Introduction

Identity is especially in our today’s society, a leading topic that continues to puzzle psychologists. The personal identity is a cultural invention we get in contact with while following the self-reflective question of “Who am-I?”. In general, the identity is represented in the core of every individual’s self-reflection (Engeström 2006) (Vygotsky 1997). The augmentation of the self-dissonance in the individual, from past to today, can be linked with the dissonance in an individual’s-control which gets influenced by the current globalization. We experience, in today’s society, a limitation of our control through global phenomenon’s, that can only be moderated on a partly manner (Engeström 2006). It can also be assumed that a humans internal-perception persist in the own behavior, which cannot overcome the impact of its environment, whereby the process of changing the impacting environment it-self, with external interactions can be followed. According to those concepts, it can be assumed that the conceptuality of higher psychological functions is based first on a collaborative acting, followed by the internalization of the individual’s higher psychological functions (Vygotsky 1997).

Ways of Cultural Psychology

While following the path of cultural psychology, we can encounter several occasions in which the Idea of cultural psychology does not only take a contrast position toward other fields, but also question the own stylistic and historical views, while developing a multiverse of different parallel directions. The concept of cultural psychology can be mirrored by the key-term-it-self. Culture it-self is a concept that seems to be linked through a diversity of possibilities. It is applied in common sense to societies (e,g “German culture” versus “Zulu culture”), it entails the notions of “high” (e.g. classical music, arts) and “low” cultures. It can be viewed as the basic mechanics in human self (Valsiner 2007). Based on Levi-Strauss’s bricolage idea (Lévi-Strauss 1962), culture can be seen as a global existing concept, which operates in the same time as deeply human subjective reality. Culture in the sociological sense develops and changes within the population, through cultural dialogues triggered by immigration, trade, warfare, and urbanization. Culture is varying, in its manifestations, from one individual to another, which leads to the anticipation that every individual is cultivating its own cultural fragments, leading to a personalized culture (Simmel 1971; Levine 1971). Therefore, culture can be seen as a concept that remains undefinable. This should not be misunderstood as a failure of the domain itself, but as the diverted approach it is.

Today, the cultural psychological approaches start to reduce the focus on defining the multilayered hyper-concepts. The awareness is spreading that a forced definition of such a concept would rather reduce than enhance a concepts usefulness. The internal identification network for example cannot receive fixe defined conceptuality’s, because we could only create a model that could not adapt fast enough with the constantly reorganizing self, forcing possible connections to stay hidden.

This understanding of the own topic evolved through the concept’s life span and was not always part of it. It can be seen as young believing that can be linked with the first appearing of the concept catalysis in the psychological domain (Valsiner 2019). This concept can be seen as effort to change the view from ourselves and our environment by taking in consideration how the reaction was modified through the catalyzer function of culture). Instead of causing any of human psychological functions, cultural means—sign—make the persons’ constructions of their selves possible.

While following the roots of psychology, we do not encounter the concept always under the same label, especially in the occasion of the antecedents of our today’s cultural psychology. One of the older shapes, of the western-cultural psychology, is for example the currently re-arising concept of Völker-psychology. In the Völker-psychological conceptual framework, the focus was set on the believing that humans can be distinguished from other organic beings, by phenomena’s like myths and language (Danziger 1983) (Wundt 1877). This leaded Lazarus and Steinthal to reconstruct the Völkerpsychologie in the mid of the nineteenth century as a study of generally valid laws that should lead to the creation of cultural property, like language, myth, etc. (Lazarus 1860). Based on Völkerpsychologie the notion of cultural psychology followed (Stern 1900).

In today’s research we can still benefit from some of the Völker-psychological approaches and how they reach toward the subjects. In the occasion of Völker-psychology the restorable definition can be found in the understanding of internal roots and borders, that are initialized by the environment as communal life as well as by the product of people’s experiences, which are connecting in a complex phenomenological whole (Diriwächter 2004).

In contrast, the quite young concept of cultural psychology as catalyzer can be provided, when we re-unite the focus on artistic tradition in the meaning-field of culture with the concepts of origin, by Geisteswissenschaften and Naturwisssenschaften (Valsiner et al. 2016). The splitting between these paradigms in the nineteenth century has complicated the study of higher psychological functions. In general, we could be said that human behavior is biologically determined, but its manifestation represents a cultural achievement. This relation connects Geisteswissenschaften and Naturwisssenschaften. Splitting those concepts leaded to the act of denning the relations between both sides. Kant for example believed that overcoming the borders would not lead to an optimization, but to a deformation of science (Kant 2016). Such believing’s blocked the study of higher psychological functions in its growing, through denying.

It has to be noted that any theoretical advancement has to be reinforced through an open- foundation, built out of heterogenous ideas that can immerge in a multifunctional logic (Löwy 1990). In this occasion we will follow the evolution of cultural psychology through one of its own slightly rearranged approaches, the concept of proculturation (Gamsakhurdia 2018) that succeeds the notion of acculturation. A variation of ideas can be provided through the diversity of individuals who formulate their ideas each in a slightly divergent way. Which means that diversity is an essential baseline allowing us to build a well-elaborated, but flexible theory. The emergence of cultural psychology is intertwined with the ongoing globalization. In conclusion, new approaches, based on different social and cultural approaches are entering our researcher-network through international connections, which can be explained by proculturation (Gamsakhurdia 2018) replacing the widespread focus on acculturation.

Interaction between Culture and Self

Proculturation can be described as a developing ability initiated by the situation where an individual, or in this case the cultural psychology, face any kind of new experience and acquires new cultural capacities through that. Proculturation can be described as a continuously ongoing process of unification of one’s cultural base with new experiences. Each time when a new cultural experience takes place, it inevitably leaves an imprint on the individual’s self. Although the proculturation concept is not restricted to the active change of the social environment, it can be initiated by small impacts created in the current globalization, which can be defined as the spreading of cultural elements from culture to culture, through the whole civilized world (Gamsakhurdia 2018).

Starting from that contrast of societies we can examine the cross-social move. In this construction we can find several concepts interfering. In cultural psychology the cross social movement is described as a multivariable situation, in which an individual experience has a strong cultural impact, related with an active processing of cultural self-identification triggered by an environmental and social change, impacting an individual’s everyday life. (Kagitçibasi 2007). This research is bonded on establishing a different form of the proculturation concept from Gamsakhurdia (2018). The multiple layers of how the subjects define their meaning and structure of life can be reconstructed, for example in the process of entering new cultural boundaries. Instead of following the flexibility of Gamsakhurdia’s concept of proculturation, which allows to follow different level of initiation in the cultural-self-identification, through a stronger or weaker impact initiated, as for example globalization. The following concept zooms into a more specified state of affairs.

As human beings, we use our self-reflected and self-proclaimed “reality” to create goals that we can follow throughout our life span. This process can be seen as our development process, in which we accumulate our imagination and re-imagination of past and future (Marsico 2015, 2016). It leads to the understanding that the contact with the unknown does not only occur by geographical- or social-surrounding but also through the dimension of time (Lewin 1939). An example of such a phenomenon would be located in our childhood, where we experience how rules, relation and expectations change after school enrollment. This approach can be found in the process of cultural psychology and underlines the need for older concepts like the basic field theoretic, Ganzheitspsychologie (Diriwächter 2004) to be redefined, allowing to rearrange their place and to help create new theoretical models (Valsiner 2019).

An Identity Model as Challenge and Solution

The visualization of identity seems to be especially troublesome. The identity of an individual is usually defined as a completed construct, in which we proclaim that every individual has an identity, despite the case that we do not have any visual clues about its whereabouts. Meanwhile, we can observe that there are differences in construction and preservation when it comes to an individual’s identity. This construction allows us to emphasis with a non-existent object that impacts our development and burden us with all kinds of psychological troubles.

The links of a variety of seemingly weakly connected concepts, that can be found in the individual and social baseline, is not only possible, but also allows to order every type of concept in a uniform and interrelated baseline, interrelated to multiple forces that affects the situation. An occasion that allows to nullify a theoretical dissonance, through linking every influencing aspect of the phenomena, like interpersonal and individual features, with the same situational conditions. Instead of an isolating selection of forces that are taken in consideration, the whole situation is focused from the beginning and allows the individual and environmental concepts to be part of a dynamic field. The gained meaning of a conceptuality becomes one fact out of several that depends on its Gestalt (Lewin 1939).

Nevertheless, there is a problem when we take in consideration, that the process of self-identification is a fluid activity that runs throughout the whole lifespan. This knowledge would lead to the believing that the own identity has to be gained and does not have to be seen as given in an individual. When speaking about self-reflection, we also have to take in consideration that our identity is in a constant fluctuation-process with the environment, the so called other (Mahmoud 2009). To build a visualization that allows the identity theories to take the multiplicity of the “voices” into consideration. The constant negotiation, is an ability which I maintain as needed in the condition of flexibility, that leads us to the question, “Is there a baseline, from where we all start as individual with the baseline-Identity, the so-called Identity-type-zero?” and “How could we capture this baseline and its transformation?”

An untypical example of visualization in cultural psychology can be found in Engeström’s concept of the self’s information-network. In this context the biological conceptuality of “corrhizae”, a symbiotic association between a fungus with its hostplant, was used as visualization for the multidirectional connection in human lives. The self’s intimate contact with its environment is in this conceptuality represented through the fungus that feeds it-self through its surrounding. The “corrhizae-” formation is a self-stabilized construction that originates through a living and expanding process that overlaps with the core concepts of our mindscape and material infrastructure. This biological conceptuality allows to represent the conceptuality of networking with a reduction of interference’s in the well-bounded network it-self (Engeström 2006).

In conclusion, cultural psychology can be described as a psychological approach that follows various ways to gain knowledge, through following highly complex and constantly changing aspects of the human ways of being, while doing research on the human psychology. Nevertheless, the cultural identification-process is still insufficient in visualization and does not allow to catch-up with the diversity and the flexibility of the multilayered hyper-concept of the cultural psychology. What is currently needed most is a concept that emphasizes with the flexibility of the human intern-dialogues and -efforts. Furthermore, it has to be noted that Engeström’s visualization through the “corrhizae” is a first step toward a Ganzheits-theoretical approach in which the activity-field could be free from inner contradiction and allows a fluctuation of the interacting processes with the main-conceptuality. We should not deny our roots and be open for conceptuality’s and visualizations from other branches, like art and developmental biology, this could help us to overcome the current stagnation.

Elaborating Concepts: A Three-Modal Negotiation Process

In the following paragraphs we will emphasise several definitions that can be found in the core understanding of cultural psychology. Those concepts will be used as baseline to build up a culture psychological perspective on identity. This procedure allows us to construct a theoretical concept that can be used as a transparent example for the lead-in in the main topic of the paper, the self-identification meadow.

Starting with a dimension-concept that is often linked with culture, but which seems to get easily misunderstood, the concepts of homo-and heterogeneity. The prefix of homo- can be translated with the word “same”, whereby hetero- is related with the meaning of “different”. When we move from homogeneity to heterogeneity the statement is meant that something was based on a unity of something and then gets more and more influenced by other/ different elements. I believe that the use of homogeneity in culture is always connected with the act of isolating a desired concept out of its own context. When we follow an individual, there is no such thing than homogeneity. We are always linked with a heterogenic environment, only the neglecting of conditions and reactions allows us to construct a matching with homogeneity. When we take in consideration that the development of an individual and social interaction is already an act of crossing the borders of one’s own cultural self (Lewin 1939), would it still be appropriated to say that an individual’s self can be defined as homogenic?

When we define an environment as homogenic, we create a concept of hidden types, in this case of heterogenic impacts, that leads to a bias between theoretical understanding and reality (Maruyama 1993). It would therefore be more accurate to define a cultural defined process as directed to a homogenic or heterogenic ideal. In the occasion of cross-cultural analyses, heterogeneity and homogeneity is often linked with the proportion of individuals who have the country’s national identity, amount of citizen and foreigner. As an example, we can use the Luxembourgish and Japanese societies. In Luxembourg the population’s nationalities directed to an heterogenous ideal, with a population where 48% of the citizens have a different nationality than Luxembourgish. On the other side we have Japan a more homogenic directed society in which 98,5% of the whole society has the Japanese nationality (Campill 2020). Through those construction the researchers focus is traceable whereby the existence of other connections is not denied or hidden.

It is crucial to take into consideration that am assumption of homogeneity in contrast with heterogeneity neglects, from the beginning on, core understanding of the country’s historical roots. A country is a construct that is based, on every moment of a country’s establishment to its every-day existence, on the accumulation of different individuals with a different cultural understanding. This underlines that in this paper culture is viewed in a multidimensional manner where culture is in every being individually and results in an own understanding of the self and the environment.

Negotiation and Coping while Immerging in the Foreign

An Individual, who leaves the known and immerses in a new environment, experience social change, related with an active processing of cultural self-identification, that impacts the own everyday life. This trans-cultural movement can be seen as strong proculturation process, in which a human being those not only get passively in contact with another culture but is surrounded by new stimuli for an undetermined time. Those patterns lead us to the question “How are we, as individuals, coping in foreign places?”. We elaborated three leading coping strategies, preservation, adaptation and compromising by following the negotiation in a cross-cultural experience through routines and everyday challenges.

Adaptation and maintaining are the tools, based on a model of Navas et al. (2005) (Fig. 1), that allows the process of acculturation, in situation of handling a change in the cultural self-identification. Furthermore, the RAEM identifies the process through the conceptualities of selective and relative adaptations, allowing to define a process of each individual, who creates the own cultural synthesis from both cultures through the concept of acceptance or rejection. In general, impacts that refer to any cultural construct, will show resistance toward the process of adaptation, leading to a dissonance in the self while evolving (Navas et al. 2005). This dissonance is forcing the individuals with a different cultural background, with the desire to define both sides as their personal space, to sit between two stools, adapting or rejecting.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Acculturation process of immigrants as relative adaptation between the origin and host society in different domains (Navas et al. 2005).

Full size image

This leads to the theory that any modification in the cultural-self-identification is connected and allows an infinite number of possibility’s, for individuals to bond with the impacting cultures (Navas et al. 2005).

Through remodeling, the bi-modal negotiation view of the acculturation process (Fig. 1), the concept of maintaining got renamed through the concept of preservation, whereby a third coping-method became visual (Fig. 2). This third concept obtained, visualized in Fig. 2 as arrow “c” linking “connectivity of domains” with the “in the self-resulting domain”, can be described as the art of compromising.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Modified acculturation process of immigrants as relative adaptation between the origin and host society in different domains.

Full size image

The ability of compromising can be seen as an existing middle way between the other concepts, adaptation and preservation. A concept that allows to bond both desires in one process. In this occasion the subjects use the ability to revaluate the current self-identification in the cultural diversity and to search a comfortable situation, allowing a less harmful solution that nullify the current imbalance. (Campill 2020).

This art of compromising can be visualized through well-established examples, in this occasion from Interview’s with Japanese women living in Luxembourg. Those examples come from Campill (2020), where we explored the cultural-identity-construction by interviewing eight Japanese women who had moved to Luxembourg and live there. In particular, we were interested in the cultural dialogues Japanese women have to engage in while living in Luxembourg. An important reason why the study was focused on those two countries was the multiculturality of Luxembourg and homogeneity of Japan that provide two very different cultural contexts. The aim of the study was to understand if, how and why the subjects would engage in dialogues across the continents. In this process, everyday matters and the simplest tasks in an individual’s new surroundings, play a significant part in describing why and how the subjects are developing. We followed therefore the small and daily identification-processes, which can be defined as a valuable process. Linguistic and semiotic modes, which can be found in events such as drinking at a bar with new peers, are such daily events triggering the self-identification process. Through those observable negotiation processes, it was possible to construct the first layers of a wholistic model and the three-modal-negotiation-concept which base on the strategies of preservation, adaptation and compromising (Campill 2020).

In this occasion, it has to be mentioned that within all kind of nations systemic relations between collectivism and individualism are represented. That means in every society there are possible differences in-between linked with the understanding of the cultural environment (Kagitçibasi 1997, Tripathi and Leviatan 2003).

The pressure on women to become mothers is very strong in Japan. One reason is the average age of Japanese population, which is rising constantly, leading to a decreasing number of the following generations (Tamanoi 1990). The wish to become a good mother is constantly accompanying women, who gives birth to children. Sometimes connected with the desire to give their own children what was denied to herself. A mothers-roll is also to share the knowledge, based on the own opinion, and the educated knowledge preserved or cultivated through family experiences and time (Tsuda 2000) (柳田國男 and 葉德禮 1944). The value of a mothers-role, especially in the specified context of the study, is that Japanese mothers are not only experiencing a social-environmental change in beliefs and norms themselves, but they also have to handle the dissonance for the children’s sake. Those children are growing up in a different environment as their parents, with different expectations and experiences. The Japanese mother is experiencing a strong dissonance through situations, linked with the feeling of insufficiency in her own skills, created through the new less-known environment. The different view, also linked with the diverse cultural experience of mother and child, are interfering. Whereby those occasions allow the mother to create a compromise, while following the path of a role-model-mother (Campill 2020).

One of the mother’s mentioned, that she had to change her concept of preparing food, because her children’s eating preferences did not overlap with her own:

“…the Luxembourgish one they would eat. I actually make lunchbox every day, but I make sometimes this and sometimes Japanese food inside.”

In this example, we can follow the mother while compromising. She decided to continue preparing her children’s lunchboxes, whereby she took the wishes of her children into consideration, by sometimes preparing Japanese and sometimes European lunchboxes (Campill 2020).

We can conclude that the different cultural backgrounds, while making a cross-cultural experience, retain their form but merge into the larger canvas, where we can observe the multi-faceted whole by following the decisions made while negotiating with the own cultural self.

Finding New Metaphors: Self-Identification as a Meadow

The concepts outlined above can already approximate how complex the multi-dimensional approach of the self- identification process can be, but before we continue following the model of self-identification—with the idea that a wholistic model is needed.

Cultural psychology risks to stagnate unless it creates new approaches. The past and current researcher are aware of the own disability, but when it comes to analysing the reason, the opinions stay divided. In my opinion the reason of the blockade is that various approaches of mind and culture seem to lose themselves in an overflow of isolating metaphors (Krueger 1915; Lewin 1939; Valsiner 2019), taking the room for its counterparts to grow and to challenge each other for reaching even deeper into the self. While traditional formal models in field theories have used mechanical physical images, we decisively move into the use of a more biological metaphors, connected with the fields of general Naturwissenschaften and art. Why not using the notion of a meadow,Footnote 1 to re-open the theories on the field to get in contact again?

Before answering that question, we will shortly focus on another question, “why do we use and meadow and not another metaphor?”. The meadow is an organic, dynamic and evolving system that inhabits potential to symbolise a multi-dimensional construct as the identity. The meadow is always evolving and has the ability to look similar, to its old form, while changing. Furthermore, the meadow can conserve past experienced plants/flowers, that once flourished but afterword dried out, which dues do not mean that this flower disappeared from the meadow but can re-grow on later times. These are only fragments of what lies behind a meadow and what can be re-found in the identity, a multidimensional construct that inhabits the voices of its past and the voices of the now that impacts the potential of seeing into the future, “What could be”, while evolving how to identify the current situation and how to react (Valsiner 2019). In conclusion the meadow is able to move in the multi-dimensionality and to integrate the subjective understanding of meaning that results in the current decision making of how a subjects can give meaning to by the current self, moving in the meadow, that inhabits the knowledge generated until the now (Gupta et al. 2003).

The identification-meadow is created as a wholistic approach that helps to fill the gaps, as the networks knotting point for future researches that will spread from cultural psychology. I will try now to visualise this constructed concept in such a manner, that the reader will gain two main-abilities. On one side it will be possible to use the visualisation to analyse the whole concept it-self, in its multivariable layers. On the other side it will be possible to reduce the interfering network to a single or smaller concept without cutting the interfering forces that are staying hidden through the focus it-self. This visualisation of the Ganzheitliche-approach, defined by how the different cultural backgrounds retain their form, while merging into the larger canvas where the multi-faceted whole can be observed, will be realized through borrowing biological approaches and use several artworks in a combined process.

In general, the cultural self-identification can be defined as a meadow abundant with flowers, which will be visualized here, through two of Van Gogh’s paintings (Figs. 3 and 4).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Van Gogh Field of poppies (1890)

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Van Gogh Flower-garden (1888)

Full size image

The amount of flowers and the diversity depends on the cultural stimuli, which can be accepted or denied on a unconsciously or consciously level. The seeds, growing to blossoming flowers, can be defined as the equivalent of those cultural stimulations, integrated in our cultural view, starting to grow through the process of negotiation and interaction. When more seeds of a different kind are introduced, more “cultures” are integrated, and the identification-meadow continues to rearrange itself. A more homogenic field of flowers (mono-cultural-self) (Figs. 3) or a more differently seeded field (multicultural-self) (Fig. 4).

This construct allows us to go even further and to answer and visualize concepts that could not be described before. In this occasion, we will continue with the baseline-identity, also called Identity-type-zero.

The Identification meadow would suggest that the type-zero identity would be a plot of land, waiting to be cultivated into a beautiful meadow. From an extern-view the field would seem empty, probably equal with the beginning of any other meadow. Nevertheless, when we would look through the model, we would see that every zero-type identity/meadow would be unique. Aspects like genetics, society, environment, personality and time period are represented through the seed types that are initialized, through the ground type and the weather conditions as well as through the attention and care of the owner (in the occasion less present than later). A zero-type-identity in which the process of self-identification, a fluid activity that runs through the whole lifespan, would get much closer to the reality, when we receive a model that overlaps on a wider-field with the concept it-self.

Concepts of the internalized and externalized self-view can become visible as well. The external self-view would be defined through the flowers we see from above the meadow, whereby the internalized self-view would be focusing only on the flowers that lies under the outstanding flowers or the seeds that are still growing or did not grow through the insufficient in the nourishment from the ground.

From those smaller insides we would go over to the more specified example of this paper, the three modal negotiation process. The coping strategies, preservation, adaptation and compromising can be described through the gardening of the caregiver/self, visualized through the Van Gogh painting (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Van Gogh The sower (1888)

Full size image

Preservation could be connected with the fertilization and watering of a plant or a seed, that is already represented in the meadow. Also, the act of tearing a flower out of the meadow, which could harm the cultivated flowers, that the caregiver focus on.

Adaptation on the other hand would be linked with giving care to a new flower or seed that was gained through the experience in the new environment and also to reduce the amount of flowers that were cultivated a longer time ago. Compromising can be seen more like the rearrangement of the meadow in such a way that different kind of flowers can co-exist or even interbreed and create a new kind of flower or seed. Those three concepts can be initialized in very small or long time-gaps and represent methods that helps the self to construct on a conscious or unconscious way the own meadow. Those processes can be running in any time-periods of our life, whereby extern impacts cannot interfere in the process it-self but interfere in the triggering of the processes or in the quality of nourishment a fertilization. Those Impacts could be related for example to the desire of making a cross-cultural experience, as in the past by forced laborer, or through acceptance of a behavior in the closer environment, family.

Discussion: Towards New Models of Complex Processes

It can be summarized that the cultural psychology has changed mostly in its own perspective and has the unique opportunity that it can follow the theoretical models of the chemical sciences that are directed to the catalysis function of culture. Past and current research is always in a dialogue that allows us to create new and diverted approaches. A main reason of the cultural psychology’s stagnation, while creating new approaches, is the incoherence in research that endeavours with the largely, already well-established work of the various approaches of mind and culture, in particular by thoroughly neglecting a methodical genetic question and comparing. This blockade was already in the beginning of cultural psychology as it became known (Krueger 1915, pp. 144–154, Stern 1900). This neglection of creating a whole, that could help different approaches to inter-act with each other, cannot be ignored anymore. The identification-meadow is therefore created to fill that gap and to act as knotting point for future researches that will spread from cultural psychology.

Nevertheless, it has to be underlined that psychology has the possibility to overcome its own stagnation. Taking the historical psychological dimension, as well as the spreading of new Ideas and different fields, freely in consideration then psychology is able to follow dynamic processes in its whole and not only stagnate on a several single dimensions that denies each-others existence.

Following Lewin’s Field theory, it seems to be essential for cultural psychology to find such a wholistic Ganzheits-approaches that help us to understand the whole, as well as its part with the needed distance. Even when Lewin’s mechanical-field approach failed on several connections and realisations, the phenomena it-self was the movement in the needed direction (Lewin 1939). We cannot create isolated models for a simplified conceptuality, behind which we hide forces that interfere and manipulate our reaction and outcome. A working Ganzheits-approach can combine our desire to zoom into one dimension of the multidimensional whole or to explain the completed conceptuality as one, without creating any kind of dissonance. The identification meadow is a model that should allow us to understand the process in our self on a wider field. We simplify, by using such an approach the understanding of the concept without interference and can reach for the bigger picture. Concepts that seemed to be insubstantial, like the concept of a type-zero identity, can be understood and visualized in new and more elaborated way.

The three modal negotiation process is a model that works as additive to Kagitçibasi’s understanding of the negotiation process while experiencing a cross-cultural experience. Those concepts of negotiations due not focus only on the cross-cultural movement of an individual, but also the everyday negotiation, while being part of the globalisation process (Kagitçibasi 2007).

The connection between identification meadow and the three modal negotiation process allows to give the modal a more simple and retractable touch. It is quite difficult to integrate art with psychology. The topic can be easily misunderstood through a misplaced picture or can even loss in credibility. Nevertheless, it is necessary to use art as visualisation material, because it allows to overcome thinking-blockades and also allows to relieve the readers struggling while following the writer’s theoretical constructions.

The importance of using more approaches and direction is one time linked with the cultural psychological desire to globalize our understanding. Furthermore, the use of art and Naturwissenschaften also allows us to reach a bigger spectrum of readers that seems to get left behind through the overly complex language in theory’s that are difficult to follow or to retrace. Even when unchanged, the approach to use technical terminology, the use of alternative models can already help to find the connection and support needed to follow the researcher’s theory’s. Second positive impact is the new perspective gained for the researcher himself, approaches from other domains can help to connect conceptuality’s that seemed to be unrelated or help to find a terminology that allows to describe a process that could not be defined in the traditional way. Cultural psychology and biology are for example very compatible to each other because both concepts follow complex multidimensional constructions that can overlay in the construction of their Network. In conclusion I can be said that we need multicultural concepts for multi-directional understandings and those cannot be found in only one domain it-self.

The networking between all human constructed knowledge inhabits the potential to lead to a better understanding. The humankind’s way of defining the self and the own identity, can help research to see through sub-consciously naturalised blockades. This underlines that the meadow inhabits the potential to define the individual identity, cultural self-identification process, as a process that goes behind current psychology understandings and inhabits the meaning that the knowledge conserved in Identities could exceed the knowledge re-projected in the current experiencing self.