90 Years of Kenneth Gergen

 

SERIES: SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS AND AUTHORS IN RELATIONAL CONSTRUCTIONISM-SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM

Diego Tapia Figueroa, Ph.D. and Maritza Crespo Balderrama, M.A.

September 4, 2020

https://iryse.org/serie-aportes-y-autores-significativos-en-el-socioconstruccionismo/

“Praxis gives meaning to words.”    (Ludwig Wittgenstein)

Prologue

This Monday, December 9, 2024, the TAOS INSTITUTE community is coming together to celebrate Kenneth Gergen’s 90th birthday. We have gathered a few brief but inspiring ideas that Gergen shared during a dialogue with Sheila McNamee, which some of us were fortunate to follow from a distance:

A long and fulfilling life is supported by:

• 1. Having people who love you.
  2. Maintaining a sense of humor.
  3. Nurturing curiosity about the extraordinary things in life.
• In social constructionism, creativity lies in continuously opening doors.
• We must ask ourselves: Where is the ethics of construction?
• It is essential to incorporate and legitimize what others—especially those who are different—have to say.
• It’s about connecting with what the dialogical relationship brings forth.
• “Being in conversation is a different way to approach differences and resolve conflicts.” — Sheila McNamee.
• The key is to keep asking questions.
• Relational research aims to address the gaps that relationships create.
• How can we make diverse traditions matter and use their resources to foster transformations and create a different social ecology?
• How can we move organizations away from competition?
• How can we redesign the scaffolding for dialogue?
• We are responsible for creating a new kind of scaffolding that enables dialogue and fosters the conditions for its growth.

Kenneth Gergen (I)

We present a selection of brief concepts, reflections, ideas, and proposals from some of the leading voices in the social constructionist tradition—spanning its position, perspective, theory, and practice.

To encourage reflective reading, we have included specific textual quotes without attributing each one to its source. To support your further exploration, a reference bibliography is provided at the end for your own searches and readings.

We invite you to ignite your curiosity with these inspiring contributions.

We begin with Kenneth Gergen, Ph.D. (born December 9, 1934, in Rochester, United States).

• Language constructs reality.
• Words act as actions in a relationship.
• I am related, therefore, I am.
• …everything meaningful comes from relationships, and it is within this vortex that the future will be forged.
• The ethical question is: How do we want to live?
• Our concept of transformative dialogue emphasizes relational responsibility, self-expression, affirmation, coordination, reflexivity, and the co-creation of new realities.
• People are fully capable of coordinating their actions without performative clauses… Successful relationships require neither people with moral states in their heads nor social institutions with moral creeds.
• Concern for human well-being is rooted in the realm of human affinity. Only in relationships do people come to be identified and valued.
• Therapy, from this paradigm, is a transformative dialogue… it is the intentional genesis of meanings and narratives that can transform the construction of the experience of the consultants through a collaborative dialogue.
• (…) Psychotherapy can be thought of as a process of semiosis: the forging of meaning in the context of collaborative discourse. It is a process in which the meaning of events is transformed through a fusion of participants’ horizons, alternative ways of narrating events develop, and attitudes toward self and others evolve.
• Different forms of dialogue achieve different ends, so we are challenged to illuminate specific forms of dialogue that may be effective in particular circumstances.

• Every form of dialogue constructs worlds of the real and the good. In this sense, “transformative dialogue” is the type of dialogue that crosses the boundaries of the real and the good, renewing or restoring the process of collaborative construction.
• “Transformative dialogue” is not a natural act. Rather, it is an acquired skill, but it is not one that can be developed by a single individual.
• On the other hand, people bring to the dialogue multiple and mixed views of themselves and the world; their goals and desires are fundamentally mutable, since within themselves every dialogue creates certain forms of reality while suppressing others.
• Therefore, we must not only listen to the content that is communicated but also the implications of what is said for the relationships between the participants.
• What is at stake is not the repair of the mind, from a relational perspective, but relational transformation. Only questions, opinions, explanations, suggestions, and possibilities are mixed in a dialogical exchange, in a language game in which there is respect and collaboration. A dance, with its pauses, its rhythm, its time.
• In constructionist dialogues, attention shifts from the individual actor to coordinated relationships.
• The goal of an exploration of relational responsibility is not to change one or another defective person or to resolve a conflict. Rather, it is about broadening the spectrum of voices –“relational realities”– that are accepted in the conversation. Becoming more responsible, and more accountable (…)
• Meanings and identity are born in a context, starting from the relational principle; the self grows within the framework of exchanges and conversations in which we are inserted, and identity is the result of the narratives that each of us writes within such conversational dances.
• Indeed, constructionists try to understand the understanding of things and, in doing so, offer tools or discourses that can be used for many purposes (…) The metaphor of constructionism as a large umbrella under which there is room to shelter all the ways of creating reality, and even to welcome the apparent reality of constructionism itself.
• This postmodern stance is an exercise in freedom, a space for freedom. This makes us think of constructionism as an open, anti-dogmatic perspective, different from modernism, since it accepts its character as a space that welcomes diversity, capable of dialoguing with existing pluralism. It is a place from which a multiplicity of voices and perspectives is invited, as well as oriented towards producing changes in the local cultures that make them up.
• Constructionist arguments, in general, are opposed to fixed and final formulations, even those that they themselves develop.

 

PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM	CONTEXTUALIZED REFLECTIONS
We live in worlds of meaning. We understand and value the world and ourselves in ways that emerge from our personal history and shared culture.	The worlds we create and build are what they are precisely because we give them meaning and significance in social interaction. The understandings and evaluations we develop respond to who we are and to the culture that shapes us. We are beings of our time, and at the same time, our social contexts are loaded with different meanings that speak to us and with which we dialogue.
Worlds of meaning are intimately related to action. We act primarily in terms of what we interpret as real, rational, satisfying, and good. Without meaning, nothing would be worth doing.	It is social action that constructs the meanings of our worlds and relational contexts. We need to act, guided by a continuous interpretation of what we see as good or positive; we are guided by those meanings to discern, decide, and act accordingly.
Worlds of meaning are constructed within relationships. What is needed to be real, to be rational, is brought forth in relationships. Without relationships, there would be little meaning.	By weaving relationships, meanings arise, are created, and are constructed; it is the joint construction, a product of the links and connections. Symbolic codes, and what is defined as important, have to do with the commitment and construction that occurs in relationships. It is there that we make ourselves, understand ourselves, and can find ourselves.
New worlds of meaning are possible. We are not possessed or determined by the past. We can abandon or dissolve dysfunctional ways of life and, together, create alternatives.	It is possible to move away from determinism, both from intrapsychic archaeology and from ideologies that make the past an oppressive destiny. It is our responsibility to generate, with others, different alternatives and new lifestyles that respond to the type of person we want to be and the contexts in which we want to live.
To sustain what is valuable or to create a new future requires participation in relationships. If relationships are damaged or destroyed, we lose the ability to sustain a way of life and create new futures.	It is the free and committed participation in the relationships built in local contexts that generates new ways of understanding and interpreting reality (new contexts) that have value because they transform the participants and enable futures.
When worlds of meaning intersect, creative outcomes can emerge. New forms of relating, new realities, and new possibilities can emerge.	It is relational richness that enables the emergence of creative capacities, and it is in the diversity of perceptions, points of view, and interpretations that the meanings themselves are transformed by this shared dialogue. Furthermore, properly creative actions arise that make new alternatives possible. When worlds of meaning come into conflict, they can lead to alienation and aggression, which harm relationships and their creative potential. The lack of coordination of joint, mutually acceptable meanings imposes the logic of the power struggle, which ends up restricting and limiting not only relational possibilities and creativity but also the freedom of the participants. Through creative care of relationships, the destructive potential of conflict can be reduced or transformed. When we are present in a relationship, we care for it in practical ways because we participate in it and coordinate the paths it deserves to travel. Hence, when conflicts inherent to human beings arise, it will be easier to dismantle their destructive load or transform them positively.
The above agreements do not constitute beliefs. They are neither true nor false. Rather, they are ways of approaching life that, for many, hold great promise.	The aim is to provide a guide for practice, not a recipe book or a manual, and certainly not a dogma to follow. It is an invitation to reconstruct, with relational ethics, possible worlds and futures.

Taken from the PhD thesis. Diego Tapia Figueroa, Ph.D.

• The basic premises of social constructionism are the following:

1. Reality is a social construction;
2. Reality is a construction of language;
3. Realities are organized and maintained;
4. Reality is made up of narratives or stories;
5. There are no basic or essential truths.

• Who and what we are is constituted differently in many of these relationships, and so we all carry several different voices, each born out of a particular relationship history. By using multiple “voices” in the text, I hope that the reader will come to appreciate the various relationships from which “I, the author,” have emerged. Furthermore, with these different voices, I hope to establish relationships with a broader range of readers.
• Social constructionism …does ask professionals of all kinds two central questions: how and for whom is what you do useful? And what are the socio-political-ethical implications of taking the proposed reality seriously? Furthermore: …this process…is inevitably a form of social or political activism; any action that is carried out in a society thereby forges its future.
• What the constructionist perspective adds, however, are reflexive and creative dimensions: it recognizes the contingent nature of one’s constructions, is sensitive to their possible effects, and demonstrates an openness to generating alternatives (…) In the broadest sense, this means recognizing one’s quality as a member of a culture and one’s continued participation in the multiple enclaves of meaning.
• If there is no “final understanding” about relationships, then we can welcome all attempts to articulate their character.
• What is at stake is not determining what is the only true opinion, the only correct ethics, or the just political ideal. Rather, it is about giving people the means to act in the world with greater ease, offering them numerous opportunities to coordinate with those who, instead of wanting to eradicate any opposition, are rejected because they are different.
• Taken together, traditional practices carry with them a sense that dialogue is essentially “war by other means” and sustain the reality of separation and ultimate conflict. Yet the potential for restoring relational flow is blurred. The challenge before us is to explore forms of dialogue that do not carry with them the baggage of the bounded being. Are there ways to defuse heated conflict so that boundaries are blurred, mutuality appears, and an awareness of relational being is enhanced?
• I think that therapists of almost any school -from psychoanalysis to Buddhist meditation- can bring important resources to bear in enabling patients to escape from isolated self-torment. All can affirm the individual as a valid participant in the social world, as opposed to treating him with distrust or ignoring him. All can establish a caring relationship that contributes to the special advantage of therapy over other ways of responding to deviance. At the same time, there are fantastic variations in how much of the client’s private dispersion will be affirmed and legitimized in the conversation.
• With everything we say and do, we manifest conditions of relationship. With everything we think, remember, create, and feel -and that is important to us- we participate in a relationship. The word “I” does not indicate an origin of action but a relational achievement.

BASIC BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gergen, K. J. (1989). Postmodern psychology and the rhetoric of reality. In Tomás Ibáñez (Ed.) Knowledge of social reality (157-185). Barcelona, Spain: Sendai.

Gergen, K. (1992). The saturated self. Identity dilemmas in the contemporary world. Barcelona, Spain. Editorial Paidós.

Gergen, K (1996). Realities and relationships. Approaches to social construction. Barcelona, Spain. Editorial Paidós.

McNamee, Sheila and Gergen, K. et al. (1996). Therapy as a social construction. Barcelona, Spain. Editorial Paidós.

Gergen, K. (2007). Social constructionism, contributions to debate and practice. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, CESO, Ediciones Uniandes.

Gergen, K. (March 26, 2009). Interview at the School of Psychology of Adolfo Ibáñez University. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUirLCs9LIw

Gergen, Kenneth J. (2010). Kenneth Gergen, PhD., Speaking on Social Constructionism. The Taos Institute. Retrieved November 24, 2013 from http://vimeo.com/20869747

Gergen, K. and Gergen, M. (2011). Reflections on social construction. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Paidós.

Gergen, J. (2011). Constructing reality. The future of psychotherapy. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Paidós.

Gergen, K. (2013). The poetic dimension: therapeutic possibilities. In Deissler , K. & McNamee , S. (Ed) Filo and Sofia in dialogue. (pp. 68-75) Ohio, USA: Ed. Taos Institute Publication .

Gergen, K. (2016). The relational being. Bilbao, Spain: Editorial Desclèe De Brouwer.

Tapia Figueroa, Diego, Thesis (2018) for the Ph.D. with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) and the TAOS INSTITUTE.

Taos Institute page containing books and publications by Kenneth Gergen.

 

SERIES: SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS AND AUTHORS IN RELATIONAL CONSTRUCTIONISM-SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM

September 18, 2020

https://iryse.org/serie-aportes-y-autores-significativos-en-el-socioconstruccionismo-2/

Diego Tapia Figueroa, Ph.D. and Maritza Crespo Balderrama, M.A.

“Praxis gives meaning to words.”

(Ludwig Wittgenstein)

Kenneth Gergen (II)

We present a selection of brief concepts, reflections, ideas, and proposals from some of the main exponents of the social constructionist position, perspective, theory, and practice. To facilitate reflective reading, we provide specific textual quotes without citing the sources each time. Instead, we include a reference bibliography at the end, allowing you to conduct your own searches and delve deeper into these ideas.

This is an invitation to spark your curiosity about these fascinating contributions. We begin with Kenneth Gergen, Ph.D. (December 9, 1934, Rochester, United States). Below is the second and final part of Gergen’s contributions.

• Individuals by themselves cannot mean anything; their actions are meaningless until they are coordinated with others.
• The therapist’s skill lies more in knowing how than in knowing what… in their fluidity within the relationship and in their ability to collaborate in the creation of new futures. It is about finding ways to broaden the vision they have about what is happening to them.
• Therapeutic conversations will “make sense” more effectively when they are continuous with those of the culture. When the client can coordinate the therapeutic discourse with their external life, the therapy is more likely to be successful.
• Different forms of dialogue achieve different ends, so we are challenged to illuminate specific forms of dialogue that may be effective in particular circumstances.
• Every form of dialogue constructs worlds of the real and the good. In that sense, “transformative dialogue” is the kind of dialogue that crosses the boundaries of the real and the good, renewing or restoring the process of collaborative construction. “Transformative dialogue” is not a natural act. Rather, it is an acquired skill, but not one that can be developed by a single individual. On the other hand, people bring to dialogue multiple and mixed views of themselves and the world; their goals and desires are fundamentally mutable since every dialogue creates certain forms of reality while suppressing others. Therefore, we must not only listen to the content that is communicated but also to the implications of what is said for the relationships between the participants. This is what the importance of productive and transformative dialogues is all about.
• If I express doubts to someone about my parents’ love for me, and the person responds by asking, “What is the weather forecast for tomorrow?” then they have failed to include my person -that is, my being- in their response. On the contrary, if their response includes the meaning of what I have expressed -possibly consternation at my question- then I find myself in the other person, thereby locating the “I” who has just spoken. At the same time, the “I” is no longer entirely mine, since it is the other person who has generated the expression. By speaking in this way, the person brings us closer and, at the same time, invites us to respond “metonymically” on our part. It is in the metonymic reflection on that which is common to us, and it is in this reflection, that the poetic dimension finds its fulfillment.
• An invitation to research that is always oriented towards the future -even when researching the past- is future-forming. When choosing methodologies and methods, it is necessary that they relate to the context and the co-researchers.
• It encourages social science research to move beyond the problematic convention of “reflecting” our rapidly changing world toward a formative, imaginative, and proactive inquiry that is explicitly liberatory, practice-productive, and action-centered.
• I much prefer research that emphasizes collaborative participation, and as I wrote in a previous answer, I greatly value honing critical deliberation. However, having spent a few years in somewhat rebellious activities, I can now see its limits. In particular, there is a tendency to construct the “evil Other.” Now, I look for ways in which those against whom we rebel can collaborate with us.

• Social constructionist research is primarily concerned with addressing the processes by which people come to describe, explain, or otherwise account for the world (including themselves) in which they live. If, as I propose, meaning arises from relational processes, then it follows that the concept of the individual mind results essentially from relation.
• But you might ask, what if we suspended the mirror metaphor and its invitation to study that which captures our gaze? Metaphorically speaking, what if we closed our eyes and began to imagine those worlds of our hopes? What if we replaced our constant rush to “make the case” and began to ask, “What kind of world can we build?” This would place the values of the researcher at the beginning of all his or her activities. Rather than being a latent force in his or her choice of terminology or methodology, and in the vain hope that an absent audience will somehow -or another- make use of one’s work, what if these visions filled with purpose and passion fueled our beginning of inquiry? Given a valued vision as far as possible, the challenge of research would be not to illuminate what is, but to create what is to be. Herein lies the essence of research-oriented toward shaping futures.
• The important thing about the relational perspective is to create and elaborate a space of understanding, in which the focus lies in the process of the relationship. What someone says will have value and meaning when the other receives it and does something different with it. The value lies in the well-being of the process. Doing relational research to build the future; futures that really matter to us. The method that guides us in doing is what is happening between the co-researchers, not what is dictated by some manual, protocol, tool, technique, institution, or theory.
• Relational research seeks to make people involved in the dialogue feel like active participants in the proposed process, ensuring that this conversational space becomes their own. This sense of belonging allows them to rethink their present and project themselves into the future, thereby generating well-being for all.
• Let us then look at the possibilities that we bring to this dialogue (…) Each one brings with them a world of possibilities (…).
• Social constructionism asks professionals of all kinds two central questions: How and for whom is what you do useful? And what are the socio-political and ethical implications of taking the proposed reality seriously? Furthermore, this process is inevitably a form of social or political activism: any action taken in society thus forges its future.
• Being relationally responsible is above all about sustaining the process of co-creating meaning. In relational responsibility, we avoid the implicit narcissism of ethical calls to “care for the self.” We also avoid the self/other split that arises from the imperative to “care for the other.” When we are relationally responsible, we abandon the individualistic tradition, and caring for the relationship becomes paramount.
• What matters most are practices that invite the productive co-creation of meaning, and, more especially, those that break down barriers of antipathy. In that sense, we can focus on practices that help us navigate the tumultuous waters of relationships, create community, and replace conflict with coordination.
• On the question of ethics and politics: From a constructionist perspective, there are no limits to creating the future. Here, you have a program (the Taos Institute Ph.D. studies) that questions those limits, goes beyond them, and expresses multiplicity and polyvocality.
• As we have already seen, the premises that guide constructionist dialogues are:
  1. The objects and events of the world do not determine the words we should use to refer to them; that is, the world does not provide a vocabulary for talking about it.
  2. Our ways of describing, explaining, and representing are social products situated historically and culturally.
  3. Language acquires meaning through its use within patterns of relationships. Our ways of accounting for the world or the self are maintained or transformed by the vicissitudes of the social process. (“…what is, simply is…”)

• The questioning of the ethical and political aspects is the sense of the traditional and rigorous measure, a kind of imperialist quality of doing it, which says that I am assigned to measure you, I put you under the microscope and tell you who you are, I am going to measure you according to my standards of what is good. Constructionism is not very happy with these ethical ways of doing research and not with political issues if you use realistic methods. There are many methods, there are ways of measuring, and so is constructionism, if you want to understand the reality that you are creating. Many constructionists say that I do not have the essential truth; I have a point, however, I want to leave a space for others to speak, and I want to leave the space to have a dialogue about this. So, work on that a little bit, do not try to say it can only be this way and there is no other way to truth.
• Doing research for what and for whom? Who benefits from research? Relational research is aimed at creating the future and not at looking at the past. It has to do with: What kind of society do we want to build? Who do we want to see involved? Not concentrating on looking at the past but on what kind of co-constructions we want to reach. Relational research must be seen as an orientation, a sensitivity about whether we live in a relational world: What kind of world are we having, and what world do we want to create? Things make sense depending on what you do with what I tell you or do.
• If constructionism invites us to new ways of understanding and acting, how would this relate to caring for others, to caring for relationships to create possibilities for the future?
• Your question makes a lot of sense; it is crucial: How do you take care of relationships? In practice, how do you take care of relationships? Not yourself, not the other person, but the process of the relationship in every way in which those relationships are sustained and strengthened. Now, the question is about how we should face these challenges today. By relating to the community, you have the opportunity to have a perspective of engagement on how communities work. If you go to another community, you find that they have problems related to relationships. And that is the challenge: this is the question that I think everyone should try to work on. It means seeing that the other party also, even in daily life, always faces complexities, problems, interruptions, and disagreements about relationships, all of this cuts and hurts relationships. What kind of resources do you need to continue with your daily life that allow you to sustain relationships? What kind of language do you need to use to sustain relationships? What do you say, how do you say, what do you do? For me, this is a question about dialogue, how do we take care of dialogue? There can be many forms. How are we responsible for relationships? It is a responsibility and relational ethics.
• I can do the action, but you have to give it something back so that it can have meaning. It is when we coordinate our actions that the world comes to life.

 

• One of the joys of living many years is that you can tune into the process of life again, much more fully. You can take a walk – not to get somewhere, but to enjoy the scenery or a passing conversation.
• We can run or cycle, not as a means of training, but for the pleasure of movement. We can paint, cook, do some carpentry, go fishing, write poetry, read a book, carry on a conversation, or work in the garden; not to accomplish some goal, but for the sheer pleasure of doing these things.
• Sure, they may be good results of our efforts. But now it is the process that counts; any achievement is just the icing on the cake.
• How do we reason, if we live in constructed worlds, wouldn’t we be better off with an approach that allows us the difference that disables those conventional ideas?
• At the same time, our orientation toward positive aging is not simply about staying on the bright side of life. It also means finding ways to travel through life’s dark valleys without falling into despair and discovering meaning even in the shadows.
• And, because there are many ups and downs throughout the days of recovery, it is important to select that moment that will allow me to come to a positive conclusion… If I am careful to select the right moment of comparison, today is much brighter.
• Friends and family are invitations to step outside of myself. When I am alone, my focus often remains on myself… aware of every pain, and with pain, every sign that things can go wrong. I live –when there is pain– in a grey-to-black world in which it is so difficult to imagine myself any other way. Friends and family are potent invitations to step outside of this pit. The important point is to shift the conversation as quickly as possible away from myself stuck in pain, towards their lives. As they talk about their issues, I step outside of myself. I am participating in their lives, and it allows me to live indirectly in the worlds of meaning and hope.
• Searching for the soft… Perhaps it is the security that cares, that takes care of us, that accompanies touch, that is why its loss is significant.
• Enjoying the return of childhood. The idea of maturity is often equated with autonomy. To grow, it is essential to learn self-sufficiency… So, a reflection: what a wonderful opportunity, once again, to enjoy some of the joys of immaturity!
• Forgiving yourself… were my hopes not just another repetition of the voice of the old-fashioned official culture weighing on my shoulders, the one that equates and dictates feeling sorry and failure without productivity? That voice was now my enemy. I was –later– surprised to discover how easy it was to choose and decide to enjoy a nap whenever necessary.
• I suspect that readers could offer many more examples, stories, and possibly much better ones, new ways of moving more elastically and aesthetically through such dark periods. I often think that there should be an international web resource where people can share their many – their private stories – ways of coping with loss, depression, illness, and the like. Such a resourceful vision, in turn, uplifts us.

 

• Being open to multiple perspectives enriches relationships. Our quest for homogeneity, uniformity, and convergence leaves many of us marginalized. If we dismiss the multiplicity of values, ideas, and experiences, we exclude people from the conversation. Voices are lost or silenced when convergence is valued over divergence and agreement over differences.
• The basis of Social Construction is that we construct our realities, our truths, through our language, our relationships, and our orientation to the world. We bring our own perspectives, our history, and our cultural imprint to situations. A feminist has a worldview, as does a lawyer, a psychiatrist, a gardener, a biologist, a geologist, a teacher, a pacifist, a gun advocate, etc.
• Possibility is this Social Constructionist orientation, which is not a belief or a truth; it is an invitation for us to enrich our relationships. Every culture has its traditions and its orientation to the world. We have the potential to maximize the range of understandings. The social constructionist perspective is the inverse of the modernist Western tradition of converging on a single vision. Possibility is to value differences and enrich relationships by valuing multiple perspectives.
• Constructionist work depends on discourse. We need to talk. What other realities can we take into account? If you broaden your sensitivity to who you are, you broaden your perspectives. We are multi-beings. We carry with us a myriad of perspectives. Let us listen to all voices.
• We can no longer afford to be so self-assured in this world where technology allows us to be in touch 24/7. The conversation has opened up to a global scale. So, we have to be able to participate in those broader conversations and understand the multiplicity of worldviews.
• Technology allows us to be connected all the time; the strong sense of individual identity is disappearing because we realize that we are nothing outside of connections. “I connect, therefore I am” has replaced, “I think, therefore I am.” This is changing the world. With our mobile connections, our experience becomes: I have no identity outside of my connections.
• This is a shift: the focus for creating the world is on the relational process, not on our individual identity. We have the opportunity to create a new language for the new world we are co-creating. We can make the relational process a reality.
• It is more than inclusive. It is integrative. Working in dialogue allows us to appreciate multiple perspectives. It is the value of history over abstractions.
• What happened? How did the relationships that generated transformations occur?
• Make a difference, even if it’s small. Because when we share a different relational practice with other people, a positive contagion effect occurs.
• What do we want to do, and why, together? Differently?
• Dialogue means opening up to listen to others in order to begin to think together from a different place about how to responsibly co-construct the conditions that make social well-being viable. We need to train ourselves for the future.

BASIC BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gergen, K. J. (1989). Postmodern psychology and the rhetoric of reality. In Tomás Ibáñez (Ed.) Knowledge of social reality (157-185). Barcelona, Spain: Sendai.

Gergen, K. (1992). The saturated self. Identity dilemmas in the contemporary world. Barcelona, Spain. Editorial Paidós.

Gergen, K (1996). Realities and relationships. Approaches to social construction. Barcelona, Spain. Editorial Paidós.

McNamee, Sheila and Gergen, K. et al. (1996). Therapy as a social construction. Barcelona, Spain. Editorial Paidós.

Gergen, K. (2007). Social constructionism, contributions to debate and practice. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, CESO, Ediciones Uniandes.

Gergen, K. (March 26, 2009). Interview at the School of Psychology of the Adolfo Ibáñez University. Retrieved from:

Gergen, Kenneth J. (2010). Kenneth Gergen, PhD., Speaking on Social Constructionism. The Taos Institute. Retrieved November 24, 2013 from:

Gergen, K. and Gergen, M. (2011). Reflections on social construction. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Paidós.

Gergen, J. (2011). Constructing reality. The future of psychotherapy. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Paidós.

Gergen, K. (2013). The poetic dimension: therapeutic possibilities. In Deissler , K. & McNamee , S. (Ed) Filo and Sofia in dialogue. (pp. 68-75) Ohio, USA: Ed. Taos Institute Publication.

Gergen, K. (2016). The relational being. Bilbao, Spain: Editorial Desclèe De Brouwer.

Tapia Figueroa, Diego, Thesis (2018) for the Ph.D. with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) and the TAOS INSTITUTE.

https://www.taosinstitute.net/about-us/relational-research-networktute.net/about-us/relational-research-network

International Relational Research Network:

https://www.taosinstitute.net/?s=Bolet%C3%ADn+Positive+Aging

Podcast with Ken Gergen – Interviewed by Robyn Stratton-Berkessel :

 

English translation by Bruno Tapia Naranjo.