RE: Core Versus Superordinate Constructs

Fri, 14 Mar 1997 15:04:14 -0500

>From: William Chambers[]
>Sent: Martes 11 de Febrero de 1997 02:45 PM
>Subject: Core Versus Superordinate Constructs
>Dear Estebon,
>Looking over the archives of the Kelly group for something interesting =
>noticed your post. You may well have followed up on your post in =
>concerning the difference between core and superordinate constructs.=20
>Having been removed from the mailing list last year, I follow the =
>via the archives so I am about three months behind the conversation. =
>are the first person I have written on the PCP net since then i was
>removed. Tell me, what you think the difference is. =20
>I wish you success in your doctoral studies.
>Bill Chambers

Hi Bill

I have just seen your message because I couldn=B4t use my mail in this
past month.

I would like to know if you have noticed the exchanges between Devi
Jankowicz, Graham Douglas and me; there I tried to explain my point of
view about the difference between core and superordinate constructs.
Anyway, and since the discussion gave me new insights, I will tell you
what I think now.

A core construct -in the line of the classic Kelly- governs the =
maintenance processes: that is, the physiological constructions of life
and the more fundamental distintions in his social world, which are -in
turn- related to his cultural and familiar enviroment. By itself, a core
construct is neither superordinate nor subordinate -it=B4s just crucial
for the conservation of life.

On the other hand, superordinate/subordinate is a dimension which shows
the position of a particular construct in a particular system of
reference (in the light of other constructs). A construct is
superordinated to other and subordinated to still another one. A
superordinate construct is not necesarily a core construct, and vice
versa, because superordinate/subordinate is an aspect of the relation
that two or more construct hold between them. Core and peripherical, on
the contrary, are concepts that retain their meaning when used on a
single construct -"this is a core construct" =3D "this construct is
crucial for the life of this person". Two levels of discurse are
involved here. We may confound them and get trapped in a paradox ("are
there superordinate constructs that are not core constructs?"). The
constructs themselves are neither superordinated, nor peripherical, nor
anything -they don=B4t even exist -but we may see them in many different
lights, "core" and "superordinate" being just some of them.

That is it, Bill. I would like to hear your (or anyone) comments on

Until the next time,

Esteban Laso.