Yes, it is highly accurate to say that Hartmut Rosa's concept of resonance shares a strong, meaningful resemblance to Daniel Stern's "moment of meeting". While Rosa is a sociologist focusing on our relationship with the world, and Stern was a psychologist focusing on therapeutic change, both describe a transformative, non-controllable experience of "being touched" by the other. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Here is how they align and where they differ:
Why They Are Alike
- Affective Transformation: Both concepts involve being deeply moved or "touched" by an interaction, resulting in a transformation of the subject.
- Uncontrollability: Resonant moments cannot be forced or engineered, and similarly, "moments of meeting" are spontaneous, genuine occurrences that cannot be manufactured.
- Reciprocity: Both require a mutual exchange where both parties (or the person and the world) affect each other.
- "Touching" the Body: Both concepts emphasize that these moments are not merely intellectual, but bodily, emotional experiences. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
Core Similarities Comparison
| Feature [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] | Rosa's Resonance | Stern's Moment of Meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Context | Sociological/World Relation | Psychological/Therapeutic |
| Trigger | Feeling "touched" or moved | "Now Moment" (hot/intense) |
| Experience | Uncontrollable, unpredictable | Spontaneous, non-deliberate |
| Result | Transformation of subject | Change in implicit knowing |
Where They Differ
- Scope: Rosa's resonance can occur with nature, music, art, or history (diagonal axis). Stern's "moment of meeting" is specifically an intersubjective, interpersonal event between two people (usually therapist and patient).
- Goal: Rosa aims to explain a good life and a successful relationship to the world. Stern aimed to define how therapeutic change happens outside of mere interpretation. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
In summary, a "moment of meeting" is a specific, high-intensity, clinical example of a broader "resonance" experience.
