In my humble opinion, Bob has opened a very core issue inviting us to
participate in brainstorm concerning the constructivist alternative.
Although it seems that the discussion is going towards constructivist
construction of the Self, I think that there are at least three
different questions forth considering separately within the issue.
First is concerned with consensus. Do we have a consensus talking
about "constructivist metatheory"? As I see it, there are at least
three perspectives which may, or may be not construed as being
more or less similar. These are Personal constructivism, Radical
constructivism and Social constructionism. If they are not similar,
at least there is a similar overarching principle connecting them.
Do we have a consensus about this principle (is it in the realm of
hermeneutics or something else)?
Second has to do with complementarity issue. Are we talking about concurrent
relationship between realist and constructivist perspectives, or, may be,
we can talk about their complementarity (in the way J. Royce has definied
it in Annals of Theoretical Psychology Vol.3)?
Third is probably the one we will have the consensus about, but are
we fully awware of it. What are the implications of constructivist
thought? If it would be the only alternative left for psychologist,
what would happen? In the University where I work, it is still not
very popular stream of thinking, and mainstream of academic professors
(read as positivist) are highly hostile towards any anti essentialism.
Could it be that constructivist issues are to threatening for non
constructivist.
I am sorry if I have posed questions instead of offering opinions.
But this is my way of construing constructivism: Ask the silly question.
Dusan Stojnov
Psychology Department
University of Belgrade
Cika Ljubina 18-20
11000 Belgrade
YUGOSLAVIA
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%