See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257791974

Kenneth J. Gergen and Social Constructionism

Article  in  Psychological Studies · June 2012

CITATIONS READS

3 7,444

2 authors:

Girishwar Misra Anand Prakash

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural health monitoring View project

Structural health monitoring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Girishwar Misra on 06 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EDITORIAL

Kenneth J. Gergen and Social Constructionism

Published online: 14 April 2012

Aaano bhadrah kratavo yantu vishvatah. celebrated his 75th birthday. We also decided then to organize
Let noble thoughts come from all directions. this issue of the journal to present an account of the multifaceted
-A Vedic saying growth of social constructionism over the years. We invited a
range of scholars who have ventured to use social construction-
The intellect acquires critical acumen by familiarity with
ism to give first hand accounts. Our request was enthusiastically
different traditions. How much does one really under-
responded to and the result is this issue of Psychological
stand by merely following one’s own reasoning only?
Studies. The issue begins with an interview of Ken and con-
-Bhartr hari (Vākyapadīya 2.484)

cludes with Mary’s personal reflections about the making of
Constructionism opens the door to multiple ways of Ken. Other contributions reflect and relate to Ken and con-
seeing the world; it is an invitation to creativity, and it structionism. We hope the contributions to this issue will invite
asks the researcher to think carefully about what is the readers to engage dialogically with social constructionism
being contributed to the culture and the world. and the challenges faced in our contemporary world.
-Kenneth J. Gergen (Interview in this issue) As a social psychologist trained at the Universities of Yale
and Duke, Ken completed his doctoral work with Edward E.
This special issue of Psychological Studies (PS) is in honour
Jones in 1962 and started his professional life at Harvard as
of Kenneth J. Gergen’s seminal work on social construction.
Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Relations. In
During the last four decades he has been leading debates
1967 he came to Swarthmore College in Philadelphia where
through which he has reoriented the theory and practice of
he is currently a Senior Research Professor. He has been on
psychology. Indeed Ken has inspired a large body of research
visiting assignments to the Universities of Heidelberg, Sor-
and application which has crossed disciplinary and national
bonne, Rome, and Kyoto. He has widely travelled in different
boundaries. This issue of PS offers a state-of-the art collection
parts of the world and has collaborated with scholars from
of articles reflecting on Ken’s work and the growth of social
psychology and many allied fields of human inquiry. In 1993,
constructionism in different domains. The idea to bring out this
he and his colleagues launched the Taos Institute as a non-
special issue germinated in December 2009 when Ken and his
profit organization dedicated to bringing constructionist ideas
wife Mary visited Delhi University and shared constructionist
together with societal practices. The Institute now offers con-
ideas with a cross section of the community of present and
ferences, workshops, a Ph.D. program, certificates, publica-
future Indian psychologists. The day he lectured here, we also
tions, and on-line resources. Ken is serving as its President. He
is also an adjunct professor at Tilburg University.
G. Misra (*) : A. Prakash As a warm, considerate, and engaging person, Ken is
Department of Psychology, Arts Faculty Extension Building,
very generous with his ideas. In his academic journey he
University of Delhi,
Delhi 110007, India has been coherent with his social construction theory and
e-mail: misragirishwar@gmail.com maintained his course while at the same time continually
A. Prakash revising, expanding and evolving his contributions. During
e-mail: anandp0001@yahoo.com his long career, Ken has tirelessly concentrated on reflection
122 Psychol Stud (April–June 2012) 57(2):121–125

and action using interpretation and construction as key tools. physiology cannot account for the variations in the
He has now become an institution in himself. human behavior over time… To be sure, varying
Going beyond the insular orientation of psychology, Ken responses to the environment rely on variations in
has often been crossing the disciplinary boundaries to create physiological function. However, physiology can never
bridges and searching for shared spaces to foster dialogue. specify the nature of the stimulus inputs or the response
Building on developments in contemporary discourses in the context to which the individual is exposed. It can never
philosophy of science, cultural studies, and interpretive inqui- account for the continuously shifting patterns of what is
ry, Ken has widened the net of psychological exploration and considered the good or desirable in society, and thus a
situated it in a culturally informed dynamic intellectual space. range of primary motivational sources for the individual.
He has critically addressed many concepts and assumptions However, while social psychology is thus insulated
that are taken for granted by those who are educated in the from physiological reductionism, its theories are not
positivist mould of knowledge creation, which has been insulated from historical change’. (1973, Pp. 315–316).
informing the mainstream psychological investigations.
The constructionist turn has been controversial. It has met It may be noted that in recent years there is revival of
with resistance and contested by those who, like physical interest among psychologists in accounting everything in
scientists, subscribe to an essentialist view of reality and claim terms of neuro-physiological processes and mechanisms.
legitimacy for the scientifically produced and represented Proposals of brain-based understanding have been on in-
‘objective’ knowledge. Positioned in such a scenario, Ken crease. There is strong assertion that almost all psycholog-
has indefatigably tried to demystify the conceptual, theoreti- ical processes can be ultimately traced to brain processes.
cal, and methodological implications of such knowledge This is in tune with the idea of psychology as natural
claims by critiquing and offering empowering reconstructions science. As such it required grounding of mental processes
(see Gergen 1982, 1985, 1994, 2001, 2009). In so doing, he in neuro-physiology. In 2010 Ken addressed the problems
has demonstrated an unparalleled intellectual courage and pa- involved in such reifications. In a paper titled The Accultur-
tient striving. Ken’s early work has been dominated by a critical ated Brain Ken has raised some important issues for the
stance but in later works he has moved toward developing an discipline as well as society. Examining the socio-cultural
alternative vision for social life characterized by joint action, implications of brain based explanations he observed that brain
performance, relational nature of constructed realities, and determinism implies a kind of neo-fatalism and makes impor-
cultural inclusiveness. tant concepts empty of values. In contrast, Ken noted that the
A moment’s reflection on the contemporary social reality brain may be thought
would bring home the point that the perspective of construction-
ism has become more pertinent today than ever before, espe- ‘as an instrument for achieving culturally constructed
cially on the following two counts. First, it respects the plurality ends. All attempts to infer mental states from behavioral
and diversity in our social world. Instead of a singular or observation are suspended, then, on a network of conjec-
hegemonic view of reality, constructionism entertains multiple tural assumptions…Brain scan data do not solve the
realities which emerge and therefore offers innovative ways of problem of inference, but simply remove it from one site
appreciating and shaping reality (Gergen et al. 1996). Recog- of speculation to another. Brain scans do not speak for
nizing ‘others’ on their terms builds trust and encourages dia- themselves. To read them as evidence of depression,
logue. The move from the notion of objective reality to reality as deceit, trust, empathy, political preferences, and so on,
construction opens the scope of interchange, collaboration, and is essentially to participate in a tradition of cultural inter-
sharing. Explicating and elaborating the significance and impli- pretation. In this sense, making connections between
cations of these ideas for a better world has been a major theme mind and brain is a form of cultural projection. That is,
in Ken’s work. Using this as a building block, Ken has ventured one must participate in a cultural tradition in which the
to envision collaborative practices in the domains such as existence of mental states is presumed in order to read
health, organization, human development, and education. brain scans in their terms’ (Gergen, 2010, p. 7).
Second, social constructionism reconfigures human dis-
courses in a non-foundationist and non reductionist ways. In To Ken ‘brain may be a major facilitator of our actions, it
his groundbreaking paper titled Social Psychology as His- is not their progenitor’ (Gergen, 2010, p.16). This view
tory published in 1973, Ken drew attention to the histori- acknowledges the value of indigenous psychologies rooted
cally situated nature of social psychological inquiry and the in diverse cultures. The Western psychology’s cultural im-
resulting theory and knowledge. He observed: perialism keeps other constructions on the margin. He asks:
‘Why there has not been a lively interest in exploring the neural
‘Perhaps the primary guarantee that social psychology basis of karma, swabhava, swadharma, and sthita pragya, all
will never disappear via reduction to physiology is that significant to human functioning in Hindu psychology’?
Psychol Stud (April–June 2012) 57(2):121–125 123

(Gergen 2010, P. 8). In seeing human activities as culturally into thinking that what is new for us must, simply, be made
bound, we can envision alternative futures, especially with the from what is already in existence. Shotter notes that the
understanding of phenomenon like neural plasticity. notion of relational embedding in our surroundings is en-
A concerted investment in relational processes has become tirely new in Ken’s recent work. The capacities for collab-
a key concern of Ken’s work. He notes that in today’s era of orative inquiry help to better the conditions of our own lives
rapidly changing ‘glocal’ boundaries, the idea of an individ- and our living of them together. Our ontology lies ‘within a
ual appears dislocated and inept. He also observes that the process of relational flow, in which there is both, continuous
celebration of the individual mind as a locus of capacity for movement toward constraint, and an openness to the evolu-
autonomous thought and judgment is a legacy of Western tion of meaning’ (Gergen, 2009, p.46). Human actions have
Enlightenment. Treating the individual mind as the primary no meaning in and of themselves; only within an ongoing
reality creates a gulf between the self and other. In this confluence of joint- or co-action can they begin to have a
scheme we don’t know the other mind so one need not trust practical meaning. Shotter posits that ‘if our living activity is
the other. As a consequence, relationships are becoming truly determined by that which has not yet been achieved,
artificial and of secondary importance and we are moving but which is in fact anticipated (as at least possible) in the
toward a culture of loneliness, self-centeredness, and antago- flow of already occurring events, then we must contemplate
nism, with reduced degree of community participation. the possibility of a world that is still coming into being—a
The process of knowledge generation is primarily relation- world within which the many different flowing strands of
al in nature. As Ken has nicely put, “reasoning well” is not to different activity intertwine, become entangled with each
step outside of relationships for a “private moment”, but to other, and then sometimes separate; a turbulent, not-yet-
participate fully within them. He firmly believes that com- settled, dialogically-structured world—a world that is still
munally shared understanding and values are constitutive of in the making. As a result, the whole field of psychological
science. Also, knowledge deeply involves the work of inter- inquiry must take on a new cast—especially if it is to take on
pretation. Thus knowledge may not be more or less true but the relational responsibility for the practical creation of worlds
its functionality in terms of culturally accepted beliefs which sustain, rather than merely exploit, the relational flow
and values may be low or high. Thus knowledge originates within which the confluences responsible for their emergence
from communities and not from the individual minds. In this occur. We must conduct our inquiries from within the midst of
way social construction becomes a framework within which turbulent, flowing processes.’
the production and use of knowledge is embedded. In the next contribution Anderson shares her reflections on
how Gergen has offered and substantiated a shift from the
individual to the social, including the shift of the focus on
Contributions to The Present Issue of PS knowledge from an individual cognitive construction to a
communal one, from language as representational to language
This special issue of Psychological Studies begins with a as a dynamic social process, and from the notion of a person as
recent interview of Ken by Liping Yang, a scholar from a bounded self to the notion of a person as a ‘multi-being’.
Nanjing Normal University, China. Ken has provided a Against this backdrop she discusses therapy as relational
candid account of his current engagements and responded recovery. She argues that the constructionist view challenges
to a range of questions related to theory and application of the hierarchy and dualism in therapeutic systems. The empha-
constructionism. He declares that it is the dialogue which is sis is on using the dynamic process of dialogue with each
the ultimate aim of his endeavours. To him, social construc- other, others and one’s self. Thus the relational and dialogic
tionism works as a meta-theory of knowledge and also conversational endeavour becomes central. Dialogue invites
furnishes a theory that accounts for the happenings in life. and requires of its participants a sense of mutuality. These
To him knowledge is a communal construction. He says: characteristics distinguish dialogue as a collaborative and
generative joint activity.
When we talk about the world, it is not a mirror of the
Situating constructionism in the context of communica-
world. It is a way of using words for some purpose,
tion discipline, McNamee observes that Ken’s work inspires
one interpretation among a possible infinity. So there
and influences practitioners working in many areas. It offers
is no truly true account, no truth with the capital “T”,
resources such as centering relational processes which, in
no objectivity that is opposed to a subjective account.
turn, generate the expansion of collaborative, participatory
Ken’s interview is followed by a thought provoking practices that embrace alternative worldviews through a
contribution by Shotter. Reflecting on Relational Being reflexive stance. Ken has challenged himself and others to
(Gergen 2009), he notes that the basic way of being in the stay on the edge because it is on the edge that new relational
world is to be constantly in motion. We live continuously in possibilities can be created. Ken’s position is that “the limits
the midst of change. However the linguistic habit leads us of my relations are the limits of my resources”. This implies
124 Psychol Stud (April–June 2012) 57(2):121–125

the salience of situated joint action. It is argued that meaning contribution of the social constructionist paradigm to har-
is constructed with others and realized in the collaborative monize different perspectives on therapy. In particular, at-
performances of people in relation. tention is drawn to three premises: (1) the individual psychic
In the next paper Yu and Sun have focused on organizational world is constructed within relational processes, mainly
processes. They note the limitations of reductionist approach through dialogue (2) in general, discourses can be classified
which essentializes the ‘social’ through the usage of language, as either generative or degenerative, and (3) individuals
which itself is a product of culture. The social constructionist construct their life narrative according to a common-sense
work has brought into focus the fact that social psychological that—more or less openly—draws its concepts from “offi-
theories tend to reflect historical and cultural circumstances, cial” psychology theories. This relational perspective allows
rather than capturing laws of nature. The implications of this one to appreciate the implications for clinical practice,
view for understanding organizational processes are elaborated. where therapist and client are seen as “multi-beings” and
In the next contribution Wortham and Jackson examine therefore endowed with multiple views.
the significance of relational approach for educational re- Using a dialogical style Paré and Sutherland have
search and practice. They argue that education should in- addressed the challenges in practice and examine concerns
volve a set of processes to enhance relationships rather than in counselling education following a social constructionist
enhancing the individual’s mind and offer critique of the perspective. Building on the centrality of relationship as the
prevailing assumptions. They elaborate the emerging em- key theme they have written the article in two voices. Paré’s
phasis on individuals as woven into contexts and knowledge reflections occupy the major portion of the contribution;
as produced in relationships and bring out the implications however, his account often takes turns by the reflective
of knowledge as ‘contextualized’. interventions by a second counsellor educator, Sutherland.
Population dynamics are changing and the challenge of They draw attention to the relational aspect of knowledge
graceful aging is widely recognized as one of the key societal and meaning and reflexive cooperation. They argue that
issues across the globe. In this context Randall has addressed descriptions and explanations are accomplishments of coor-
the problem of aging which simultaneously occurs in physical dinated human action, and relationships provide various
as well as psychological domains. More specifically the idea forms of choices for going forward, and are also impacted
of biographical aging is distinguished from biological aging. significantly by the choices made.
Randall argues that an “inside” perspective views aging in Taking to a different plane of deliberation Kwee, a Bud-
more positive terms, and aging people can be conceptualized dhist scholar and practitioner, argues that the psychology of
as persons with (and within) complex webs of stories. Aging relational Buddhism is a cutting-edge practical understanding
may be configured as a (potentially) creative process, a pro- of life. He notes that while living in an ocean of relationships
cess of not merely getting old, but consciously growing old. from the cradle to the grave, it is significant to recognize the
The conceptual analysis presented by Randall brings a new interpersonal significance of the binding “we”. In the context
orientation to aging. of the theory of dependent origination, to act is to inter-act and
In the next contribution, Panda has examined the multilin- to be is to inter-be. This deep insight goes well with the
gual education (MLE) discourse and practices in the Indian assumptions of social constructionism. Relational Buddhism
context. The choice of MLE model is influenced by the invites the co-creation of inter-being-in-between-selves and of
dominant construction of the problem of tribal children’s a “non-foundational morality of coordinated action” to render
learning in regular government schools as one of ‘poor’ or “team spirit for humanity” with congenial bonds as a lifeline.
‘inadequate’ bridging between their everyday language and Priya has addressed the problem of suffering and healing
concepts and the school language and the academic concepts. and offers a critique of the Western biomedicine that focuses
‘Bridging’ and ‘exit’, therefore, became two foundational on diagnosis and treatment of the symptoms of a disease.
metaphors of the Indian MLE programmes. The paper decon- Using a social constructionist paradigm as a meta theory, the
structs these metaphors and argues for a critique in pedagogy. human experiences of suffering and healing are explicated
Using an autoethnographic lens, Sharma notes that the and connected with the works of Eric J. Cassell and Arthur
communal construction of mental illness makes recovery a Kleinman. It is argued that suffering and healing experien-
daunting challenge since society largely perceives the psy- ces are socio-historically contextualized. In this framework
chiatrically ill as ‘deficient’. Not only does one have to deal the dialogic partnership between the researcher and the
with the illness itself, but has to address the perpetual stigma participant becomes a meaningful medium to understand
associated with the labelling. Using a personal narrative, it is such experiences.
shown how one constructs structures which help to make In the next paper entitled “On a Train from Morgantown”
oneself stable and empowered from within. Jones has shared a film script. It is built around the fictive
The domain of helping professions is the theme of the historical dialogue between a German developmental psy-
next contribution in which Romaioli explores the potential chologist, Klaus Riegel and Kenneth Gergen, an American
Psychol Stud (April–June 2012) 57(2):121–125 125

social psychologist. Both have just presented papers at a Together these contributions map out a clear and com-
conference and are boarding a train to return to their respective pelling vision of a constructionist perspective from an
places. The author meets them as they are travelling from insider’s perspective. They seek to explain the dialogical
Morgantown. Their conversation ignites ideas that would nature of the social world. This issue PS is our attempt
propel Gergen into abandoning metatheories and lighting the to contribute to the efforts in this direction and to
spark that began the concept of social constructionism. The recognize the accomplishments of a brilliant academic
conversation represents the interface between old ideas of leader. We present this issue with the hope that it will
grand theories and the birth of new ideas inspired by the ignite a spirit of productive and useful deliberation for
possibilities of a smaller, more intimate world view. Jones making human lives more fulfilling through an open
uses retrospective imagining supported by narrative biograph- minded dialogue and reflexivity.
ical theory. He extends these to the illusory biographies of
others constructed within a sense of other as created by an
Acknowledgments We thank Ken, Mary and the authors who con-
imaginative projection of self onto their worlds.
tributed papers to this issue. We also thank Nivida Chandra, Purnima
In the final contribution, Mary Gergen, a feminist scholar Singh, Rekha Singhal, Preeti Kapur and the Indian Council of Social
and life partner of Ken, reconstructs Ken’s journey over the Science Research who helped in organizing the visit of Ken to Delhi
years by relating to places and people in a historical context. University. The preparation of this special issue was facilitated by the
USEFI’s Fulbright-Nehru Visiting Fellowship to one of the editors
Her narrative offers a deeply reflective account of the person
(GM) and support available at Department of Psychology, New School
that Ken is, his zeal for writing, sharing and relating through of Social Research, New York.
dialogue. Amidst diverse moves, turns, challenges, and col-
laborations Ken has been continuously engaged in appreci-
ating the complexities of human life as it unfolds. Mary
offers insights into the evolution of Ken’s passions, habits References
and motivation for his wide-ranging concerns for humanity
—his being and his ways of becoming—through engage- Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality
ments in dialogical reflection and action. and Social Psychology, 26, 309–320.
Gergen, K. J. (1982). Toward transformation in social knowledge. New
Ken’s creativity, imagination and engagement continue and
York: Springer-Verlag, (2nd Edition, London: Sage, 1994)
his ideas have made their presence felt around the world. The Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern
constructionist view is increasingly being used by a range of psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275.
researchers and practitioners. It is assuming the form of a Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships. Cambridge Mass:
Harvard University Press.
paradigm. However, it makes no claims for one truth. It opens
Gergen, K. J. (2001). Social construction in context. London: Sage.
the door to multiple ways of engaging in knowledge. The Gergen, K. J. (2009). The relational being: Beyond self and commu-
consciousness of multiplicity is indeed an emerging global nity. New York: Oxford University Press.
sensitivity. In this context various relational processes like Gergen, K. J. (2010). The acculturated brain. Theory and Psychology,
20, 1–20.
dialogues, collaborations, networks and negotiations are crit-
Gergen, K. J., Gulerce, A., Lock, A., & Misra, G. (1996). Psy-
ical. The social constructionist move from monologue to chological science in cultural context. American Psychologist,
dialogue, from isolated to relational rationality, is the future. 51, 496–503.

View publication stats