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

(September 2020)

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

“Praxis gives meaning to words.”

(Ludwig Wittgenstein)

Kenneth Gergen (I)

We propose a selection of brief concepts, reflections, ideas, and proposals of some of the main exponents of the position, perspective, theory, and social constructionist practice.

To facilitate the reflective reading we have brought specific textual citations without specifying each time the sources; we present at the end the suggested bibliography so that you can check some of the most important readings related to the topic.

We invite you to open your curiosity for these exciting contributions.

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

• Language constructs reality.
• Words act as actions in a relationship.
• I am related, therefore, I am.
• … everything that is 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 places a special emphasis on relational responsibility, self-expression, affirmation, coordination, reflexivity, and co-creation of new realities.
• People are fully capable of coordinating their actions without performative clauses… Satisfactory relationships require neither people with moral stages 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 become identified and valued.
• Therapy, from this paradigm, is a transformative dialogue… 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 the horizons of the participants, alternative ways of narrating events are developed and positions evolved regarding the self and others.
• Different forms of dialogue achieve different results, so we have the challenge of illuminating specific forms of dialogue that can be effective in particular circumstances.
• Every form of dialogue builds worlds of the real and the good. In that sense, “transformative dialogue” is the type of dialogue that crosses 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 cannot be developed by a single individual.
• On the other hand, people bring to the dialogue multiple and mixed views about themselves and the world; their goals and desires are fundamentally mutable since within them all 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 repairing the mind, from a relational perspective, but relational transformation. Only questions, opinions, explanations, suggestions, and possibilities are mixed in a dialogic 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 resolve a conflict. Rather, it is about broadening the spectrum of voices —”relational realities”—that are accepted into the conversation. Become more responsible, and give more account of yourself (…)
• 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 great umbrella under which there is room to shelter all forms 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 the multiplicity of voices and perspectives is invited, as well as aimed at producing changes in the local cultures that make them up.
• Constructionist arguments, in general, are contrary to fixed and final formulations, even those that they elaborate on.

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, precisely because we give them meaning and meaning in social interaction. The understandings and assessments we develop respond to who we are and 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.	It is social actions that construct the meanings of our worlds and relational contexts. We need to act guided by a continuous interpretation of those we see as good or positive; we are guided by these meanings to discern, decide and act accordingly.
Worlds of meaning are built within relationships.  What it takes to be real, and rational, is given birth in relationships. Without relationships, there would be little meaning.	By interweaving relationships, meanings arise, are created and constructed; it is the joint construction, product of links and connections. Symbolic codes, which are defined as important, have to do with the commitment and construction that occurs in relationships. It is there that we make ourselves, we understand each other, and we can meet.
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 get out of determinisms, both intrapsychic archaeology and ideologies that make the past an oppressive destiny, when 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.
Sustaining what is valuable, or creating 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 that are built-in local contexts, which generates new ways of understanding and interpreting reality (new contexts) that have value because they transform participants and enable futures.
When worlds of meaning intersect, creative results can appear. New forms of relationship, new realities, and new possibilities may arise	It is the relational richness that makes possible 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, and in addition, properly creative actions arise that make new alternatives possible. When worlds of meaning come into conflict, they can lead to alienation and aggression, which harms relationships and their creative potential. The non-coordination of joint meanings, mutually acceptable, imposes the logic of the power struggle that ends up restricting and limiting, not only the relational possibilities and their creativity but the freedom of the participants. Through the creative care of relationships, the destructive potentialities of conflict can be reduced or transformed. When we are present in a relationship, we take care of it in practical ways because we participate in it and we coordinate the paths that deserve to travel. Hence, when the conflicts inherent in humans are presented, it will be easier to dismantle their destructive charge or transform them positively.
The above agreements do not constitute beliefs. They are neither true nor false. They are ways of approaching life that, for many, constitute a great promise.	An orientation for practice is proposed, not a recipe book or a manual, much less a dogma to follow. It is an invitation to reconstruct, with relational ethics, possible worlds and futures.

• The basic premises of social constructionism are the following:

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

• Who we are and what we are is something that is constituted differently in many of these relationships, hence we all carry several different voices, each of them born of a specific relationship story. 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. In addition, with these different voices, I hope to establish relationships with a wider 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? And, in addition: … this process… is unfailingly a form of social or political activism: any action that takes place in society thus forges its future.
• What the constructionist perspective adds, however, are reflective and creative dimensions: it recognizes the contingent nature of one’s constructions, is sensitive to their possible effects, and demonstrates an openness to generate alternatives (…) in the broadest sense this is to recognize one’s quality as a member of a culture, one’s own continuous participation in the multiple enclaves of significance.
• If there is no “final understanding” of relationships, then we will be able to welcome all attempts to articulate their character.
• What is at stake is not to determine what is the – only – true opinion, the only correct ethics, the just political ideal, but, rather, it is to give people the means to act in the world with greater slack, to offer 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 the sense that dialogue is basically “war with other means” and uphold the reality of separation and conflict ultimately. All in all, the potential to restore relational flow is blurred. The challenge before us is to explore forms of dialogue that do not carry with them the baggage of the delimited being. Are there ways to appease the burning conflict so that boundaries are blurred, mutuality appears, multiple beings are restored, and an awareness of being relational is enhanced?
• I believe that therapists from almost any school – from psychoanalysis to Buddhist meditation – can provide important resources to enable patients to escape isolated self-torment. Everyone can affirm the individual as a valid participant in the social world, as opposed to treating him with distrust or ignoring him. Everyone can establish a relationship of care that contributes to the special advantage of therapy over other ways of responding to deviation. And at the same time, they are fantastic variations of how much of the private dispersion of the consultant will be affirmed and legitimized in the conversation.
• With everything we say and do we manifest conditions of the 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.

(September 18, 2020)

Kenneth Gergen (II)

• Individuals by themselves cannot mean anything: their actions are meaningless until they coordinate with others.
• The skill of the therapist lies rather in knowing how and not in knowing what…, in his fluidity within the relationship, in his ability to collaborate in the creation of new futures. It’s about looking for ways to broaden the vision they may have about what’s happening to them.
• Therapeutic conversations will “make sense” more effectively when they are continuous with those of the culture. When the consultant can coordinate the discourse of therapy with his external life, the therapy will be more likely to be successful.
• Different forms of dialogue achieve different ends, so we have the challenge of illuminating specific forms of dialogue that can be effective in particular circumstances.
• Every form of dialogue builds worlds of the real and the good. In that sense, “transformative dialogue” is the type of dialogue that crosses 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 cannot be developed by a single individual. On the other hand, people bring to the dialogue multiple and mixed views about themselves and the world; their goals and desires are fundamentally mutable since within them, all 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. And this is what the importance of productive and transformative dialogues is all about.
• If I express to someone doubts about my parents’ love for me, and the person responds by asking “What is the weather forecast for tomorrow?”, he has then failed to include my person, that is, my being in his answer. On the contrary, if your answer includes the meaning of what I have expressed – possibly dismay at my question – then I find myself in the other person, thus locating the “I” that has just spoken. At the same time, the “I” is no longer mine, since it has been the other person who has generated the expression. When the person speaks in this way, he brings us closer, and at the same time invites us to respond on our part “metonymically”. In the metonymic reflection on what is common to us, it is in this reflection that the poetic dimension finds its realization.
• An invitation for research to always be future-oriented, even when investigating the past, is future-forming. When choosing to use methodologies and methods, they need to be context-related and co-researchers.
• It instigates social science research to move beyond the problematic convention of “mirroring” our rapidly changing world, toward a formative, imaginative, and proactive inquiry that is explicitly liberatory, practice-producing, and action-centered.
• I prefer much more research that emphasizes collaborative participation, and as I have written in a previous response, I greatly value perfecting 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 whom we rebel against can collaborate with us.
• Social constructionist research is primarily concerned with addressing the processes by which people come to describe, explain, or, in some way, account for the world (including themselves) in which they live. If, as I propose, meaning arises from the relational process, then it must be concluded that the concept of the individual mind results essentially from the relation.
• But, you may ask, what if we suspended the metaphor of the mirror 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 started asking, “what kind of world can we build”? This would place the researcher’s values at the beginning of all his activities. Instead of being a latent force in its choice of terminology or methodology, and in the vain hope that an audience absent in one way or another will be able to make use of one’s work, what if these visions are full of purposes and passions fueled our initiation of inquiry? By providing a vision valued as far as possible, the challenge of research would be not to illuminate what is, but to create what has to be. This is the essence of research aimed at shaping futures.
• ·        The important thing about the relational perspective is to create and elaborate space of understanding, in which the important thing is in the process of the relationship. Because what someone says will have value and meaning when the other receives it and does something different with it. Because, where the value lies is in the well-being of the process. Do relational research to build the future; futures that matter to us. The method that guides us in doing is what is happening among the co-researchers, not what dictates some manual, protocol, tool, technique, institution, or theory.
• Relational research seeks that the people involved in the dialogue feel active participants in the proposed process and that this conversational space is their place. That they develop a sense of belonging to be able to think about their present differently and project themselves into the future, in a way that we can generate well-being for all.
• Let us then see the possibilities that we bring to this dialogue (…) Each one brings with it a world of possibilities (…).
• 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? And, in addition: … this process… is unfailingly a form of social or political activism: any action that takes place in society thus forges its future.
• To be responsible for relationships is above all to sustain the process of co-creation of meaning. In relational responsibility, we avoid the implicit narcissism of ethical calls to “care for the self.” We also avoid the self/other division resulting from the imperative to “take care of the other.” When we are responsible for relationships we abandon the individualistic tradition and the care of the relationship becomes the main thing.
• Most important are practices that invite productive co-creation of meaning, and more especially, that break down the barriers of antipathy. In that sense, we can turn our attention to practices that allow us to navigate the tumultuous waters of relationships, or 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; and, here’s a program (the Taos Institute’s Ph.D. studies) that questions those boundaries and goes beyond them and expresses multiplicity and polyvocality.
• As we have already seen, the premises that guide the constructionist dialogues are:

A. 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 to talk about it.

B. Our ways of describing, explaining, and representing are social products situated historically and culturally.

C. Language acquires meaning from its use within relationship patterns. Our ways of giving an account of the world or the self are maintained or transformed according to the vicissitudes of the social process. (“… what it is simply is…”).

• The questioning of the ethical and the political is the sense of the traditional and a rigorous measure, a kind of imperialist quality of doing so, which says that I am assigned to measure you, I put you under the microscope and tell you who you are, I will measure you according to my standards on what is good. Constructionism is not very happy with these ethical ways of doing research and neither with the political issue if realistic methods are used. There are many methods, there are ways to measure, and also constructionism if you want to understand the reality 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 talk, I want to leave the space to have a dialogue about this. So work on that a little bit, don’t try to say it can only be this way and there is no other way of truth.
• Do research for what and for whom? Who does research serve? Relational research is oriented to create the future and not to see the past. It has to do with: What kind of society do we want to build? Who do we want to see involved? Not to concentrate 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 the other, to taking care of relationships to create possibilities with a future?
• Your question makes a lot of sense, it’s crucial: How are relationships taken care of? In practice, how do you care for relationships? Not yourself, not the other; but to the process of relationship in every way in which those relationships are sustained and strengthened. Now, the question is how we should face these challenges today. By engaging with 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’s 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 discrepancies about relationships, all this cuts and hurts relationships. What kind of resources do you need to get on with your daily life that allows 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 around dialogue, how do we care for dialogue; there can be many forms. How are we responsible for relationships? It is responsibility and relational ethics.
• I can do the action, but you have to give it something back so that it can then take on meaning. When we coordinate our actions, the world comes alive.
• One of the joys of living many years is that you can tune back into the process of life, much more fully. We can take a walk – not to get somewhere, but to enjoy the scenery or a passing conversation.
• We can run or ride a bicycle, not as a means of training, but for the pleasure of movement. We can paint, cook, do some carpentry work, go fishing, write poetry, read a book, have a conversation, or work in the garden; not to fulfill some goal, but for the sheer pleasure of doing these things.
• Sure, they can be good results of our efforts. But now it’s the process that counts; any achievement is just the strawberry of dessert.
• How do we reason, if we live in built worlds, wouldn’t we be better off with an approach that allows us the difference that deactivates those conventional ideas?
• At the same time, our orientation toward positive aging is not simply about staying on the good side of life. It also means finding ways to travel through the dark valleys of life without falling into despair, and discovering meaning even in the shadows.
• And, because there are so many ups and downs through recovery days, it’s important to select that moment that will allow me to come to a positive conclusion… If I’m careful to select the right time from the comparison, today is much brighter.
• Friends and family are invitations to get out of myself. When I’m alone, my focus often remains on myself… Aware of every pain, and with pain, every sign says things can go wrong. I live—when there’s the pain—in a gray-to-black world where it’s so hard to imagine myself any other way. Friends and family are powerful invitations to get out of this well. The important point is to shift the conversation as soon as possible away from myself stuck in pain, into their lives. As they talk about their affairs, I get out of myself. I am participating in their lives, and it allows me to live indirectly in the worlds of meaning and hope.
• Look for the soft… Perhaps it is the security that cares, that takes care of us, that accompanies touch, so its loss is significant.
• Enjoy the return to childhood. The idea of maturity is often equated with autonomy. To grow, it is essential to learn self-sufficiency… So, a thought: what is a wonderful opportunity, again, to enjoy some of the joys of immaturity!
• Were my hopes not just another repetition of the voice of the official culture of a lifetime weighing on the shoulders, the one that equals and dictates feeling sorry and failing 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 readers could offer many more examples, stories, and possibly much better, new ways of moving more elastically and aesthetically, through those dark periods. I often think it should be an international web resource where people can share many—of their private stories—ways to cope with loss, depression, illness, and the like. Such a vision of resources, in turn, elevates us.
• Being open to multiple perspectives enriches relationships. Our search for homogeneity, uniformity, and convergence leaves many of us marginalized. If we discard the multiplicity of values, ideas, and experiences, we exclude people from the conversation. Voices are lost or silenced when convergence is valued over divergence, agreement over differences.
• The basis of Social Construction is that we build our realities, our truths, through our language, our relationships, and our orientation to the world. We bring our perspectives, our history, and our cultural imprint to situations. A feminist has a conception of the world, just like a lawyer, a psychiatrist, a gardener, a biologist, a geologist, a teacher, a pacifist, a gun advocate, etc.
• The possibility is this orientation of Social Construction, which is not a belief or a truth, it is an invitation for us to enrich our relationships. Each culture has its traditions and its orientation to the world. We have the potential to maximize the range of understandings. The perspective of the social constructionist is the inverse of the Modernist Western tradition of converging on a single vision. The 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 sure of ourselves in this world where technology allows us to stay in touch 24/7. The conversation has opened up on a global scale. So we need to be able to engage 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, then I exist has replaced the Feed, then 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 change: the center for creating the world is in the relational process, not in our 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’s more than inclusive. It is integrative. Working in dialogue allows us to appreciate the multiple perspectives. It is the value of history over abstractions.
• What happened, and how did the relationships that generated transformations take place?
• Make differences, even if they are small. Because when we share a different relational practice with other people, there is a positive contagion effect.
• What do we want to do, and for what, together; distinct?
• Dialogue means opening oneself to listening to others together, beginning to think from a different place, and how to responsibly co-construct the conditions that make social welfare viable.
• We need to train in the future.

SUGGESTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gergen, K. J. (1989). Postmodern psychology and the rhetoric of reality. In Tomás Ibáñez (Comp.) The 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, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, departamento de Psicología, 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 about social constructionism. The Taos Institute. Retrieved November 24, 2013 in:

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

Gergen, J. (2011). Build 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 Sofía 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+Envejecimiento+Positivo

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

Being Open to Multiple Perspectives Enriches Relationships, With Ken Gergen – PS045

Taos Institute page containing books and publications by Kenneth Gergen:

https://www.taosinstitute.net/?s=Kenneth+Gergen%3A

English translation of Bruno Tapia Naranjo.