Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)— Walt Whitman
We may, by nature, be beings who contain contradictions within ourselves.
“Human rights are important, but life in my own country is also difficult.”
“I believe in science, but I also value faith.”
“I want to help others across national borders. But deep down, I still put my self first.’”
How should we confront these contradictions within ourselves?
In this essay, we address the concept of cognitive polyphasia from social psychology (particularly in social representations theory). This concept does not simply refer to a lack of consistency, but describes a state of mind in which heterogeneous forms of knowledge, values, and ways of understanding coexist within the same individual and are selectively mobilized depending on the situation (Japan Sociological Society | Just another WordPress site).
What is Cognitive Polyphasia?
Within the framework of social representation theory, cognitive polyphasia refers to the phenomenon in which different, and sometimes contradictory, forms of knowledge coexist dynamically and are selectively activated depending on the context to support judgment and action. This can be things such as scientific knowledge, common sense, belief, ideology, and so on.
Importantly, prior research does not frame this condition as a form of “immaturity.” Rather, it positions cognitive polyphasia as a concept for understanding how knowledge is fundamentally situated in context. Jovchelovitch (2002) argues that recognizing the plurality of knowledge systems and treating their distinct logics as legitimate can facilitate dialogue between different ways of knowing.
Similarly, discussions on the relationship between scientific knowledge and common sense emphasize that different systems of knowledge do not simply replace one another. Instead, they coexist and serve different functions depending on the context.
Where World Citizenship and Cognitive Polyphasia Meet
UNESCO describes a global citizen as someone who understands how the world works, values differences, and collaborates with others to address challenges that no single country can solve on its own (UNESCO). UNESCO also identifies key capacities that Global Citizenship Education (GCED) aims to foster, including critical thinking, understanding others’ perspectives, respect for diversity, a sense of fairness and empathy, and action-oriented engagement (UNESCO).
This is where cognitive polyphasia fits in. Many global issues, such as poverty, migration, climate change, or conflict, rarely have a single, uncontested “correct” answer. In situations where multiple value systems and explanatory frames (economic, ethical, religious, historical, emotional) become salient at once, the ability to avoid immediately dismissing one framework and instead move back and forth among them as the context demands can form a foundation for global-citizenship-oriented judgment.
Do prior studies suggest “positive functions”?
There are not many studies that directly test, in a straightforward way, the claim that “cognitive polyphasia → higher global citizenship.” However, in domains that connect closely to global citizenship, such as global responsibility, the redrawing of boundaries, dialogue, and civic participation, research has described fairly concrete pathways through which cognitive polyphasia can function in constructive ways.
A. Fluctuation between “self-interest ↔ global responsibility” can generate resistance and alternatives (foreign policy and civic judgment)
A study in Political Psychology examining how Irish citizens talk about neutrality and international intervention reports that public debate contains opposing thematic poles (themata) such as “self-interest / global responsibility.” When social representations become polyphasic, the discussion can produce ambiguity and ambivalence. The authors argue that, especially for younger people, this ambiguity can become a form of resistance to dominant narratives and can create “narrative space” in which alternative options can be articulated.
This may be close to the core of global citizenship. Rather than forcing a clear either–or choice between “national interest” and “global ethics,” the act of putting that tension into words and continuing to deliberate toward better public choices is itself a form of global-citizenship practice.
B. Switching between tradition and modernity
A study examining the coexistence of traditional healing and Western psychiatry in India shows that the same individuals can hold contradictory representations and yet draw on them differently depending on the social setting. The authors further argue that this condition can be both an advantage and a challenge in participatory health promotion and development contexts. However, at least for some community members, simultaneously remaining culturally embedded while also being open to new approaches can serve as a “bridge” for communication and collaboration.
A global citizen is not necessarily someone who fully assimilates into a single value system. Rather, they can be understood as someone who can act as a “translator” across multiple cultures and multiple logics. Cognitive polyphasia provides a useful tool for explaining that capacity for translation.
C. “Believing in both science and God”
A survey- and interview-based study in Nigeria suggests that religion and science do not simply stand in opposition. Instead, cognitive polyphasia can take forms such as hierarchy (placing one above the other), parallelity (running in parallel as different functional systems), and empowerment (mutually reinforcing each other). This “empowerment” form connects to a perspective that reframes the “clash of values,” a frequent concern in global citizenship education, not as a zero-sum conflict, but as a potential site for cooperation.
D. Preserving the ethics of support between professional knowledge and human care (health and welfare settings)
A study of professionals engaged in homelessness support shows that the epistemic field can be organized in ways that contain contradictions between professional definitions and institutional demands on the one hand, and human, ethical engagement on the other. It analyzes this tension as a struggle to sustain “humanizing support” and to resist institutional pressures (Renedo & Jovchelovitch, 2007). Because global citizenship is connected not only to “distant international issues” but also to how dignity is protected in local contexts, this insight is especially suggestive.
4) Summary: Five “positive” ways cognitive polyphasia can support global citizenship
Synthesizing the prior research, cognitive polyphasia can be summarized as supporting global citizenship in the following ways:
- Treating the coexistence of diverse values as a basis for dialogue rather than as “abnormal” (dialogue across different forms of knowledge)
- Using oscillation between self-interest and global responsibility as a resource for public debate and alternative proposals (resistance and creativity)
- Enabling people to act as translators across cultures and knowledge systems (selective use of tradition × modernity)
- Designing relationships of parallel coexistence and mutual reinforcement rather than insisting that “only one side is right” (religion × science as empowerment)
- Linking practice to the protection of human dignity and humane support amid tensions between institutions/professionalism and ethics
References
- UNESCO (overview and learning goals of Global Citizenship Education) (UNESCO)
- Jovchelovitch, S. (plurality of knowledge / polyphasia as dialogue) (LSE Research Online)
- O’Dwyer, E., Lyons, E., & Cohrs, J. C. (polyphasia between self-interest ↔ global responsibility and resistance)
- Wagner, W., Duveen, G., Verma, J., & Themel, M. (cultural change, community development, and polyphasia)
- Falade, B. A., & Bauer, M. W. (religion × science polyphasia: parallelity/empowerment, etc.)
- Kumagai, Yuri (Japanese-language overview of cognitive polyphasia in social representation theory) (Japan Sociological Society | Just another WordPress site)
