The Situation of Social Constructionism

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In a recent exchange in Theory & Psychology, in which (mostly Gergen's) social constructionism was the subject of some criticism, Gergen (2001a) remarked toward the end of his response, `I no longer find the tradition of argumentation a viable one.... Yet in order to sustain the dialogue, I find myself nevertheless drawn into the ritual' (p. 431). He does not, however, expand any further on this comment. Yet, as he is someone committed to the view that constructions are `social artefacts, products of historically situated interchanges among people' (Gergen, 1985, p. 267), we feel that he should. For, to the extent that he is a participant in `the Ritual' (the ritual of theory-criticism-and-debate), it is constitutive of his own identity. Indeed, there is thus something strangely paradoxical in all discussions of social constructionist theory and metatheory within the Ritual. For participant theorists still all center their talk-talk of theoretical concepts and ideas, of theoretical structures, and of how such structures might explain human conduct-within their own self-contained consciousnesses. As a consequence, although many would like to think of themselves as having moved away from a philosophy centered in the thought and ideas of individuals, such talk fails to achieve its aim. In ignoring the fact that the topics of their talk, their debates, exist only as joint achievements, they pass each other by. In this article, we explore what is entailed in re-situating social constructionism within the dialogically structured, spontaneously responsive, living events occurring between ourselves and the others and othemesses around us.

This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit: