Re: Social Constructionism

Tim A. Connor (
Mon, 1 Jun 1998 22:34:15 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Robin Hill wrote:

> 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?

I've though about this a fair amount, and am inclined to say emphatically
"it depends..." PCP is a very clearly defined theory, while Social
Constructionism is a rather fuzzy set of theories. I think it's easier to
stand in PCP and dip a toe into SC than vice versa (though I think the
social constructionists need PCP's methodological rigor more than PCP
needs anything SC has to offer).

I do think they have different philosophical roots (American pragmatism
for PCP, European idealism for SC); I also think George Kelly would like
being called a postmodernist about as much as he liked being called an



Tim Connor, M.S. "Psychotherapy is not
Pacific University an applied science, it
School of Professional Psychology is a basic science in
2004 Pacific Avenue which the scientists
Forest Grove, OR 97116 USA are the client and his
<> therapist"
--George Kelly