The social construction movement in modern psychology
Kenneth Gergen is one of the leaders in the Social Constructionist and Postmodern psychology movements. I was first introduced to his work in a general psychology class and have been fascinated by his manner of thinking since. I would love to study under him, hopefully for my doctorate or any post-doc work.
The more I read about the social construction movement, the more it fascinates me. Before I began studying it, I admit that I was generally a positivist. I believed that true knowledge was objective and that all knowledge could only come from observation and testing. There’s a lot of junk out there masquerading as knowledge. Having an objective system of sorts provides comfort. Once I started studying postmodernism and the social construction movement, the more I realized that our individual ontology, our perception of reality, is created through social interaction and structured by the use of language. Gergen (1985) points our that the social process is the foundation of reality. What he means by that is much of our knowledge of the world and our understanding of it is derived from social interaction. I know to wear clothes because society has instilled in me the importance of coverings. I know that what I am using is a keyboard, and the proper way of using it, because somewhere along the line, someone took the opportunity to teach me how to use it or I observed someone in the process of using it. What happens when a human is removed from the social construct has been documented. Feral humans usually do not fare well.
Positivism is anathema to social constructionism (Gergen, 1985). Some may argue that true knowledge can only come through scientific methodology or through our senses. The trajectory of a bullet can only be described through physics, which was a product of positivist thought. The taste of an apple can only be described through the chemical reaction that begins when a fructose molecule interacts with the synapses in a taste bud. While those examples may be true, the knowledge of them cannot exist in a vacuum. The knowledge must be transferred from one individual to another. This is done through language. Language is arbitrary (Gergen, 1985). It is highly dependant on grammatical constructs and the context in which it is used (Gergen, 1985). In order to effectively communicate knowledge, both parties must have come to a social “agreement” on the principles of the language as well as the context in which it is used. Therein is the necessity of social construction theories. Suppose I were talking about the trajectory of a bullet. We would first have to agree on the terms “trajectory” and “bullet” as well as have a general understanding of how a bullet interacts with the environment. Conversations with someone who doesn’t agree with the conventional definitions of those words would not be very effective. Also, we both would need a cultural understanding of a bullet. Were we to discuss bullets with someone unfamiliar with the cultural construct of a bullet, the conversation would be moot as well. Not only is discussing the scientific properties of a bullet trajectory limited by linguistic structure, but the linguistic structure itself may manipulate knowledge of a bullet trajectory. People attach meaning to words and situations and these are exhibited through language (Gergen, 1985). It would be impossible to have a completely objective conversation about the trajectory of a bullet because the words surrounding bullet (shot, fired, contact, explosion) have negative connotations.
The only way to truly transmit knowledge is through discourse (Gergen, 1985). Discourse is a comparison of individual realities. That is not to say that because everyone has an individual reality that everything is relative (Gergen, 1985). Many opponents of postmodern psychology and social construction movements have made the argument that removing an objective reality in favor of a subjective truth destroys anything that resembles tautological fact, or universal fact. Gergen (1985) points out that while relativism is a necessary consequence of postmodernism and social construction movements, objective truth and fact can never be demolished because the nature of social processes establishes norms and truths that are generally accepted by everyone. Those who do not accept generally accepted norms and realities are oft labeled with psychopathological diseases such as schizophrenia and dementia. In those types of situations, we can see how positivism is used to oppress and to colonize. Why are those who have schizophrenia so derided? What makes their reality a lesser truth than our own?
The debate between positivism and social construction movements can be simplified to whether or not reality is external or internal. External realities would conform to behaviorism as well as other movements which reinforce the person as machine, world as objective schematics. Discourse theory holds that reality is internal. What we understand as reality is created by the mind. The mind interacts with reality through language. I understand something is sweet because it has been socially instructed to me as sweet (in that same vein, I do not find eyeballs sweet even though some cultures consider them a delicacy).
The concept of Deafhood is rooted in the social construction movement. There are those who might wonder why there exists a separate Deaf epistemology. Remember that reality is framed by language and linguistic traits. These linguistic traits have manifested as a result of social processes. As Deaf people, not only is our primary language different than the norm, but how we process this language is different. Our language involves the parietal lobe as well as the temporal lobe. The addition of other parts of the brain in language processing means that there may be additional alterations to our constructed reality. I don’t feel I have enough information to walk that path just yet; however, that Deaf people use a different language and have different culture than the majority of hearing people. The way we construct our reality is different than the way hearing people do, and our social discourse is different because the culture and the context in which our language is used is different as well. There thus exists a Deaf epistemology of which we have only begun to explore. What constructs do we use to establish our deaf reality? How do we maintain this reality through social discourse? How does this impact the education process? Those are questions I hope to have answered.
Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist. 40(3). 266-275. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.
Kenneth Gergen is one of the leaders in the Social Constructionist and Postmodern psychology movements. I was first introduced to his work in a general psychology class and have been fascinated by his manner of thinking since. I would love to study under him, hopefully for my doctorate or any post-doc work.
The more I read about the social construction movement, the more it fascinates me. Before I began studying it, I admit that I was generally a positivist. I believed that true knowledge was objective and that all knowledge could only come from observation and testing. There’s a lot of junk out there masquerading as knowledge. Having an objective system of sorts provides comfort. Once I started studying postmodernism and the social construction movement, the more I realized that our individual ontology, our perception of reality, is created through social interaction and structured by the use of language. Gergen (1985) points our that the social process is the foundation of reality. What he means by that is much of our knowledge of the world and our understanding of it is derived from social interaction. I know to wear clothes because society has instilled in me the importance of coverings. I know that what I am using is a keyboard, and the proper way of using it, because somewhere along the line, someone took the opportunity to teach me how to use it or I observed someone in the process of using it. What happens when a human is removed from the social construct has been documented. Feral humans usually do not fare well.
Positivism is anathema to social constructionism (Gergen, 1985). Some may argue that true knowledge can only come through scientific methodology or through our senses. The trajectory of a bullet can only be described through physics, which was a product of positivist thought. The taste of an apple can only be described through the chemical reaction that begins when a fructose molecule interacts with the synapses in a taste bud. While those examples may be true, the knowledge of them cannot exist in a vacuum. The knowledge must be transferred from one individual to another. This is done through language. Language is arbitrary (Gergen, 1985). It is highly dependant on grammatical constructs and the context in which it is used (Gergen, 1985). In order to effectively communicate knowledge, both parties must have come to a social “agreement” on the principles of the language as well as the context in which it is used. Therein is the necessity of social construction theories. Suppose I were talking about the trajectory of a bullet. We would first have to agree on the terms “trajectory” and “bullet” as well as have a general understanding of how a bullet interacts with the environment. Conversations with someone who doesn’t agree with the conventional definitions of those words would not be very effective. Also, we both would need a cultural understanding of a bullet. Were we to discuss bullets with someone unfamiliar with the cultural construct of a bullet, the conversation would be moot as well. Not only is discussing the scientific properties of a bullet trajectory limited by linguistic structure, but the linguistic structure itself may manipulate knowledge of a bullet trajectory. People attach meaning to words and situations and these are exhibited through language (Gergen, 1985). It would be impossible to have a completely objective conversation about the trajectory of a bullet because the words surrounding bullet (shot, fired, contact, explosion) have negative connotations.
The only way to truly transmit knowledge is through discourse (Gergen, 1985). Discourse is a comparison of individual realities. That is not to say that because everyone has an individual reality that everything is relative (Gergen, 1985). Many opponents of postmodern psychology and social construction movements have made the argument that removing an objective reality in favor of a subjective truth destroys anything that resembles tautological fact, or universal fact. Gergen (1985) points out that while relativism is a necessary consequence of postmodernism and social construction movements, objective truth and fact can never be demolished because the nature of social processes establishes norms and truths that are generally accepted by everyone. Those who do not accept generally accepted norms and realities are oft labeled with psychopathological diseases such as schizophrenia and dementia. In those types of situations, we can see how positivism is used to oppress and to colonize. Why are those who have schizophrenia so derided? What makes their reality a lesser truth than our own?
The debate between positivism and social construction movements can be simplified to whether or not reality is external or internal. External realities would conform to behaviorism as well as other movements which reinforce the person as machine, world as objective schematics. Discourse theory holds that reality is internal. What we understand as reality is created by the mind. The mind interacts with reality through language. I understand something is sweet because it has been socially instructed to me as sweet (in that same vein, I do not find eyeballs sweet even though some cultures consider them a delicacy).
The concept of Deafhood is rooted in the social construction movement. There are those who might wonder why there exists a separate Deaf epistemology. Remember that reality is framed by language and linguistic traits. These linguistic traits have manifested as a result of social processes. As Deaf people, not only is our primary language different than the norm, but how we process this language is different. Our language involves the parietal lobe as well as the temporal lobe. The addition of other parts of the brain in language processing means that there may be additional alterations to our constructed reality. I don’t feel I have enough information to walk that path just yet; however, that Deaf people use a different language and have different culture than the majority of hearing people. The way we construct our reality is different than the way hearing people do, and our social discourse is different because the culture and the context in which our language is used is different as well. There thus exists a Deaf epistemology of which we have only begun to explore. What constructs do we use to establish our deaf reality? How do we maintain this reality through social discourse? How does this impact the education process? Those are questions I hope to have answered.
Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist. 40(3). 266-275. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.
posted by Jon at 4:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home