This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Dreaming, Vol. 5, No.2, 1995

Speaking of Dreams: A Social Constructionist

Account of Dream Sharing
Harilaos Stefanakis1

Dreams are private experiences that can only be shared through socia~ often discursive,
interactions. Dream sharing, therefore, is performed in a social context and involves
social goals. The aim of this paper is to examine dream sharing from a social
constructionist perspective. Through an analysis of everyday discourse, a
conceptualization of dreams is offered which highlights some of the linguistic resources
people use in telling dream accounts. This is followed by a description of how these
resources are used to accomplish two types of social goals in everyday social
interactions. Lastly, implications of this analysis are briefly discussed with respect to a
specific social context, namely the therapeutic context.
KEY WORDS: dream sharing; social constructionism; language.

Dreams are human experiences that remain private until they are shared
though social, usually discursive, interactions. The dream account or narrative involves more than just a veridical description of the dream experience. Dream narratives take place in specific social contexts and involve a variety of social goals.
They are often woven around broader personal stories using culturally specified
linguistic resources. Dream sharing, then, is a social phenomenon. Potter and his
colleagues (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Potter & Wetherell, 1987) describe the aim
of discursive social psychology as the attempt to understand social life and social
interaction from studying social text (e.g., conversations, newspaper articles, interviews, autobiographical narratives, dream accounts, etc.). My goal in this paper,
then, is to offer a preliminary social constructionist account of dream sharing based
on the discursive practices of individuals.
Cultural contexts provide the conditions and limits of our understanding and
consequently an examination of these contexts inform us about ourselves (Dombeck, 1994). As Dombeck (1993) explains, one important way dreams are contextualized socially and personally is in language. When interacting with others, we
speak both into and out of a specific linguistic context. What we share with each
other is a set of linguistic resources that help establish common understandings
lUniversity of Guelph, Department of Psychology, Guelph, Ontario, Canada NIG 2Wl.

95
1053.0797/95/060(4)095$07.50/1

<1:>

1995 Association for the Study of Dreams

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

96

Stefanakis

(Shotter, 1993). We draw upon these resources to bring meaning to and organize
our experiences and to construct our various versions of the world (Gergen, 1985).
Shotter explains that in order to render visible the communicative resources that
people use to construct their experiences "We must both investigate [their] nature
in use, and display [them] in a usable form" (p. 15). Thus, this paper begins with
an exploration of the nature of the resources people use in dream accounts, by
studying how the concept of dreams is used in everyday language. Subsequently, a
description of how these resources are used in everyday social interactions is offered
by illustrating two social functions of sharing dream accounts. Lastly, implications
of this analysis are briefly discussed with respect to a specific type of social interaction, namely the therapist-client interaction.

THE CONCEPI' OF DREAMS

Th understand the possible social functions of dream sharing we must first

undertake an exploration of the conceptualization of dreams. According to Wittgenstein (1958), our understanding of a concept is furthered by an examinations of its
use in everyday language. This view is echoed by Malcolm (1959) who writes that
"the concept of dreaming is derived, not from dreaming, but from descriptions of
dreams, i.e., from the familiar phenomenon called 'telling a dream'" (p. 55).
What, then, are some common linguistic uses of "dream" or "dreaming" that
may inform us about the conceptualization of dreams in this society? As this is a
preliminary analysis, I will focus on only two aspects of dreams that are common
in everyday discourse. These will allow me to emphasize the utility of this approach
in understanding dreams and its implications for social interactions. These two aspects are related to the use of the linguistic resources of: 1) reality and fantasy;
and 2) agency and passivity when telling or talking about dreams.
The concept of dreams is used in a variety of context specific ways, some of
which may contradict one another. For example, sometimes dreams are described
as meaningless (fantasy) while at other times they are described as meaningful messages. These contradictions, however, need not indicate a lack of clarity. Instead,
they illustrate that the linguistic resources do not reflect the reality or true version
of the meaning of dreams but rather how we create meaning through language.
This variability in the use of linguistic resources allows for the flexibility in constructing accounts that enables individuals to accomplish various social goals when
sharing dream accounts.
Reality and Fantasy
There are numerous expressions in the English language that highlight a distinction between reality and fantast when discussing dreams. Here are some s~ple
sentences using these expressions :
-1- It was only a dream.
-2- It was just a dream.

97

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Dream Sbaring

-3- You're dreaming, that's never going to happen.

-4- You're a dreamer.
-5- You're living in a dream world.
-6- Your life is like a dream.
-7- Make your dreams come true.
-8- In his spare time he was always dreaming up new gadgets (ideas).
-9- I have a dream. . .
What do these expressions have to do with dreams and what do they have
to do with each other? The common use of "only" or "just" in reactions to dreams
illustrates that the experience of dreaming is often minimized and considered unimportant in relation to everyday reality. Often these disclaimers are used after
nightmares to separate the child's (or adult's) experience of the dream from their
waking experience, the real world.
Examples 3-6 similarly illustrate that to live in a dream(world) or be a
dreamer is to be in a fantasy land that is to some degree unconnected with the
real world. These statements are sometimes associated with succeeding statements
such as "wake up and smell the coffee" or "be realistic" in order to emphasize that
the person's expectations are unreasonable and probably unrealistic. Even the statement "You're life is like a dream," which can be characterized as describing a perceived or potential reality, emphasizes the special nature and rarity of that reality.
Finally, the last three sample sentences also illustrate, from a different vantage
point, the connection between dreams and that which is separate from waking reality. For example, to dream up new gadgets or ideas is to bring into reality that
which is not yet there. To have a dream, as Martin Luther King did, or to have
dreams (as in making your "dreams" come true), is to have a vision or a goal that
is not yet a reality but that may be at some future time. The emphasis nevertheless
remains on the distinction between reality and nonreality; that is, these statements
work because of this distinction.
These expressions collectively, then, illustrate that dreams are often conceived
as distinct from our normal sense of waking reality. Malcolm (1959) presents a
similar case. He writes that:
If a man wakes up with the impression of having seen and done various things, and if it
is known that he did not see and do these things, then it is known that he dreamt them
(p. 66).

Saying something is a dream, therefore, implies that an individual has an impression

that something has occurred and that whatever this occurrence was it did not actuallyoccur (in waking life). As Malcolm (1959) points out, "the statement 'I dreamt
such and such' implies that such and such did not occur." (p. 66).
Agency and Passivity
Although the conclusion that dreams may be used to highlight a distinction
between reality and fantasy would seem obvious to most people, the emphasis of
dreaming as agentic and the dreamer as passive may be less obvious. Below are
some sample sentences that illustrate this aspect of the way dreams are used:

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

98

Stefanakis

-1- The dream told me that. ..

-2- It came to me in a dream.
-3- I learned from the dream that. ..
-4- The dream was a message from ... (God, my unconscious, spirits, etc.)
-5- The dream means such and such.. .
-6- It wasn't me, it was the dream.
-7- It happened in the dream, it wasn't my idea.
-8- I don't feel that way; it was only a dream.
-9- What does the dream mean? It doesn't mean anything.
-10- I had a dream where .. .
-11- In my dream I saw.. .
These examples illustrate a number of interesting conceptions of dreams. The
first four sentences illustrate that dreams are often considered to come from some
distinct other source separate, to some extent, from the dreamer. These types of
dreams have been commonly labelled prophetic or psychic dreams. The examples
illustrate that dreams are often talked about as communicating to the dreamer a
certain message, but in a different way from talking to oneself. In describing the
dream as having knowledge separate from the dreamer, the dream is given agency
(or the entity sending the message such as God or even one's own unconscious,
has the authorship over the dream), and the dreamer is the passive recipient of
this communication.
Statements 6 though 9 illustrate a similar point without necessarily characterizing dreams as prophetic or psychic. When sharing a dream that may be socially
threatening (e.g., in the dream I made love with another person), it is common for
the dream teller to distance himself or herself from the dream. This occurs by giving
the dream agency. For example, stating that the episode happened in the dream,
that "it" was the dream and not "me." The use of the word "it" (as in example 9)
suggest that the dream is separate from the person experiencing "it," because "it"
implies a separate source from "I." Therefore, it is the dream that has authorship
and once again the dreamer is the innocent and passive recipient (victim?) of the
dream.
As States (1988) points out, this conception may have to do with "the language
one is forced to use in discussing the way meaning actually means, in and out of
a dream ..." (p. 29). To say that a dream means such and such when interpreting
a dream is to give existence to the dream separate from the dreamer. The very
discourse of talking about interpretation or asking what a dream means involves
giving the dream a separate identity from oneself (we rarely seriously ask ourselves
what it is we mean) and suggests that they are messages that come to the dreamer
from some distinct source. This becomes clear when you consider that in analyzing
or interpreting a dream, we do not say nor does it seem to make sense to say, "In
the dream J meant such and such" or simply "J meant such and such."
Finally, statements 10 and 11 illustrate an interesting twist to the previous
analysis. In these statements the dream teller takes ownership of the dream by
using the pronouns I and me in the telling. Nonetheless, acknowledging ownership
does not necessarily imply an acceptance of agency. For example, one can talk about
having an accident without implying responsibility for it. This linguistic strategy does

99

Dream Sharing

nevertheless allow for some interesting discursive moves in social interactions. In

the following sections I will demonstrate how these conceptions of dreams can be
used in social interactions to construct specific versions of reality and to position
oneself in a specific way.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

SOCIAL FUNCTIONS OF DREAM TELLING

In describing the social functions of dream telling, I am not interested in the
veridicality of the dream account to the dream experience. In fact, as I will illustrate,
the validity or "truth" of the dream account is not as important in certain instances
as the actual telling of an account as a dream account. Inherent meaning in dreams
is also not an issue as such. What is more to the point from this perspective is how
the attribution of meaning is negotiated in interactions (e.g., the use ofthe agent/patient dimension). Again, this is a preliminary analysis of the discursive approach
and is not meant to be exhaustive. Accordingly, I will focus on only two social
functions of dream telling that are directly related to the previous analysis of the
conception of dreams.
Saving Face and Positioning
An elaboration of what is meant by accounts and accounting (including dream
accounts) from a discursive perspective is necessary preparation for the ensuing
discussion. First and foremost, accounts are viewed as social actions that can be
developed to deal with a number of different problems or situations (Edwards &
Potter, 1992; Potter & Wetherell, 1987). As Edwards and Potter (1992) put it:
These 'accounts' (which are generally constructed from some sort of report or description)
are interesting for the attributional work they do; for example, they often seIVe to soften
the social implications of activities of refusing, disagreeing and so on. The account typically
attends to the kind of negative identity that might be inferred from the action of refusing
and attempts to implicate a more positive alternative (p. 52).

Moreover, accounts are often constructed to deal with matters of responsibility and
blame. Accounts, then, can be developed in order to position oneself in ways that
will attempt to save face or at the very least avert responsibility and blame.
The theoretical construct of face refers to a social phenomenon that
" ...comes into being when one person comes into the presence of another; it is
created by the communicated moves of the interact ants." (Tracy, 1990, p. 210). It
involves the socially situated identities that people attribute to themselves and others. Facework refers to the strategies that are used to support or challenge these
identities (Tracy, 1990). Facework can be done in a defensive, preventative way in
order to avoid or prevent potential threats to one's own or the other's social identity.
Positioning theory (Harre & Van Langenhove, 1991) also offers a useful
framework though which to understand the social act of saving face through the
rhetorical use of dream telling. According to Harre and Van Langenhove (1991),

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

100

Stefanakis

positioning can be understood as "the discursive construction of personal stories

that make a person's actions intelligible and relatively determinable and within
which the members of the conversation have specific locations" (p. 395). Within
this framework, we can say that people will attempt to position themselves and
others in ways that will not threaten the interact ants' identities. That is they will
attempt to save face.
What are the implications of this discussion for dream accounts? As I have
mentioned, the important issue here is not whether the account given is an accurate
report of the dream experience, but rather that the account given is described as
an account of a dream. This distinction is important in light of the earlier discussion
of the conception of dreams. A dream account has some special pro~rties that
allow the user to position him or herself in ways that are different from other types
of accounts.
The use of the conceptual properties of agency and fantasy when discussing
dreams allows certain unique positions to be attained or social acts to be carried
out. This is evident in a number of accounts reported to me whereby the dream
teller was in a position of communicating information that had potential face threatening consequences for both the dream teller and his or her audience. For example,
one individual reported an account where he wanted to discuss the issue of a shortterm separation with his partner. Another individual described a situation where
her partner wanted to discuss their sexual habits. In order to avoid the face threatening consequences of these topics, both individuals constructed accounts where
the information originated in a dream. That is, they offered the account as a dream
account. Interestingly, in one of the cases the dream teller's partner was aware that
it was not an actual dream account but, nevertheless, appreciated the flexibility this
type of account gave them in their discussion of the issue at hand.
What are the advantages of offering this specific type of account? Firstly, because the dream can be discounted simply by referring to it as an amusing but
unreal story, it is possible for the dream teller to avoid positioning himself or herself
in a way that may cause blaming (for either party). Secondly, because the dream
is often conceptualized as occurring to the dreamer who is the passive recipient
and the dream has "its" own independent agency, the dream teller can avoid responsibility for the account. In this way the topic can be discussed in such a way
that both parties can withdraw at any time (i.e., call it meaningless) and avoid attributions of blame (because it was a dream).
The dream teller, however, cannot avoid the responsibility for sharing the account. Because dreams are sometimes thought to refer to the psychological processes of the dreamer, the dream teller can sometimes be held responsible for events
in the dream that were communicated. It depends on how the dream teller and
his/her audience have collectively constructed the "meaning" of dreams. For example, in one account reported to me, the dreamer shared a dream with her colleagues
that involved their violent death. Although she attempted to describe "it" as "just"
an amusing dream which meant nothing, her colleagues became quite distressed
and suggested that she disliked them.

101

Dream Sharing

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Warranting and Justifying

Accounts are also used to warrant and justify actions and goals of individuals
(Potter & Wetherell, 1987). The special nature of the conceptualization of dreams
(or dream talk) once more offers the opportunity to accomplish interesting social
actions through dream accounts. I would like to argue that because, in our talk,
we give dreams a distinct identity and agency separate from our own, dream accounts can be used to warrant and justify social actions and goals. Because the
source of the dream can be discursively constructed as external (or internal but
somehow separate), the dream account can be used as a distinct source of validation
of an action or goal and can, therefore, justify that action or goal.
For example, in one popular book on working with dreams (Delaney, 1988)
there are numerous cases where the interpretation of a dream serves to justify future actions. As a specific example one client states, "The dream is showing me
that at least part of the problem is that I have let my creative self die, or nearly"
(p. 64). The phrase "the dream is showing me" implies that this individual has
given the dream agency and authorship and that she is the recipient of the message.
Later she states, "Reliving the dream makes me want to go home and start a new
art project" (p. 64). The dream, therefore, is used as a course of validation and
justification for future action?
Moreover, sharing a dream account in the context of trying to understand its
meaning allows the dream teller to perform some very interesting social (and discursive) moves. Bringing up a dream account in a social context allows for the
social construction of the meaning of the dream account. Unlike other possible
accounts, however, the validity (correctness) of the dream account cannot be challenged by other individuals because no one else was privy to the experience. The
dreamer's account is the only one that can be given. He/she can be questioned
about the account (and this may cause a reconstruction of the account) but it cannot
be challenged as inaccurate? A similar position has been espoused by Malcolm and
Wittgenstein as summarized by Chappell (1977):
. . .no memory or impression, whether of a dream or not, can be correct or incorrect
unless there is something "outside" it, and indeed something outside the mind or
experience of the person whose memory or impression it is, by which its correctness or
incorrectness can be determined (p. 287).

In this type of social interaction the dream teller can, through the common discourse of dreaming, playoff his/her passivity in the reception of the dream as well
take ownership of the dream since it is and can only be his or her dream. The
dream telling allows the (ex)dreamer to be both an active agent and a passive recipient in the construction of the meaning of the dream.
This has important implicatio~s for the way the construction of the account
can be used. The dream teller can take an active role in the construction of the
meaning of the dream by discounting certain versions which he or she can claim
do not fit his or her experience. Furthermore, the dream teller can still position
him or herself as a passive recipient of the dream and can, therefore, use the constructed meaning to justify or warrant his/her past or intended action. Moreover,
the dream teller can also use the parties involved in the construction to corroborate

102

Stefanakis

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

the account and further justify the past or intended action. Of course the dream
teller can also enter the interaction with a preferred interpretation already at hand
and offer that as part of the account. The implications, nevertheless, remain the
same.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

We can see that the variability of the discourse of dreams allows the dream
teller to position himself or herself in various ways, depending on his or her goals.
What at first appear to be a number of contradictions in the conception of dreaming
(i.e., the dreamer is passive and conversely the dreamer has ownership of the dream;
dreams are meaningless and dreams are meaningful messages) can be seen as rhetorical strategies that can be useful in effectively presenting the account the dream
teller wishes to construct. For example, when an individual is concerned with saving
face or issues of blame, the account can include a description of dreams as having
both agency and lacking meaning. Conversely, if an individual wishes to justify an
action (past or future) then he/she can describe the dream as having both agency
and being meaningful. Moreover, as indicated in the previous analysis, the dream
teller can playoff both the conception of the dream as having agency and maintain
ownership and authorship of the dream to some degree. Finally, it is important to
point out that from a discursive perspective, the same dream teller can use and
espouse all of these conceptions (or strategies) flexibly depending on the context
of the dream telling.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPEUTIC INTERACTIONS

Although I have argued that the dream teller has a great deal of agency in
the construction of social interactions, it should be remembered that the dream
teller is part of the social context. As such, not only is his or her use of dream
telling bounded by the linguistic resources of the community or culture in which
the telling takes place, but the dream account itself is, in part, constructed in the
interaction. That is, to the degree that others can refuse to accept certain versions
of the account (or positions), they help construct the account. This is especially
true if some of the individuals have socially sanctioned power to make interpretations (e.g., therapists).
As Wittgenstein (1966) has pointed out:
In considering what a dream is, it is important to consider what happens to it, the way

its aspects change when it is brought in relation with other things remembered, for
instance.... If one now remembers certain events in the previous day and connects what
was dreamed with these, this already makes a difference, [it] changes the aspect of the
dream (p. 46).

In addition, when a dream is told, its aspect will change in relation to the context
and the other parties responses to the dream. As Gergen (1985) has indicated,
" ...the process of understanding is not automatically driven by forces of nature,

103

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Dream Sharing

but is the result of an active, cooperative enterprise of persons in relationships"

(p. 267). Therefore, we engage those with whom we discuss our dreams in a dynamic, reciprocal exchange in which the dream becomes socially constructed and
not simply revealed or divulged.
The social constructionist perspective (cf. Gergen 1985), therefore, has some
important implications for therapeutic interactions involving dream accounts.
Firstly, an exploration of how the client understands dreaming may inform the
therapist as to how an account of a dream is being used by the client and what it
is he/she is communicating though the account. From this perspective it does not
matter whether the account is based on a dream experience or whether the dream
account is an accurate representation of a dream experience, but rather that the
account is given as a dream account.
Secondly, when working on the meaning of the dream account, it is important
to recognize that meaning is socially constructed though the negotiated (between
therapist and client) understanding of what dreams represent. This understanding
has implications for using dreams to create therapeutic change (e.g., an interpretation of a dream account can be used to justify a future action). When one considers that the construction of a different story or interpretation not only brings
about change, but is change (Gergen & Kaye, 1992), it becomes evident that a
single canonical interpretation is not a necessary condition of working with dreams.
Rather an understanding of how the dream account fits into the individual's broader
personal life story can help inform practice decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

People have to put dreams into words to teU about them. This verbalization
occurs within a specific linguistic context using a set of shared linguistic resources
that allow for common understandings. We draw upon these resources to construct
our worlds and accomplish various social acts. Dream accounts are associated with
a unique set of linguistic resources that may be used flexibly to achieve a number
of social goals in human interactions. Studying the social act of dream sharing,
therefore, allows us to enrich our understanding of social life and social interactions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Linda Wood, Cynthia

Davis, Andrew and Noelia Taylor, and two anonymous reviewers on an earlier version of this article.

NOTES

1. All expressions were collected from a variety of sources including: novels,

newspaper articles, professional papers, and discussions where the words

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

104

Stefanakis

dream or dreaming were used. Although these expressions are derived

from different sources, what is important for this analysis is how the words
dream or dreaming are used within and across a variety of texts because
it is in the use that we may understand the concept of dreams.
2. In stating that dream accounts can be used to justify actions, I am not
intending to imply that this may be a negative or destructive use of dreams.
On the contrary, I believe that the process of constructing meaning may
be a very effective way of promoting change and growth.
3. One notable exception includes the client-therapist relationship. Dream
sharing in therapy has some important differences from dream sharing in
everyday interactions. For example, in therapy there are specific goals
(e.g., the correct interpretation of the dream) and power differences
between the parties (e.g., the therapist is the expert).
REFERENCES
Chappell, V. C. (1977). The concept of dreaming. In C. E. M. Dunlop (Ed.), Philosophical essays on
dreaming. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Dombeck, M-T., B. (1993). The thawing of symbols in myth and dream. Dreaming, 3, 137-147.
Dombeck, M-T., B. (1994). Contexts of dream interpretation among American therapists and pastoral
counselors. Dreaming, 4, 29-42.
Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Gergen, K J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modem psychology. American Psychologist,
40, 266-275.
Gergen, K J. & Kaye, J. (1992). Beyond narrative in the negotiation of therapeutic meaning. In S.
MacNamee & K J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction. London: Sage.
Harre, R. & Van Langenhove, L. (1991). Varieties of positioning. Journal for the theory of Social
Psychology, 21,393-407.
Malcolm, N. (1959). Dreaming. New York: Humanities Press.
Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour.
London: Sage.
Shotter, J. (1993). Cultural politics of everyday life. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
States, B. O. (1988). The rhetoric of dreams. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Tracy, K (1990). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles and W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of
language and social psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. ( 1966). Lectures and conversations on aesthetics, psychology and religious belief. Berkeley:
University of California Press.