(enero 6, 2023)
Relational and Social Constructionist Consortium of Ecuador (IRYSE)
Diego Tapia Figueroa, Ph.D. and Maritza Crespo Balderrama, M.A.
“If there is no ‘final understanding’ about relationships, then we can welcome all attempts to articulate their character” (p.374).
Kenneth Gergen (2008).
We base ourselves for this series, on this thesis, from which we extract -adapting them- the proposals and invitations to a different relational position for the construction of the process of transformative therapeutic dialogue.
How are social constructionism and collaborative and dialogic practices useful for the relational co-construction of space for therapeutic training and supervision? Tapia Figueroa, Diego, Thesis (2018) for the Ph.D. with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) and the TAOS INSTITUTE of the United State.
Social constructionism has been consolidated since the 80s; it affirms that there is no absolute truth or reality, nor essences or fixed identities. It is committed to human rights and invites critical reflection of all cultural ideas and practices; it states that knowledge is socially constructed. It questions the cruel and unjust status quo and all forms of exploitation and oppression; proposes that people leave behind the culture that states that the way to legitimize themselves in relationships is to place themselves in the position of victims or perpetrators; values and celebrates differences and coordination of resources; it is a paradigm of complexity.
It is a relevant concern that constructionism should not be limited to being a successful academic and intellectual discourse, managed by a circle of chosen ones, but that it is capable –to innovate and renew itself– of updating its narratives with an intelligent integration of other discourses and epistemologies.
Laura Fruggeri (1998), defines social constructionism as:
A way of doing therapy, which cannot be defined as eclectic, deprived of bonds; or artistic in that it is opposed to science because in the approach suggested here, creativity emanates from the rigorous adoption of a method: the method of double description (Bateson, 1979), which allows the therapist to always operate on two levels: that of his professional competence and that of the interactive relationship, which becomes ultimately in the basic criterion of which it makes its technical decisions. (p.11)
The recognition that constructionism has clearly identifiable epistemological bases (Gregory Bateson, for example) is extremely important while validating its creative practice, questioning the repeated accusation of being an eclectic perspective.
Tomás Ibáñez recognizes what he considers the strength of Kenneth Gergen’s position:
Undoubtedly, Kenneth Gergen achieved something important when he defined social constructionism as a “movement”; that is to say: a set of theoretical elements in progression, lax, open, and with contours, changing and imprecise, rather than as a strongly coherent and well-stabilized theoretical doctrine. In other words, the success consisted in privileging the instituting dimension of social constructionism over its instituted dimension, or its character as a “process” in development over its character as a more or less finished “product”. A simple difference of emphasis, if you will, but a consonant difference with the epistemological assumptions that nourished social constructionism, and that led us to think about this orientation through the metaphor of a more or less dispersed archipelago, instead of resorting to the metaphor of a massive theoretical continent (Ibañez, 2003, p. 157)
The following reflection of Kenneth Gergen (2011), allows us to expand the discourse and see it in a self-critical way:
“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 a question of giving people the means to act in the world with greater freedom, offering them numerous opportunities to coordinate with whom -instead of wanting to eradicate any opposition- they are rejected because they are different.” (p. 217).
Now, let’s take a look at some similarities and differences between Constructivism and Social Constructionism, as explained by Bertrando and Toffanetti (2004):
| Constructivism | Social Constructionism |
| Constructivism emphasizes the observer and his mental constructs. | Often confused (by therapists) with constructivism, constructionism is differentiated by its lower emphasis on the mind, and by the importance of interaction |
| Constructivism assumes that knowledge builds experience. | Reality is a social construct. And reality is a construction of language. |
| For constructivism, the mind and constructed reality reside in the subject | Social constructionism brings to the fore the idea of relationships seen as an expression, not of structures or behavioral patterns, but of systems of language and meaning. |
| For constructivism, mind and reality are linked to a linguistic “ontology” that is called an entity. | For constructionism, mind and reality reside in social relations and in the construction of meaning through language. |
| For constructivism, learning provides people with contact with multiple representations of reality. | For constructionism, learning participates in the different forms of relationships |
| Constructivism values authentic tasks in a meaningful way in context, rather than abstract instructions out of context. | Knowledge is a construction of the mind. |
| Constructivism encourages reflection on experience. | Knowledge is not the faithful representation of a reality independent of us. |
| The central idea is that human learning is built and that people’s minds develop new knowledge from the basis of previous teachings. | What is observed is not an entity in itself and is not separate from the observer (subject/object dualism). |
Characteristics (similarities and differences) between Constructivism and Social Constructionism
*Table made from: History of Family Therapy: The Characters and Ideas. Bertrando and Toffanetti, 2004. Publisher: Paidós. Barcelona, Spain.
Scientific paradigms, especially in the social sciences, have changed considerably in recent decades, which has implied the fall of positivism as synonymous with the scientific method. Scientific progress creates ever-greater demands and phenomena are studied with an increasing variety of methodological approaches. The answers are more complex and multifaceted and, in many cases, it is found that there are no single answers.
Kenneth Gergen (2016) explains:
Taken together, traditional practices carry with them the sense that dialogue is basically “war with other means” and sustain the reality of separation and ultimately conflict. However, 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 blurred boundaries and mutuality appear; so that multiple selves are restored, and awareness of relational self is enhanced? (p. 300).
The research presented here treats -based on a social-constructionist position and being consistent with this inclusive perspective and deeply respectful of other forms of thought- research, theories, and methods, and proposes -as one of its differences- a diverse style of approach and execution of the research process; for example, that research is a process of social construction guided by dialogue that articulates and gives meaning, therefore, it does not have predetermined objectives (except those which are related to facilitating social connections: meaningful, reflective and transformative conversations) but responds, pragmatically, to the needs of the participants and the context of the local culture.
The perspective provided by Kenneth Gergen (2016), allows us to understand the openness and flexibility of this position:
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 caring relationship 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 patient’s private dispersion will be affirmed and legitimized in the conversation. (p. 434).
Relational constructionism in research
“Relational constructionism is a metatheory or discourse of (human) science. It provides general guidance towards all relational processes, including what might be called research, intervention or development, leadership or organization.” Sheila McNamee (2012, p. 63)
Sheila McNamee (2012, p. 63 to p. 86) -we follow her reflection, in a free translation from English, systematizing it and adapting it to the present discourse- on the “social constructionist method” of research, which argues that an investigation asks to be considered according to the paradigm of science that the author proposed to follow. In the case of the present research, it is the vision of science within the epistemological frameworks of postmodernity. This position holds that knowledge has a subject, and that subject has a voice. McNamee (2012,) reflects that reliability frameworks are more the internal consistency and legitimation of the linguistic community, than the vision of cause and effect and the accuracy of the sample.
In everyday interactions with others, the relational reality in which communities and people live is constructed. For social constructionism, it is about common action, or what to do together and what constitutes its doing. Social constructionism affirms that the use of research lies in the generation of action potentials that it creates together with the reflective critique to which it invites participants.
We understand as co-researchers all the people who were involved in this process of relational social research, making their voices heard, and choosing -according to their human and professional needs- the themes on which they worked in each meeting, participating actively and creatively in the reflective discussions, contributing with their experience and local culture, as well as with their strengths and resources in the construction of a collaborative learning space, sharing their experiences, as well as the achievements they obtained thanks to the training and supervision process; and those who decided that they wanted to see their perspectives and transformations reflected in the final document presented here.
Co-researchers are also such because, in contrast to traditional research methodologies, they are co-responsible for creating conditions for horizontal and democratic dialogue, choosing the goals of critical reflection, and having an active role in the course of research.
The research was constituted in an invitation -towards the participants- to opt for curiosity and respect as the place from which we can choose to relate to others, to go to the encounter (a dialogue with the other). The quality of our conversations speaks about the quality of our relationships. The encounters served to connect with themselves and with others, to embrace uncertainty; to accept otherness (own and the other), the diverse.
This exercise meant the protagonism of the co-researchers in their relational process; that they could multiply -in their professional and personal contexts- what they were learning and transforming about the way in which they conceived their praxis and their style of relating to families and their teammates; discovering that there are different alternatives and possibilities that value and legitimize differences.
McNamee (2012) explains that the main instrument of this research is relational dialogue; this allows to offer pragmatic and practical “results” for all involved. Dialogically speaking, relationally sensitive research creates the potential for participants to critically reflect, enhance the expression of the multiple voices present, and coordinate diverse agreements.
It is precisely the idea that when there is involvement with others you are actually creating different meanings among all.
McNamee (2012) states that the constructionist alternative is a relational discourse -meaningful measures always arising within the relationship- and this also includes the relationship between the researcher and the participants.
Therefore, the co-creation of a space for the expression of the multiple voices present includes that of the researcher.
Knowledge is built on interaction with others (language practices), including interactions in the context of research. From that point, the objective of this research with these teams was not to test hypotheses but to build frameworks of intelligibility.
In social constructionism, research is a process of transformation experienced by all participants (the researcher and the co-researchers). It is decided together: what is pragmatic; what serves the research participants; what forms of questions might be most compatible with participants? Others are invited to have an attitude of “curiosity with reflection”.
McNamee (2012) insists that a constructionist position invites us to see research as a way of knowing; it is a way of knowing how the local reality is socially and historically situated and how it constructs and processes its complexity. This implies that there could be other ways of knowing. Thus, moving from a modernist position of knowing (“what”) to a constructionist position of knowledge (“how”) in a reflective movement.
The sense of what is useful provides the opportunity to engage in self-reflective research on own resources that -although not being used- could help in creating ways to co-build together.
There are no rigid rules for conducting research from a constructionist stance; there are some resources, fluid and flexible, that can be used to guide investigations.
Sheila McNamee (2012) says that there is no attempt to reach a consensus between different beliefs or values of the various participants; nor is there an attempt to determine the values and beliefs of the community that are “better” or “right.” The constructionist orientation is towards multiplicity, diversity, and difference.
Agreement is not paramount; it’s curiosity.
The challenge is to open up relational possibilities rather than close them.
For the constructionist, research is not a process of documenting or “discovering” what exists. Research is a process of construction.
Research is transformative and ultimately practical; it has generative possibilities for all participants (researchers and co-investigators).
For the constructionist, reliability and validity are replaced with the criteria of utility (for whom is this information/knowledge useful?) and generativity (how will this information/knowledge help this community “to continue together?”).
SUGGESTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, H. y Goolishan, H. (1996). The expert is the client: ignorance as a therapeutic approach. In Mc Namee. S&Gergen K. Therapy as a social construct. (pp. 45-59) Barcelona, Spain, Editorial Paidós.
Anderson, H. (1999). Conversation, language and possibilities. A postmodern approach to therapy. Buenos Aires, Argentina Editorial Amorrortu.
Bertrando and Toffanetti (2004). History of Family Therapy: The Characters and Ideas. Barcelona, Spain. Publisher: Paidós.
Fruggeri, L. (1998) From constructivism to social constructionism: theoretical and therapeutic implications. Psicobiettivo, vol. XVIII, n.1, pp. 37-48. https://es.scribd.com/document/254253165/Construccionismo-Al-Constructivismo.
Gergen, K (1996). Realities and relationships. Approaches to social construction. Barcelona, Spain. Editorial Paidós.
Gergen, K. (26 March 2009). Interview at the School of Psychology of the Adolfo Ibáñez University. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUirLCs9LIw
Gergen, J. (2011). Build reality. The future of psychotherapy. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Paidós.
Gergen, K. & Gergen, M. (2011). Reflections on social construction. Barcelona Spain:Editorial Paidós.
Gergen, K (2014). From Mirroring to World-Making: Research as Future Forming, Recuperado de: https://taoslearning.ning.com/groups2/global-relational-research-network/virtual-symposium-2018
Gergen, K (2016). The Relational Self. Beyond the Self and the Community. Bilbao, Spain: Editorial Desclée de Brouwer, S.A.
Ibáñez, T. (2003). The social construction of socioconstructionism: retrospective and perspectives. Politics and Society, Vol. 40. N. 1. (pp. 155-160)
IRYSE (2018) Blog of the Relational and Socioconstructionist Institute of Ecuador (IRYSE): https://iryse.org/
McNamee, S. (2012). Conversation at the University of Manizales, Colombia. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-HG1cvd9Rg
McNamee, S. and Hosking, D.M. (2012). Research and Social Change: A Relational Constructionist Approach. New York: Routledge.
McNamee, S. (2013). The social poetry of research committed to relationship. Research as conversation. In Deissler, K. & McNamee, S. (Ed) Filo and Sofia in dialogue: the social poetry of therapeutic conversation (pp. 102-109). Ohio, USA: Ed. Taos Institute Publication.
Tapia, D. (2007). Postmodern psychotherapies in the systemic field. Theoretical, practical and clinical materials from social constructionism. Quito, Ecuador: Editorial. Cif
Tapia Figueroa, Diego, Thesis (2018) for the Ph.D. with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) and the TAOS INSTITUTE of the USA.
English translation of Bruno Tapia Naranjo.
