Is Kelly a Sidelight?
Sun, 9 Jun 1996 00:39:07 -0400

This is not meant to be a negative question. It is a concern. I hope
to receive replies personally or publically. I will respect a person's
choice. I would like feedback from those whom may address my concerns. Are
they real or not?
I have received a mailing for the Journal called "Constructivist Change"
which is affiliated with the "Center for Constructive Change." I could only
have received this from my affiliatiation with NAPCN and the International
Mailing List. The executive Director is Michael Mahoney and several people
whom are on this mailing list are on the Executive Board including one of the
two editors of the "Journal of Constructive Change", Personal Construct
Psychology's only journal." This new journal seems to compete with the
"Journal of Constructive Change" which was to supplement and now seems to
have replaced what was once called the "Personal Construct Clearinghouse."
My last copy of the Clearinghouse is from 1988. I had always found the
Clearinghouse to be terribly personal and a labor of love put together by a
few people who worked hard in the early days of paper mailing lists to keep a
small group of non-traditionalists together. The "community" chipped in
together to help defray mailing costs. It certainly never made a profit.
In 1988, when the "International Journal of Personal Construct
Psychology" was founded, I believed this would keep me up to date and
initially seemed linked to the International Community and helped also to
regionalize interest groups by having contact persons in specific regions.
In 1994, the Journal began to be called the "Journal of Constructivist
Psychology" to further broaden the circulation base as way to further
"integrate into a larger community." It also further diluted Kellian
representation and contact with the "Personal Construct Psychology" community
which is already spread very thin.
In recent months, there has been much discussion which will not be
reopened again about what it means to be a Kellian (Let us not again refer to
it as the corporation etc as this has been discussed at length). My concern
is wether it is losing meaning by lack of training by the continuing
loosening of the definition to include more people as part of a base. I am
afraid I am seeing less and less representation of more traditional Kellians
and am beginning to wonder if they are still around? Basic concepts now must
be discussed at length to reach a consensus because of such diverse
philosophical underpinnings to terms that only sound alike. Am I missing
another forum or am I misguided in my concerns? I would not mind at all if I
am wrong but want people to look at this issue who have been involved with
Kellian Psychology for awhile.

John Fallon
Thresholds Rehabilitation Center
Chicago, Il USA