>
> I wonder if, in subscribing to a label of "Kellian essentialist", we aren't
> trivialising Kelly's theory and stance on technique to the point at which
> it becomes an Aunt Sally with which _no one_ would agree?
The opposite pole of my construct relating to the question of
essentialism is that of liberalism. In this context *liberalism* is a
term applied in much the same way here as in contemporary feminist
theory. It implies the use of isolated actions and rules in the
absence of an understanding of the rationale and a lack of critical
attention to the unintended consequences or implications of such rules.
> Then there is the notion that you're a "Kellian essentialist" only if you
> limit yourself to the repertory grid.
Absolutely not. In fact I think you may be more likely aligned with
"liberalism" if you only used *a* technique, without recourse to the
theory, or you confused a technique for *a* theory. Essentialism, or
congruity of action and theory is not limiting in terms of actions (we
can and should, I think, continue to be as creative as possible in this
regard). However it does place limitations upon subsequent interpretations.
I absolutely agree with Mike, Devi and others that we should be limited by
preemptive constructions of elements, in this case, the methods of Kellian
psychology.
Regards malcolm c. cross
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%