|
 »»
Social Construction, Relational
Theory and Change Practices
Glimpses of Previous Gergen workshops
The
Spring 2005 Gergen workshop
The
Summer 2003 workshop with an account offered by Peter
Dalsgaard
Department of Psychology
University of Copenhagen
Offering stories
We are no longer hidden
Flowers are revealed
(Participant haiku by Lisa Sydow)
The workshop was arranged by the Taos Institute and
took place from June 6-8th at the Gergen residence in
Wallingford, Pennsylvania. The participants were a mixed
group, stemming from Bahamas, Canada, USA, Holland,
Denmark and Taiwan; a prime example of the globalization
that have become a hallmark of our time. The professional
backgrounds of the participants were also mixed, yet
seemed to fall in two main groups, one therapeutic the
other organizational. The atmosphere of the workshop
was relaxed and informal, yet serious and the participants
dedicated. My own interest in the workshop was first
and foremost practical. Currently enrolled in a Doctoral
program, I have worked for some years as a cognitive
therapist, while always maintaining an interest in the
effects of societal postmodernization of selfhood and
psychology while trying to integrate this into clinical
practice. I was hoping the workshop could help me further
integrate the themes of social constructionism into
a tangible practice.
 The
workshop started Friday, with drinks and dinner during
which the participants became acquainted with each other.
After dinner, Ken Gergen gave a presentation on social
constructionism, followed by a discussion. The criticisms
of representationalism were outlined under three headlines,
namely ideological critiques, critiques stemming from
literary criticism and rhetoric, and social critiques.
The endpoint was the question of where to go after the
end of representalionalism, how social constructionism
may serve in our professional life. A few points were
outlined that served as the vantage point for the following
days. Social constructionism contains no single formula
for describing the world in which we live, a starting
point that opens up the possibility of multiple dialogues
about reality. The departure from representalionalism
implies a shift from individualism to relatedness and
it is in relatedness that the requirements about descriptions
of the world are formed. In other words relationships,
not the individual, becomes the vantage point for inquiry
about the world, and dialogue assumes a central role
in any inquiry. One is inevitably remained of the Kierkegaardian
dictum from Sickness Unto Death that: "The self
is a relationship that relates to itself. Or is it in
the relationship that the self relates to itself? The
self is not the relationship, but that the relationship
relates to itself." (author's translation).
 Saturday
had an extensive program. The day started with a presentation
and discussion about language, or rather, how reality
is constructed via language and the implications of
this for knowledge and practice. Knowledge becomes knowledge
qua unfolding within a relationship; relationships,
or groups, create shared meaning yet simultaneously
delimits which meaning may be shared. This paradox made
for some fascinating discussions on how to enhance dialogue,
and what role psychology could play in this. An interesting
concept was introduced during the talks namely that
of re-contextualization, which may be defined as the
application of knowledge or practice from one context
into another. Dialogue may be expanded this way. An
example was the introduction of elements from Buddhism
into social constructionism by some participants, or
the mixing of various therapeutic orientations in clinical
work. Such "disembedding" of knowledge such not take
place uncritically; non-reflexive re-contextualization
may be a Trojan horse that could end up destroying valuable
concepts.
The discussions on language and knowledge prepared
the ground for a subsequent presentation and discussions
on appreciative inquiry (AI), attempt to structure discourse
around resources rather than focus on problems. This
does not seem like an easy task, as clinical and organizational
practice tend to focus on "whatšs wrong?" a strategy
that may personalize the issues ("how do I solve this?")
and perhaps overemphasize the difficulties encountered.
AI is an attempt to release resources, and change relationships
outside a nucleus of "a problem". The risk is of course
to engage in a Polyannašish discourse that in the quest
for resources simply sweeps any difficulties under the
rug, something all too often encountered in the some
dubious therapeutic enterprises under the heading of
self-actualization. AI is an attempt to construct a
different perspective on relevant issues and as such
it is something I would like to learn more about.
 The
discussions of the linguistic constructions involved
in organizational and clinical practices set the scene
for the group sessions of the afternoon, the most interesting
part of the weekend. Groups were formed to explore the
implications of social constructionism and relationships
in various areas, such as educational practice, leadership
and staff selection. I was in a group exploring the
topics of research methods and of psychiatric evaluation.
The discussion initially focused on well-known aspects
of postmodernism; a shift from individualism implies
a shift away from the quest for essence to stories and
discourse; in psychiatric evaluation this could imply
a shift away from the pre-perceptive diagnostic filter
to the clients story; in research it could imply a shift
from a quest for universal generalizable properties
via so-called unbiased means to a collaborative exploration,
i.e. in the form of semi-structured interviews. As the
discussion advanced it became clear that these well
known topics are more than just phrases and that social
constructivism is indeed inherent in the everyday work
of most participants. Clinical work implies a focus
on a story, typically presenting a problem and improved
relations is the goal of much therapy and organizational
intervention, and the assumptions inherent in language
and behavior are addressed. A re-contextualization of
therapeutic techniques from "modernistic" forms of psychology
may be justified; i.e. the psychodynamic concepts of
transference and counter-transference gain new meaning
in a relational context, as does a cognitive therapeutic
focus  on
how subjective meaning is constructed. Inspired by the
discussions of language a number of groups tried to
experiment with the form of presenting the findings.
My group came up with some haikušs one of which is presented
at the beginning; another group tried to illustrate
the dynamics of teaching using choreography. Following
the presentations, the discussions continued during
a tour of Swarthmore College and during the excellent
dinner that concluded the day.
Sunday, the final day, started with a video presentation
of Ken Gergen giving a presentation of relatedness and
spirituality. Dogmatism tends to end dialogue, and traditions
may be honored as relational resources, not static entities.
Spirituality may be enhanced by relationships, and a
number of scholars from the great religions were cited
to illustrate the role of relationships in spirituality.
For a participating European from a post-Christian society
who has spent a lot of time in the US, this was an interesting,
(and perhaps rather American?) angle on social constructionism.
If truth claims are social constructions, (organized)
religion may seem less important; yet the argument here
seems to open up for spirituality and religion to be
contained within a social constructionist framework
and used to generate greater relational depth. After
the video presentation, a brunch was served during which
two of the participants gave an outstanding violin performance.
This was followed by a discussion of the non-verbal
communication and relatedness. After this the workshop
was wrapped up; last questions posed, discussions wrapped
up, a list of addresses compiled and goodbyes made.
 The
condensed nature of the workshop left many impressions
and I found myself ruminating many of the topics covered
for weeks after it was over. The workshop was fruitful
in providing social constructionist perspective on my
clinical experience. It was also my introduction to
AI. As always with interesting topics, more time could
have been used and perhaps a reading list in advance
could have provided for less presentation and more discussion,
but these point are minor details on an overall great
workshop. The informality was a nice contrast to the
standard academic conference and the warmth of the participants,
who all stayed at the nearby Pendle Hills Retreat, and
the hospitality of our hosts made this an unforgettable
event. Space does not allow for a description of all
the aspects covered during the three days and it is
hard to capture the richness of the dialogue on print.
This is an account of the workshop from my perspective.
However, in line with the focus on relatedness, a copy
of this article was emailed to the participants who
could then apart from correcting any inconsistencies
there may be - offer a bit of their perspective into
this account. I am especially indebted to Lisa Sydow,
Ken Gergen and Nancy MacKay for their comments.
|
