>Return-Path: <pcp-request@mailbase.ac.uk>
>Received: from mailout1.mailbase.ac.uk (128.240.226.11) by canyon.merrimack.edu
> (MX V5.0) with ESMTP; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 06:14:39 -0400
>Received: from naga.mailbase.ac.uk (naga.mailbase.ac.uk [128.240.226.3]) by
> mailout1.mailbase.ac.uk (8.8.x/Mailout) with ESMTP id LAA14216; Tue,
> 2 Jun 1998 11:17:15 +0100 (BST)
>Received: (from daemon@localhost) by naga.mailbase.ac.uk (8.8.x/Mailbase) id
> LAA27316; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:16:55 +0100 (BST)
>Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by
> naga.mailbase.ac.uk (8.8.x/Mailbase) with ESMTP id LAA27290; Tue, 2
> Jun 1998 11:16:52 +0100 (BST)
>Received: from client85c7.globalnet.co.uk (client85c7.globalnet.co.uk
> [194.126.85.199]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id
> LAA14931 for <pcp@mailbase.ac.uk>; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:16:49 +0100
>Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:16:49 +0100
>Message-ID: <199806021016.LAA14931@sand.global.net.uk>
>X-Sender: sigma@mail.globalnet.co.uk
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Subject: Re: Social Constructionism
>From: Charles Smith <sigma@globalnet.co.uk>
>To: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
>X-List: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
>X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave pcp' to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk?body=leave%20pcp>
>Reply-To: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
>Sender: pcp-request@mailbase.ac.uk
>Errors-To: pcp-request@mailbase.ac.uk
>Precedence: list
>
>At 14:30 2-6-98 +1200, you wrote:
>>I am about three-quarters of the way through Vivien Burr's book "An
>>Introduction to Social Constructionism." I have two questions of my
>>learned colleagues on this list.
>>
>>Question 1.
>>Are Personal Construct Psychology and Social Constructionism
>>incompatible points of view? I find myself beginning to place a foot
>>in each camp. I see some specific areas of incompatibility but a
>>number of areas of congruence. In your opinion(s) can a person
>>comfortably subscribe to both PCP and Social Constructionism
>>simultaneously?
>>
>(Question 2 deleted)
>>Dr. Robin Hill
>>
>
>
>I used to worry about this question while studying for a psychology degree.
>As a practitioner (change management) I find it difficult to think about one
>perspective without the other.
>
>As an example, someone recently said to me: "Of course, if my boss gives me
>an order, then I've got to do it". This statement can be analysed in social
>constructionist terms - it is dependent on a whole range of social meanings
>about hierarchies and authority. On the other hand, I could enquire into the
>construing of the speaker of himself as dependent or subservient, and what
>that means to him. The speaker is simultaneously construing himself in
>hierarchical terms, and, by his statement, producing social meanings.
>
>Individuals have personal constructs, but they are framed in social terms.
>Individuals validate these constructs using social meanings. So pcp has to
>recognise the social dimension. On the other hand, there isn't a social
>meaning that isn't generated by individuals (to validate their constructs)
>and being construed by individuals.
>
>Don't sit on the fence. Dismantle it.
>
>Don't put a foot in each camp. Reorganise them into a single camp around
>wherever you want to put your feet.
>
>Regards
>
>Charles Smith
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%