraces both the narrator and the listener, connected by the given word and the listening. Listening and given word contribute to share and rethink life. Listening enables the construction of a life story, even if it is not brilliant or amusing, since most of them are marked by “common places, redundancies, but also moments of surprise and illumination” (^{MARINAS, 2007}, p. 42). This way, a narrative is conceived as a repertoire of scenes; scenes in which the biographical accounts are full of internal and external elements. In this perspective, “life story is the link between forms of listening and discursive production” (^{MARINAS, 2007}, p. 89).

Listening is the main dimension pointed out by ^{Marinas (2007)}: “listening means not obstructing, not interrupting, neither with knowledge (about the theme) nor with interpretation (of the speaker). The speaker grants a given word whose dimensions and implications are not fully known” (^{MARINAS, 2007}, p. 20).

In our understanding, listening happens not only with spoken words, but also with written words. Listening means the word does not end in itself because it was said; it reveals an existence, a presence and personal knowledge. The given word sums an idea, it is something a person grants to the listener; it is a commitment [of the speaker and the listener]. What commitment? One that ensures the narration loop, “that ensures a significant relationship between narration and listening, since the one who narrates his/her story is questioned by it, not only for what Marinas calls the core of the fact, but also by the peripheral dimensions of what happened” (^{ABRAHÃO, 2014}, p. 62).

In this process, the narrator may question himself or herself given the facts and feelings that may arise. For this reason, the given word means “watching, contributing, not disturbing the process of appropriation” (^{MARINAS, 2007}, p. 20) of facts and deeds by the subject.

Then, inspired by ^{Marinas (2007)}, the stories of narratives of professional identities are understood from two processes (Figure 1): the process of data and information production, which includes the positivist, dialectical, interactionist approaches; and the process of interpretation, which highlights the structural, scene and hermeneutic approaches. Between these two processes, two different dimensions are observed: a socio-structural dimension and a socio-symbolic dimension, which “select the narrative forms” (^{MARINAS, 2007}, p. 104), as illustrated in Figure 1 below.

Source: (^{MARINAS, 2007}, p. 103).

Figure 1 – Discourse analysis in oral history: production and interpretation 

The socio-structural dimension has organization elements, institutional components, which means the places they occupy in the course of the account. The socio-symbolic dimension refers to the “ways of representation, symbolization, forms of shared imaginary” (^{MARINAS, 2007}, p. 204). The motivations narrated under a given focus may constitute a foundation or a barrier, as they are representations that explains or legitimizes what one does. They can define how listening meetings are conducted, as well as the interpretation given to narrated facts; however, in practice this division is not so simple. Regarding the issue of professional training of teachers, on the one hand, they seek to understand the organization, the institutional structure, the ways to perform according to the reasons of the system, the determinations; and on the other hand, they perceive the contradictions in this instance and change the focus, that is, they start to consider a symbolic perspective of representations, and start to question and listen to the particular reasons of their own training (^{MARINAS, 2007}).

The differences and forms of production can also be considered according to ^{Marinas (2007)}, classified in one or another dimension: positivist, when highlighting the fact itself; interactionist, when emphasizing the discourse; and dialectical, when narrating the fact that happens in a plot, thus constituting a clear image. In some narrative processes, understanding the information they convey is the most important aspect, as well as the circumstances that condition the narrated events. In this sense, a positivist perspective is considered as the focus is on facts only, not on the reasons or ways to represent them. Every event has facts and meanings, which can be reported in a distorted way. However, this is not the main issue here, as the true meaning of the narrated fact would not be understood. In the interactionist perspective, what matters is not the fact itself, but knowing what it represents, symbolizes, the senses and meanings of the discourse. Between the positivist and the interactionist perspectives, the dialectical perspective (of conflict) was chosen as the balance, which shows the presence of listening in the process; and that, in such listening, understanding the facts is enabled by the articulation of relation systems and the meaning given to the interpretation process by the conflict between the narrated fact and the deed.

The three categories are effective “forms of discursive production, which arise spontaneously according to the interest of the discourse for the narrator” (^{MARINAS 2007}, p. 107). This triple mode of discursive production leads to the second specific moment: listening. In it, transfer and countertransference of data and information may be implied, as long as there is information we actually hear, but other information arises from our own reflections. Cognitive understanding is present in this aspect, but affective understanding is also implied, which allows one to follow what the other says, and the ability to wait for it, even if the other presents any challenge, restlessness, interruption, and acceleration. Then, the subject of the narration is likely to reveal what is forgotten. During the interview, it is advisable to not use interpretation, because one may not grasp the sense that is being developed, with time and efforts that are not exactly those of the attentive listening (^{MARINAS, 2007}).

When using narrative interviews as a source in searches or the methodology of life stories or oral history, attention should be dedicated to the relationship between what is being said and what is being recorded. It is an essential moment to consider whether a speaker plans what he/she says and whether a writer thinks about what is being written. It requires a specific time, focused on the process of listening and interpreting, since “we investigate not to check, but to discover” (^{MARINAS, 2007}, p. 108). It requires an understanding of other three moments of interpretation (Figure 1), respectively: structural (based on document), hermeneutic (based on text), scene (based on conflict).

It has already been stated that the “structural interpretation aims to produce a model that represents the documentary value of the narrated fact” (^{MARINAS, 2007}, p. 109). Reporting facts as if they were an event does not mean sense has been found. The hermeneutic interpretation “uses the subjective dimension of meaning construction. This sense does not pre-exist in the interpretative process, it is produced in the interaction resulting from a ‘negotiation’ between hypotheses of reading” (^{MARINAS, 2007}, p. 109). Scene interpretation, as described by the author and seen in general, intends to ‘incorporate the conflict,’ recognizing that in each report the development “is not simply a linear transcription of the sayings of a mind that peacefully recalls or narrates” something (^{MARINAS, 2007}, p. 109). The author emphasizes that when one speaks, one cannot control the speech; it just happens spontaneously. Even if someone thinks about what he wants to talk about, when actually speaking it, unplanned facts and situations may be described. The discourse itself can act against, can be disguised, and the person may end up saying things he or she did not mean to say. As Marinas intended to show, it is in a dialectical process that narratives are understood as a recursive process in which they are articulated between the speaker – who reveals situations – and the listener. For this reason, the dialectical process was used in this study, in an attempt to interpret the narratives of former scholarship holders, as described by Marinas.

Clarifications about scene understanding

“Scene Understanding implies understanding narrative not as linear cumulative story, but as a repertoire of scenes” (^{MARINAS, 2007}, p. 118); therefore, the focus of the analysis is on each scene and the relationship between them. ^{Marinas (2007)} presents three groups of scenes (Figure 2): 1) the scene that gathers narrator and interviewer in listening that evokes the given word; 2) scenes that refer to multiple facts and experiences of the interviewee’s daily life; 3) scenes that have been either repressed or forgotten.

Source: (^{MARINAS, 2007}, p. 118).

Figure 2 – Model of Scene Understanding 

In other words, scene 1 (S1), motivated by listening, gathers narrator and interviewer, resulting in phenomena that arise from deep inside (intimus) of the narrator, and from out (extimus) of social contexts and discursive conditions surrounding them. Scene 2 (S2) is the group of scenes experienced in the daily life of the narrator. The sender and receiver return to S1, as the discursive elements are updated in this space. According to ^{Marinas (2007}, p. 119), “scenes 2 are part of the daily life of the narrator, his/her roles as sender and receiver go back to scene 1 as they are updated in it.” This game played in scenes 1 and 2 is the possible step to create scene 3 (S3), revealing something that may have been forgotten or unsaid for some reason, which, according to the author, may have been repressed.

This model, as proposed by Marinas, is illustrated below:

Based on the theoretical conception and the consequent methodological practice proposed by ^{Marinas (2007)} in Figure 2, ^{Abrahão (2014)} built a new graphic representation of Scene Understanding (Figure 3). In this new model, the scenes are configured according to biographical-narrative times and spaces and support each other for a more organic systemic understanding of the phenomena. In Figure 3, the author represents the movement to update the different scenes (scenes 2 and 3) in their own locus, the moment of enunciation (scene 1). In this representation, the three scenes constitute the whole system, in which the meaning of the experienced/narrated fact is understood in relation to spaces/times that concern it. In this system, the forgotten scenes are represented together with those understood as scenes repressed by the narrator.

Source: (^{ABRAHÃO, 2014}, p. 69).

Figure 3 – Adapted model of Scene Understanding according to ^{Marinas (2007)}  

^{Marinas (2007}, p. 118) and ^{Abrahão (2014}, p. 69) use in their respective representations the three dimensions of Scene Understanding: the context experienced in the past, which includes memories rescued from the past, that is, the context of past events; the context of present events, which refers to how people understand and re-signify what they have lived at the moment of the narrative; and the context of the narrative, a moment in which narration and listening are indispensable, considering that, in this process, both the narrator and the researcher have a change to refine their perceptions in a dialogue where reciprocity and openness are conditions for reflection – and here, the given word is highlighted. These moments are essential for Scene Understanding, through which subjects

[...] re-update, re-adjust the meaning, the collective ideological positions of the vital processes of stories. [...]. It is about interpreting the stories from games and dimensions of their context, but also from the dimension of subject construction... to place life stories in their subjects and plural processes (^{SANTAMARINA; MARINAS, 1994}, p. 272).

The methodology in process: seeking scene understanding in narratives

In the context of Scene Understanding, this study highlights sharing of narratives through given word, or in this case, through careful reading of what was written in the reports, plus the dialogue provided by the group at the moment the narratives were read, allowing the group to think about them. That moment provided an opportunity to resize projections, involving memories, facts and questioning verbalized by the group.

In this review of what each of these former Pibid participants has lived, lives and intends to live, clues were identified to search for an interpretative approach where each narrator presents yarns, like a yearn ball in their hands, that keeps winding/unwinding/winding again carefully, representing facts, places, emotions. It keeps seeking memories that describe the context: where one lives/has lived, what one does/has done, why one did/has done something. This process involves attentive listening of the researchers who seek, with each new clue, elements to create the story of the narrators, their tastes, their preferences, their concerns. In this movement, the group of former scholarship holders was engaged with what each narrator said and described, and they perceived, in the narrative, words they said, or unsaid and silenced words, and words stamped on the trajectories resulting from the analysis. They also referred to the context of the schools where they worked during the Pibid program, verbalizing, between the lines, expressions of events that were not explained in detail, but that had been experienced intensely and even with a certain level of suffering.

The dimensions of given word were crosschecked with the context of (self-)training narrative revealed in the different scenes, so the different moments will be explained through the scenes, in relation to Scene Understanding. The narratives of the former Pibid participants showed changes caused by the understanding of themselves and others. They revealed they were committed to the educational, cultural and social dimension of the training itself, assuming a reflexive condition, willing to organize learning spaces and contexts for the students. Therefore, they assumed training as (self-)training, revealing that the practices experienced in the Pibid program consolidated this process of becoming teachers.

Then, when revisiting the narratives and trying to understand them, describing the different scenes revealed in the narratives, the authors attempted to advance in the understanding of how (self-)training of teachers is configured, through the reflection of former Pibid participants in training process, especially through the experiences acquired in the Pibid program.

Conclusion

What do the scenes show? That there may be a fertile articulation between the scenes of training and (self-)training; that the writing of reports in (self-)training processes is a possibility to promote learning about oneself and about the other through autobiographical reflection (^{DELORY-MOMBERGER, 2008}), which qualifies (self-)training narrative as a process through which everyone involved sets goals to be achieved, reflects on this process, understands the meanings of challenges that may arise, and makes decisions through a dialogue with himself/herself (^{VEIGA SIMÃO, 2004}).

This understanding is aligned with what the perception of the authors of this study regarding the training process conducted with the group of former PiBid scholarship holders. Writing the narratives by the members of this group, through (self-)training reports, allowed a contact with themselves, seeking to overcome anxieties and uncertainties emerged in school contexts, (re)build their own personal/professional identity. This way, the reflective writing of (self-)training reports became, for these former scholarship holders, a special moment, through which they were able to record facts and learning experiences that were re-signified in training experiences, as exemplified below:

It was in the Pibid program that I became a person, because I understood the great meaning of our profession, the great responsibility that I have to change the lives of my students, build a new way to educate, invest in a transformative education which qualifies and enhances the potential of students and encourages them to seek a better world. (P15, 2013, p.180).

Understanding oneself seems to be revealed in scene 3. As discussed earlier, when important facts and deeds for the training process of the narrator are repressed or forgotten, this phenomenon may occur because of a related obstacle. On the other hand, based on Scene Understanding, the experience of these facts and deeds can be re-signified. At first, Scene Understanding is perceptible to those who hear the other one’s word, who listens attentively, but it is precisely this attentive listening to the other that allows the narrator to become aware of what he or she said or silenced, strengthening the narrator so that during the narrative he or she might understand something that has been repressed, that has not been said.

This analysis, based on ^{Marinas (2014)}, shows that three types of listening may exist: communicative-social listening, psychoanalytic listening, and strictly biographical listening, which is the one used in this study. The narrator process of finding himself or herself can benefit from the biographical listening process, which assumes or even demands reflective thinking by the narrator when transforming a life story into a story with meaning for the narrator and listeners (^{BOLÍVAR, 2016}). A life story that has been reflected on, the appreciation of autobiographical narratives towards the subjects and the community are certainly elements that favor the production of meanings. According to ^{Marinas (2014)}, if someone speaks, it is because someone is listening – and carefully. Someone speaks to put thoughts and life in order. It seems to reveal the loop of life mediated by the loop of narration.

Scene 3 indicates that re-signifying facts requires efforts and a desire to look at oneself and to see beyond the usual, beyond objective facts. It refers to learning how to live with one’s life. ^{Marinas (2014}, p. 49) states that “speakers plan what they will say,” in their own time, which is not the same as that for listeners. The autobiographical narrative is mediated by the person’s own determinants, influenced by social regulators affecting one’s story or past, triggered by the present context and based on the narrator projecting networks of relations built in the present and in the past, with future prospects.

Then, narratives of (auto)biographical approach can be understood as one way to mediate strategies that allow future teachers to become aware of their responsibilities through their own training process, with retrospective appropriation of their life course, evidenced in the present narrative and prospectively planned considering future actions. The perspective of three-dimension narrative time (RICOEUR, 1995) was evident in the narratives of (self-)training and somehow related and crosschecked scenes 1, 2 and 3, as previously described. They allowed former Pibid participants, during their training, to (re)organize their own representations, contributing to (re)construction and (re-)signification of present situations, which were based on the past but projected the future.

This understanding comes from having perceived in practice that the perspective of working with autobiographical narratives from the point of view of Scene Understanding enables the person who builds a narrative to become more visible to the narrative itself; ensuring self-knowledge that enables transformation of oneself and own actions, if and when appropriate.

Likewise, promoting the reconstruction of knowledge of oneself favors an access to the universe of training, provided there is a reflexive effort of the subject in this sense.

Therefore, this internal process could be compared to a movie, in which the learning process is a process in motion, and the students who want to be teachers can include alternative processes of reflection, considering various and particular situations that constitute the group of unique/plural experiences of each individual.

This study provides considerations about the interpretative possibility of Scene Understanding, having as empirical basis the training narratives of former Pibid scholarship holders who, having already experienced this training process, provided ideas for future training achievements.

The authors of this study hope to have successfully achieved such purpose.