Re: Introduction

(no name) ((no email))
Sun, 08 Oct 1995 10:23:40 -0400 (EDT)

To the writer who worries that PCP people have dug themselves into a deep hole
by concentrating on PERSONAL constructs: And anyone else willing to read on
the topic:

Bravo for the social constuctionists. They have done a service for all

BUT, BUT, BUT -- Why do they persist in making the claim that the
concerns of PERSONAL construct psychologists have limited their vision
regarding the importance of SOCIAL constructions.

Let me make my position clear, at the outset. Some of us have
constantly looked at social construction processes -- but, we have insisted
that a SOCIAL construction process MUST eventually result in a PERSONAL
construction process. How could one make a constructivist position that would
not eventually bring one to PERSONAL constructs? It is the PERSON who must
filter inputs through HIS/HER system in order to function -- in all forms of
functions, social and otherwise. Agreed????? YES _____________ NO ________??

Now -- does the writer wish to look at PERSONAL construct
psychologists' work with the sociality of construction processes????

As start -- please take a look at some 20-year-old work:
Stringer, P. and Bannister, D. (1979). Constructs of Sociality and
Individuality. London: Academic Press.

Having contributed a chapter to that book, and having gone under the
belief [delusion???? what?????] that we were speaking about the reprimand
process as a form of social interaction in which the dialogists attempt to come
up with a socially formed common construction, I was sure that we were focusing
on the social construction process.
The book also contains 14 other chapters -- one chapter being an essay
written by George Kelly -- all of which [it appears to me????] take up matters
of sociality.

I know that we put together about 6 other essays, reports, etc., which
focus on the social processes involved in parent reprimanding. In that I was
author or co-author of those chapters, I happen to believe that they are quite
useful essays.
Whether or not one judges them to be useful essays, their existence
does demonstrate [I believe] that some PERSONAL construct psychologists have
attempted to lay out understandings of SOCIAL processes involved in the
development of PERSONAL constructions.

Thus, I am befuddled by commentators who persist in insisting that
PERSONAL construct pyschologists have ignored, done poorly by, etc., developing
propositions about SOCIALITY.

In that I cannot understand the basis of the claims of the
unidentified writer who repeats that charge, I ask your [all of you] help in
understanding why that claim persists?
I happen to have some ideas on the matter of why that claim persists,
but I need some help in developing a SOCIALLY SHARED CONSTRUCTION of the
reasons for the persistence of that claim!!!!

Jim Mancuso