Holding Discomfort: The Transformation-Affirmation-Recognition (TAR) Model for Transformative Learning and Identity Development

Abstract

This conceptual paper introduces the Transformation-Affirmation-Recognition (TAR) model, a framework that reconceptualizes transformation as a psychosocial process grounded in the dynamic interplay between self-affirmation and social recognition. Drawing on Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning, Steele’s self-affirmation theory, and Honneth’s recognition theory, the paper argues that transformation is sustained not by cognition alone but by the affective and relational forces that enable individuals to remain in contact with difficult emotions such as discomfort. Self-affirmation preserves a sense of integrity when one’s meaning structures are disrupted, while recognition validates the emerging self within a social context. Together, these forces form a dialectical movement that allows learners to engage discomfort as a developmental resource rather than as a threat. An illustrative reflection demonstrates how the TAR process operates in practice, revealing how affirmation and recognition jointly enable resilience and growth.

Keywords

discomfort transformative learning self-affirmation recognition TAR

Introduction

Moments of discomfort, understood here to encompass a broader range of unpleasant emotions, often mark the threshold of transformative learning, whose aim is to challenge deeply held assumptions. When previously held assumptions are challenged, learners experience disorientation, vulnerability, and emotional resistance. Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning (1991, 2000) identifies such disruptions as the catalyst for critical reflection and perspective transformation. Yet, critics have argued that Mezirow’s framework privileges rational and cognitive dimensions of psychological change while underemphasizing the affective and social dynamics that shape learners’ identities (Clark & Wilson, 1991; Cranton, 2006a, 2006; Dirkx, 1997; Fleming, 2016, 2022; Mälkki & Green, 2014; Taylor, 2017). Regarding discomfort, what remains underexplored is not that discomfort occurs during the process of transformation, but how learners stay engaged with it long enough in both personal and social contexts for genuine transformation to take place (Green, 2023; Mälkki & Green, 2014). As Mälkki and Green (2014) emphasize, advancing transformative learning requires deeper attention to the processes of transformation, particularly to the emotional experiences that shape how learners navigate and sustain engagement during moments of discomfort and uncertainty.

In response to the call for deeper inquiry into the emotional processes that underlie transformative learning, the present paper introduces an integrative theoretical framework linking transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991), self-affirmation theory (Cohen & Sherman, 2014; Steele, 1988), and recognition theory (Honneth, 1995). I argue that discomfort in transformative learning can be constructively mediated in both personal and social domains through the reciprocal processes of self-affirmation, which preserves a sense of self-integrity, and social recognition, which validates the learner’s evolving identity within relationships. Together these mechanisms explain how individuals sustain engagement with challenging their long-held assumptions despite discomfort, rather than retreating from them.

Building on the argument that discomfort in transformative learning can be mediated through the reciprocal processes of self-affirmation and social recognition, I develop what I call the Transformation-Affirmation-Recognition (TAR) model, a conceptual synthesis that extends Mezirow’s theory beyond its rational and individual dimensions to include affective and social dynamics. The model proposes that transformation unfolds as a recursive loop: discomfort provokes reflection; self-affirmation stabilizes the self internally; social recognition reinforces the change externally; and renewed reflection deepens transformation. This theoretical synthesis contributes to transformative learning scholarship by clarifying how intrapersonal and interpersonal forces work together to sustain the difficult process of confronting and revising long-held assumptions in the presence of discomfort.

The sections that follow first revisit transformative learning and the central role that discomfort plays within the transformative process, then outline the key premises of self-affirmation and recognition theories, and finally articulate the TAR model and its implications for theory and practice.

Background: Transformative Learning and Discomfort

Transformative learning theory, first articulated by Mezirow (1991, 2000), explains how adult learners change their meaning perspectives through critical reflection on previously held assumptions. In this framework, transformation begins with what Mezirow (2000) termed a “disorienting dilemma” (p. 22), a moment of profound discomfort when existing frames of reference no longer adequately explain one’s experience. Such disorientation triggers reflective discourse through which learners examine their taken-for-granted beliefs, revise them, and construct more inclusive and integrative worldviews. Thus, transformative learning involves not merely behavioral change but a fundamental shift in how one understands the self and the world.

Yet, Mezirow (2000) also recognized the profound difficulty of engaging with the discomfort that accompanies transformation. He noted that individuals’ values and sense of self are deeply rooted in their existing frames of reference, which provide stability, coherence, and belonging. Because these frames are closely tied to identity, challenges to them often provoke strong emotional resistance. Considering Mezirow’s insufficient exploration of the emotional dynamics involved in transformation, subsequent scholars have deepened the inquiry by examining the emotional terrain of transformative learning and the experiential spaces in which such difficult emotions arise (Briciu, 2025; Green, 2023; Mälkki & Green, 2014). One key concept that has guided this expanded inquiry is liminality, which describes the transitional space “betwixt and between” one stable worldview and another (Green, 2023, p. 197). Movement through this liminal space requires letting go of something that was previously foundational to one’s identity while not yet having fully adopted a new perspective. The liminal space, as Briciu (2025) illustrates, is like the moment when one foot has already left the ground and the other has not yet touched down, a suspended state between certainty and uncertainty that evokes intense and often unsettling emotions.

The important thing to note here is that inhabiting the liminal space is challenging, and most people instinctively prefer to place their foot back on familiar ground rather than remain suspended in uncertainty. As Mälkki and Green (2014) note, “we have a natural tendency to try to return to the comfort zone, to avoid dealing with the problematic assumptions” (p. 14). This pull toward the familiar is not merely cognitive but deeply biological. Neuroscientific research shows that humans are evolutionarily wired to interpret unpleasant emotions as signals of danger and pleasant emotions as cues of safety (Damasio, 2003, 2010). In this way, unpleasant emotions such as discomfort, anxiety, shame, or guilt function as warning signs that one’s existing configuration of the self is being challenged (Mälkki, 2010). As a result, when faced with the discomfort of liminality, individuals often engage in what Mälkki and Green (2014) term a “conservation impulse/orientation” (p. 13), a tendency to preserve existing meaning perspectives rather than revise them.

Although sustaining engagement with unpleasant emotions is undeniably challenging, scholars of liminality and emotion argue that it is an essential element of transformative learning (Briciu, 2025; Buechner et al., 2020; Mälkki & Green, 2014). They emphasize that one’s openness and orientation toward “edge emotions” can profoundly shape the trajectory of learning (Mälkki & Green, 2018, as cited in Briciu, 2025, p. 206). Rather than attempting to suppress or escape these unpleasant feelings, which often arise when long-held assumptions are challenged, learners can recognize that transformation becomes possible, as scholars contend, when they acknowledge such emotions, understand their protective function, and relate to them with greater agency and awareness. Taken together, unpleasant emotions are necessary yet precarious conditions for transformative learning.

To further illuminate how disruptive emotions function in transformative learning, Dewey’s (1938) transactional view of experience offers a helpful lens. For Dewey, experience is not a private, internal event but a relational phenomenon arising in the space between the person and the world. Disruptive emotions signal not merely inner disturbance but a rupture in the ongoing transaction between one’s current meaning-making and the demands of the situation. These moments of disruption are not merely psychological states but embodied shifts, being touched, unsettled, or stirred, that indicate changes in one’s ongoing engagement with the environment (Alma, 2020). These ruptures, however subtle, create conditions for reflection because they reveal that habitual ways of navigating the world are no longer sufficient. In this sense, disruptive emotions are not obstacles but invitations: they mark moments when learners are being addressed by the world and called to respond in new ways.

As discussed, existing work on emotions and liminality has significantly advanced our understanding of transformative learning. Yet, further inquiry is needed into the emotional processes involved in transformation, especially given that learners respond to unsettling experiences in markedly different ways. For some learners, such as Melody in Berger (2004), edge emotions are frightening and deeply destabilizing. When her assumptions were challenged in her school context, she scrambled for firm ground by restoring a dichotomy between the “evil people” at her school and herself as “a beacon of light.” Rather than questioning whether her categories might be overly rigid, she retreated into the certainty of her existing meaning framework, ultimately deciding she needed to leave the school to preserve her sense of self.

In contrast, Kathleen in Berger (2004), an articulate executive who was unexpectedly asked to step down from the influential government position she had held for many years, illustrates learners who interpret uncertainty as a generative opening. Instead of retreating, she leaned into disorientation, treating it as a productive space for questioning and reconstruction. These divergent responses along a continuum of emotional experiences raise a central question: what enables some learners to remain engaged with discomfort and to tolerate ambiguity, vulnerability, and emotional instability while others withdraw from it? This question highlights the need to further investigate emotional processes in transformative learning.

In response to the call, the following section introduces two complementary frameworks, self-affirmation theory and recognition theory, which together account for both the intrapersonal regulation of unpleasant emotions and the interpersonal experience of validation. Integrating these perspectives allows us to reinterpret transformative learning as not only a cognitive and rational process but also an affective and relational one, providing a more nuanced understanding of how learners navigate the liminal, emotionally charged terrain of transformation.

Conceptual Foundations: Self-Affirmation and Recognition Theories

Transformative learning theory’s underemphasis on affective regulation and social relatedness can be addressed by integrating insights from two complementary frameworks: self-affirmation theory and recognition theory. Each offers a missing mechanism that explains how learners negotiate the tension between unpleasant emotions and growth during transformation. Together, they clarify how transformation is sustained through both internal and external sources of validation.

Self-Affirmation Theory

Self-affirmation theory (Cohen & Sherman, 2014; Steele, 1988) posits that individuals are motivated to maintain a sense of self-integrity, the belief that they are good, moral, and capable of acting consistently with their values. When this integrity is threatened, people experience psychological discomfort and unease similar to the disorienting dilemma that initiates transformative learning. To cope with such threats, individuals engage in self-affirmation by reflecting on values that are central to their identity but unrelated to the immediate source of threat. According to the theory, affirming one positive aspect of the self can help offset or “replace” the negative implications of another. For example, a stressed employee may restore self-regard by caring for their children or reflecting on the personal importance of family. Similarly, a smoker facing social judgment about self-control might reaffirm self-worth by investing greater effort in professional achievement. Engaging in self-affirmation in this way relies on the understanding that the self is multifaceted; a threat to one domain does not invalidate the integrity of the self as a whole (Critcher & Dunning, 2015). By anchoring oneself in alternative, equally valued domains, individuals can buffer threats and maintain psychological stability.

Cohen and Sherman (2014) describe this buffering process as part of a cycle of adaptive potential, a recursive feedback loop that amplifies resilience through three interrelated mechanisms: recursion, interaction, and subjective construal. In recursion, affirming oneself in one important domain strengthens the self-concept, promoting future goal attainment. In interaction, others’ positive responses to one’s affirmed identity reinforce that identity. In subjective construal, future adverse events are interpreted more benignly, as the strengthened self-concept shapes perception. Together, these processes create cumulative psychological resilience, reducing defensiveness and enabling open engagement with challenging information. For instance, when a student’s sense of worth is threatened because they struggle in sports, self-affirmation may initiate a recursive feedback loop. First, affirming competence in academics enhances confidence and performance; second, positive recognition from peers and teachers reinforces this self-view; and third, the student approaches future challenges with greater assurance. Through these recursive processes, the student buffers against future threats, such as poor athletic performance, by maintaining a bolstered self-concept grounded in an academically strong identity.

The capacity for self-affirmation aligns with the preceding discussion, particularly Dewey’s (1938) transactional account of experience, as it emerges through ongoing interactions with one’s social and environmental contexts. Like Dewey’s conception of experience as a relational and developmental phenomenon, self-affirmation is not an innate trait but a capacity cultivated over time, strengthened through repeated engagements with valued aspects of the self and socially mediated feedback. Individuals gradually learn to recognize, articulate, and draw strength from personally important values through ongoing transactions with their environments, including familial expectations, school contexts, and cultural narratives. Each iteration of the recursive cycle described by Cohen and Sherman (2014), consisting of successful affirmation, positive social feedback, and more benign construal of future threats, strengthens one’s sense that it is one’s values that offer a reliable psychological anchor. Over time, such cumulative experiences foster a developmental form of resilience: a learned capacity to return to core commitments in the face of threat.

In light of the developmental perspective on resilience, the way self-affirmation develops over time through repeated engagement with valued aspects of the selfhighlights that self-affirmation is not purely self-referential. Drawing on Asch (1954), Cohen and Sherman (2014) suggest that the self during the self-affirmation process is inherently oriented toward its surroundings, seeking connection, recognition, and collaborative engagement. In that sense, self-affirmation is often understood as a form of “social”-affirmation, a capacity forged through relational experiences (Cohen & Sherman, 2014, p. 361). From this relational perspective, self-affirmation is not pre-given but emerges through the continuous reconstruction of experience within a web of social and environmental transactions, echoing Dewey’s (1938) conviction that growth arises through relational engagement with the world.

Recognition Theory

Recognition theory (Honneth, 1995) emphasizes the social conditions through which individuals achieve self-realization. According to Honneth (1995), personal identity develops through being recognized by others in three domains: love, rights, and solidarity. The first, love, gives rise to self-confidence and develops through intimate relationships grounded in care, friendship, and emotional attachment. Through such early experiences of being valued for one’s uniqueness, individuals acquire a basic trust in themselves and in others, which fosters the psychological security necessary for later identity formation. The second, rights, fosters self-respect by recognizing individuals as morally and legally mature persons who are entitled to participate as autonomous agents within social and legal systems. Legal recognition, such as civil and equality rights, institutionalizes this acknowledgment, affirming both the authority and legitimacy of one’s participation in social discourse. By being recognized in this way, individuals develop self-respect and the capacity for rational and moral agency, which supports their ongoing identity formation. The third, solidarity, nurtures self-esteem through the appreciation of one’s contributions to shared social practices, such as work or communal activity. When a community acknowledges a person’s capabilities as meaningful and valuable, that recognition strengthens both individual self-worth and collective bonds. Together, these three dimensions, self-confidence, self-respect, and self-esteem, constitute the affective, moral, and social bases of identity development, illustrating how recognition operates as a fundamental condition for human flourishing.

Taylor (2021) identifies recognition as a “vital human need,” emphasizing that without being seen and valued by others, we cannot develop a coherent sense of self (p. 26). Our identity is formed and continually shaped by interactions with significant others, whose opinions, care, and attention matter to us, because it is only in relation to others that we come to perceive and evaluate our own beliefs, desires, values, and abilities (Habermas, 1992; Honneth, 1995). This relational conception of the self is grounded in earlier social theories, particularly G. H. Mead’s (1974) account of the self as arising from communicative and symbolic interaction. Mead argues that the self develops only by taking the role of the other, internalizing social perspectives, and participating in shared practices. Honneth (1995) builds on this tradition, extending Mead’s insights by conceptualizing self-realization as an intersubjective process structured around normative patterns of recognition. From Honneth’s perspective, individuals become aware of their uniqueness, moral worth, and capacities through the reciprocal acknowledgment, affirmation, and sometimes challenge offered by others.

Even seemingly solitary lives, such as a hermit devoted to God or an artist creating for a future audience, illustrate this relational nature of identity, as their sense of self is constituted through interaction, direct or indirect, with others (Taylor, 2021); for example, a hermit experiences interaction with God through prayer, while an artist engages with a future audience through their work. Identity, therefore, is not a self-contained possession but a social accomplishment, arising within the dialogical contexts that precede individual autonomy. Before any act of individuation, we are already interconnected, and our capacity for growth, and participation in social life depends on these relational bonds of recognition (Boyd, 1991; Honneth, 1995, 2014).

Complementarity of the Two Frameworks

Taken together, self-affirmation and recognition theories reveal a dynamic interplay between internal validation and social acknowledgment. Both self-affirmation and recognition respond to a fundamental human need for integrity and belonging, yet they operate at different levels: self-affirmation concerns how the self stabilizes itself, whereas recognition concerns how the self becomes stabilized in relation to others. Although the capacity for self-affirmation develops through socially rich experiences, its primary role is intrapersonal: it equips individuals with the psychological resources needed to face threat, regulate discomfort, and reorganize meaning. In other words, self-affirmation functions as an inward negotiation with vulnerability. When individuals face threats to their integrity, they reaffirm values that remind them of who they are and what they stand for. Reaffirming these values is not a defensive denial but an active reconstruction of meaning that transforms emotional threat into a renewed sense of purpose. By reconnecting with valued domains, such as academics, family, creativity, or justice, individuals restore psychological balance and remain receptive to disorienting information.

By comparison, recognition ensures that the outcomes of self-affirmation do not remain isolated within the self. When others acknowledge, appreciate, and respond positively to the newly affirmed dimensions of one’s identity, recognition converts a private insight into a socially grounded reality. It provides affective confirmation (“you are seen”), moral validation (“you are right to claim this”), and communal inclusion (“you belong here”). Through such responses, recognition strengthens the very values that self-affirmation draws upon, reinforcing the coherence of the self-concept and enabling the individual to inhabit the affirmed identity with greater confidence. What begins as an internal reconstruction of meaning thus gains durability through relational affirmation.

The two processes of affirmation and recognition thus form a recursive and mutually reinforcing cycle. Self-affirmation provides the internal resources to face threat and rearticulate meaning; recognition embeds that renewed self-concept in relationships that sustain, validate, and extend it. In transformative learning, this interplay allows learners not only to endure disorienting dilemmas but to grow through them. Self-affirmation fosters openness to unfamiliar perspectives by stabilizing the self internally, while recognition consolidates and amplifies that openness through supportive social engagement. The learner’s sense of integrity is therefore maintained, expanded, and continually renewed through the interaction of internal affirmation and external recognition, a dynamic that forms the conceptual foundation of the Transformation-Affirmation-Recognition (TAR) model introduced in the following section.

Toward an Integrative Framework: The Transformation-Affirmation-Recognition (TAR) Model

The preceding discussion highlights that discomfort acts as both a catalyst and a potential barrier: it can initiate transformation, yet it can also overwhelm the learner’s sense of stability. The key question, therefore, is how learners sustain engagement with discomfort rather than retreating from it. The Transformation-Affirmation-Recognition (TAR) model addresses this question by explaining how transformative learning is maintained through the reciprocal dynamics of self-affirmation and social recognition. It reframes transformation not as a linear shift from ignorance to enlightenment but as a recursive process of restoring and expanding the integrity of the self through internal and relational validation.

The Recursive Dynamics of Transformation

The TAR model posits that discomfort becomes transformative when it is mediated by interdependent processes of intrapersonal affirmation and interpersonal recognition. Transformation unfolds through a four-phase recursive cycle:

(1) Discomfort and Disorientation: A challenging experience disrupts prior assumptions, producing emotional tension and uncertainty.

(2) Self-Affirmation (Internal Stabilization): The learner reaffirms core values and self-worth, maintaining psychological openness despite the threat.

(3) Social Recognition (External Validation): Through dialogue and interaction, the learner receives acknowledgment that legitimizes the emerging self-understanding.

(4) Deepened Transformation: Supported by both affirmation and recognition, the learner integrates new insights into a more inclusive frame of reference until the next cycle of discomfort begins.

This recursive process of the TAR model can be illustrated through Mezirow’s (2000) example of a woman who enrolls in an adult education class. She begins to feel discomfort when noticing that other women stay after class for discussion while she feels compelled to return home to prepare dinner for her husband. This experience of meeting women who possess different ways of thinking and behaving challenges her long-held assumption that a “good woman” prioritizes domestic duty over intellectual pursuit, generating tension between social expectation and personal desire. Within the TAR framework, this moment of encountering new perspectives constitutes the first stage, disorientation, in which emotional discomfort signals the destabilization of an identity anchor.

In the self-affirmation stage, she reclaims stability by affirming an alternative value, her curiosity and capacity for learning. Affirming her curiosity and capacity for learning does not deny her discomfort but reinterprets it, transforming emotional threat into a reaffirmation of purpose. By highlighting a valued, non-threatened domain of self (as a passionate learner rather than a failing homemaker), she restores coherence and psychological openness. Cognitive research supports this buffering mechanism: human attention is selective and finite (Pittman & Youngs, 2021); redirecting attention toward an affirming domain diminishes the salience of threat-related thoughts. Thus, by refocusing on her learning identity, the woman mitigates discomfort stemming from her identity as a failing homemaker while preserving a coherent sense of self centered on her identity as a passionate learner.

The third stage, social recognition, extends this inward affirmation into the relational sphere. As she participates more fully in class, she begins to experience acknowledgment from peers and instructors, who listen to, encourage, and value her insights. Such recognition affirms that her newly highlighted self is legitimate and meaningful. In Honneth’s (1995) terms, she gains self-confidence through emotional support, self-respect through being treated as an autonomous participant, and self-esteem through the appreciation of her contributions to collective learning. These experiences not only consolidate her emerging identity but also expand her social belonging. In a longitudinal study of non-traditional university students in Ireland, Fleming and Finnegan (2014) found that many graduates with transformative experiences went on to teaching or pursued further study, reflecting a commitment to giving back to their communities. Similarly, the woman in Mezirow’s (2000) example may begin to envision ways of contributing, indicating that her learning extends beyond personal growth to social engagement.

Through these recursive exchanges of affirmation and recognition, discomfort gradually shifts from a destabilizing force to a generative one. What once felt like a personal failing becomes an opening to reexamine broader cultural assumptions about gender, duty, and self-worth. Each subsequent encounter with tension, whether at home or in new learning contexts, reactivates the TAR cycle, allowing learners to reinterpret experience through the dual resources of internal affirmation and external recognition. Transformation, in this view, is not a singular event but an ongoing capacity: the ability to sustain integrity, openness, and connection amid the continual challenges of growth.

Illustrative Reflection: A Case of Transformation in Practice

To demonstrate how the TAR model operates in lived experience, I offer a brief reflective illustration from my own learning journey. Whereas the previous section used Mezirow’s (2000) example to conceptually trace the interaction of self-affirmation and recognition, this reflection grounds those dynamics in a lived and affective context. The goal is not to present empirical data but to illuminate, through reflection, how the intertwined processes of affirmation and recognition can sustain engagement with discomfort during transformation.

A few years ago, I experienced a period of intense anxiety accompanied by obsessive–compulsive patterns of thought and behavior. This condition disrupted my daily routines and undermined my sense of competence as both a teacher and scholar. In Mezirow’s (2000) terms, it represented a disorienting dilemma: my habitual ways of thinking and acting no longer made sense, and I was forced to confront the assumptions that I was self-controlled, capable, and worthy. The discomfort was not merely cognitive but existential, threatening the coherence of my identity.

The turning point emerged through self-affirmation. In moments of distress, I began to recall the values that had always guided my work: developing ideas through writing, sharing them with readers and students, and believing in collaborative learning. Reflecting on these commitments allowed me to separate my worth from my temporary incapacity. This inner anchoring reduced defensiveness and created space for self-inquiry: Why had the feeling of control and certainty become so central to my sense of competence? Could vulnerability itself, through acknowledging uncertainty and anxiety, deepen my understanding of what it means to teach and learn? Through this process of affirmation, discomfort shifted from an obstacle to a signal for growth.

However, transformation did not unfold in isolation. Social recognition played an equally vital role. Conversations with colleagues, and interactions with readers and students, offered acknowledgment without judgment. Their willingness to recognize my struggle and value my work despite the challenges validated the emerging self I was trying to inhabit. Such recognition stabilized the fragile self that affirmation had begun to rebuild internally. It also encouraged me to bring greater authenticity and empathy into my professional identity, transforming not only how I saw myself but also how I related to others.

Viewed through the TAR model, my experience illustrates a recursive movement between affirmation and recognition. The disruption of my assumption of being self-controlled generated discomfort; self-affirmation preserved a sense of integrity internally; recognition reinforced that integrity relationally; and together they enabled the formation of new meaning perspectives. Although discomfort still returns, as my anxiety has not disappeared, it now carries the memory of prior growth, making engagement with it more resilient.

The preceding experience highlights that transformative learning is not merely a cognitive shift but a psychosocial process grounded in the dialectic between inner affirmation and outer recognition. When learners, educators, or professionals face profound uncertainty, transformation becomes possible not by escaping discomfort, but by holding it within a network of values and relationships that affirm one’s evolving humanity.

Implications

Reinterpreting Discomfort as a Developmental Resource

Much of the mainstream transformative learning literature, particularly work building on Mezirow (1991), tends to emphasize cognitive or perspective transformation rather than explicitly analyzing emotional processes. These previous studies focus on challenging and critically reflecting on assumptions, while the emotional component is often assumed rather than explicitly theorized or measured (Briciu, 2025; Green, 2023; Mälkki & Green, 2014). The Transformation-Affirmation-Recognition (TAR) model, as discussed earlier, addresses this gap by reframing discomfort as a developmental resource: a generative space in which values, emotions, and social belonging are renegotiated. From the TAR model perspective, educators and facilitators need not strive to eliminate discomfort but rather to scaffold learners’ capacity to remain within it in a psychologically safe and pedagogically purposeful manner.

To foster such reframing from eliminating discomfort to holding it, learners must experience the constructive potential of discomfort directly. One pedagogical strategy involves encouraging students to formulate arguments that diverge from dominant assumptions or widely accepted norms, thereby engaging the discomfort that accompanies such divergence (Cranton, 2002). While Mezirow (2000) warns against an “argument culture” that weaponizes reasoning to assert superiority, this caution does not preclude argumentation itself (p. 11). Instead, TAR posits that robust argumentation, when situated within a climate of respect and openness, can serve as a crucial driver of intellectual and personal development. Historically, profound transformations in knowledge and society have emerged from arguments that initially provoked discomfort: the recognition of a heliocentric universe and the emergence of new social paradigms all required a departure from the comfort of consensus. Highlighting such examples helps students understand that the unease accompanying novel perspectives is not a sign of failure or inadequacy, but rather an indication of engagement with transformative thinking. As students craft original arguments, they often experience a sense of authorship and agency that reconfigures discomfort into pride and self-affirmation.

Equally vital is providing opportunities for students to share their developing ideas with others. Sharing facilitates both articulation and recognition: it allows learners to externalize internal reflections while encountering the perspectives of their peers. When students post essays, reflections, or multimedia projects to discussion boards or collaborative forums, their work transitions from a private dialogue with the instructor to a communal exchange in which peers can read, respond, and acknowledge their contributions. This reciprocal process extends transformation from the individual domain to the relational, enabling learners to experience recognition through participation in a collective intellectual community.

Incorporating structured sharing also cultivates learners’ awareness of their social positioning, a central dimension of recognition. Assignments designed for visibility, such as peer feedback, group analysis, or collaborative projects, prompt students to reflect on how their ideas resonate with or challenge those of others. Yet, the range of recognition can extend well beyond the classroom. Even when the activity occurs in an academic setting, students can be invited to consider how their learning connects with broader communities and future professional or civic roles. For instance, reflective prompts might ask: How might your future career contribute to the well-being of a community or society? What kind of social or ethical change would you like to be part of? Encouraging students to imagine their stance, values, and aspirations within a wider social context expands both the scope of their recognition and their sense of responsibility. Recognition thus becomes not only interpersonal but also societal, anchored in the desire to participate meaningfully in the collective life of the world.

Through these practices, classrooms evolve into dialogic spaces where discomfort is not suppressed but reinterpreted as a catalyst for intellectual discovery and mutual recognition. By guiding learners to engage productively with discomfort rather than avoid it, educators can facilitate deeper forms of transformative learning that integrate cognitive, emotional, and relational growth.

Reconnecting Individual and Collective Transformation

The TAR model bridges the often-separated domains of individual meaning transformation and collective social change. Whereas much of the early criticism of transformative learning charged Mezirow with privileging private cognition over public action (Collard & Law, 1989), TAR rearticulates the relationship between self and society in explicitly relational terms. When self-affirmation and recognition occur reciprocally within a community, they generate what Honneth (1995) calls “mutual recognition” (p. 92), a condition that simultaneously enables personal autonomy and social solidarity. In this sense, transformation is not a purely inward event but a social process that unfolds through the dialogic interplay of individual agency and collective life.

Framing transformation in relational terms helps clarify a persistent misunderstanding of Mezirow’s perspectives on social change. Critics such as Collard and Law (1989) have argued that transformative learning neglects structural and collective dimensions of change. Mezirow (1989), however, rejected the notion that individual perspective transformation is socially irrelevant. He observed that individual transformations, such as women redefining gendered roles, managers reimagining organizational power, or teachers conducting collaborative action research, can and do aggregate into forms of social action. As Mezirow (1989) emphasized, “There can be no simple linear relationship between transformative learning and social action; there are many kinds of transformative learning and many kinds of social action” (p. 174). From this perspective, individual change is not the antithesis of collective change but one of its generative pathways.

The TAR model extends Mezirow’s (1989) argument by providing a conceptual framework for understanding how individual and collective transformation are interwoven through processes of affirmation and recognition. When learners affirm new aspects of self-understanding and receive recognition from others for doing so, a relational circuit of transformation is established. In classrooms, this reciprocity allows transformation to move beyond the learner’s private insight toward the reconstitution of shared norms and values. Through mutual recognition, participants co-create new definitions of what counts as valid, ethical, or possible within their community. Transformation thus becomes not merely self-change but world-change in miniature, a dynamic process through which personal reorientation feeds into collective reimagining.

By situating individual learning within networks of recognition, TAR aligns with the broader aims of critical social theory without reducing transformation to overt political activism. Instead, it suggests that the social significance of learning resides in the reconfiguration of relationships, meanings, and practices that occur whenever individuals engage one another in reflective discourse. As Mezirow (1989) reminds us, “reflective dialogue represents the most distinctively human attribute, the capacity to learn the meaning of one’s own experience and to realize the value potential in nature through communication” (p. 174). TAR makes explicit how such communicative learning simultaneously nurtures individual emancipation and social renewal.

Through this reconnection of the personal and the collective, educators can cultivate environments in which learners not only question assumptions but also participate in reshaping the shared world they inhabit. In doing so, transformative learning becomes both a personal and a civic endeavor, an educational praxis oriented toward mutual recognition, democratic participation, and the ongoing evolution of social life.

Conclusion

This paper has proposed the Transformation-Affirmation-Recognition (TAR) model as a conceptual framework for understanding transformation as a dynamic interplay between self-affirmation and social recognition. Drawing on theories of transformation (Mezirow, 1991), self-affirmation (Steele, 1988), and recognition (Honneth, 1995), the model reframes transformation not as a solely cognitive shift in perspective, but as a psychosocial process in which individuals sustain engagement with discomfort through reciprocal affirmation and recognition.

Through the TAR lens, transformation emerges as a movement between the inner and outer dimensions of the self. Self-affirmation provides an internal sense of continuity and worth when long-held beliefs or identities are disrupted. Social recognition, in turn, validates the evolving self within a relational and cultural context. These processes are mutually generative: affirmation makes recognition possible by stabilizing the self; recognition deepens affirmation by mirroring one’s humanity through others. Transformation, therefore, is neither purely private nor entirely social, but a relational achievement sustained by this dialectical motion.

Ultimately, the TAR model argues that transformation is not about replacing one set of beliefs with another, but about learning to live generatively within the tension of becoming. Affirmation and recognition together allow individuals and communities to inhabit this tension without collapse, sustaining openness, vulnerability, and curiosity even amid uncertainty. In this sense, transformative learning is not the endpoint of development but an ongoing relational practice, a way of staying human while we change.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Youngji Son

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alma

(2020). Art and religion as invitation: An exploration based on John Dewey’s theory of experience and imagination. Perichoresis, 18(3), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2020-0015

Asch

(1954). Social psychology. Prentice-Hall.

Berger

J. G.

(2004). Dancing on the threshold of meaning: Recognizing and understanding the growing edge. Journal of Transformative Education, 2(4), 336–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344604267697

Boyd

R. D.

(1991). Personal transformations in small groups: A Jungian perspective. Routledge.

Briciu

(2025). Emotions and meaning in transformative learning: Theory U as a liminal experience. Journal of Transformative Education, 23(2), 202–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446241246236

Buechner

Dirkx

Konvisser

Z. D.

Myers

Peleg-Baker

(2020). From liminality to communitas: The collective dimensions of transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 18(2), 87–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344619900881

Clark

M. C.

Wilson

A. L.

(1991). Context and rationality in Mezirow’s theory of transformational learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(2), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848191041002002

Cohen

G. L.

Sherman

D. K.

(2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 333–371. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137

Collard

Law

(1989). The limits of perspective transformation: A critique of Mezirow’s theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 39(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848189039002004

10.

Cranton

(2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 2002(93), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.50

11.

Cranton

(2006a). Fostering authentic relationships in the transformative classroom. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 2006(109), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.203

12.

Cranton

(2006b). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of adults. Jossey-Bass.

13.

Critcher

C. R.

Dunning

(2015). Self-affirmations provide a broader perspective on self-threat. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214554956

14.

Damasio

A. R.

(2003). Looking for Spinoza. Joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain. Harcourt, Inc.

15.

Damasio

A. R.

(2010). Self comes to mind. Constructing the conscious brain. Pantheon Books.

16.

Dewey

(1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Henry Holt.

17.

Dirkx

J. M.

(1997). Nurturing soul in adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997(74), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7409

18.

Fleming

(2016). Reclaiming the emancipatory potential of adult education: Honneth’s critical theory and the struggle for recognition. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 7(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela9077

19.

Fleming

(2022). Transformative learning and critical theory: Making connections with Habermas, Honneth, and Negt. In Nicolaides

Eschenbacher

Buergelt

P. T.

Gilpin-Jackson

Welch

Misawa

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of learning for transformation (pp. 25–43). Springer International Publishing.

20.

Fleming

Finnegan

(2014). A critical journey toward lifelong learning: Including non-traditional students in university. In Loxley

Seery

Walsh

(Eds.), Higher education in Ireland: Practices, policies and possibilities (pp. 146–159). Palgrave Macmillan.

21.

Green

(2023). No ground: Disorientation as prerequisite for transformation. Journal of Transformative Education, 21(2), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446221105577

22.

Habermas

(1992). Postmetaphysical thinking: Philosophical essays. MIT Press.

23.

Honneth

(1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. MIT Press.

24.

Honneth

(2014). Freedom’s right: The social foundations of democratic life. Columbia University Press.

25.

Mälkki

(2010). Building on Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning: Theorizing the challenges to reflection. Journal of Transformative Education, 8(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344611403315

26.

Mälkki

Green

(2014). Navigational aids: The phenomenology of transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 12(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344614541171

27.

Mälkki

Green

(2018). Working with edge emotions as a means for uncovering problematic assumptions: Developing a practically sound theory. Revue Érudit, Tampere University. https://researchportal.tuni.fi/en/publications/working-with-edge-emotions-as-ameans-for-

28.

Mead

G. H.

(1974). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago University Press.

29.

Mezirow

(1989). Transformation theory and social action: A response to collard and law. Adult Education Quarterly, 39(3), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848189039003005

30.

Mezirow

(1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.

31.

Mezirow

(2000). Learning to think like an adult. In Mezirow

(Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3–33). Jossey-Bass.

32.

Pittman

C. M.

Youngs

W. H.

(2021). Rewire your OCD brain: Powerful neuroscience-based skills to break free from obsessive thoughts and fears. New Harbinger Publications.

33.

Steele

C. M.

(1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 261–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60229-4

34.

Taylor

(2021). The politics of recognition. In Arthur

Shapiro

(Eds.), Campus wars (pp. 249–263). Routledge.

35.

Taylor

E. W.

(2017). Critical reflection and transformative learning: A critical review. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 26(2), 77–95.