This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Shotter, J. Articles by Lannamann, J. W. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Situation of Social Constructionism

Its `hnprisonment' within the Ritual of Theory-Criticism-and-Debate

University of New Hampshire,jds{at}hypatia.unh.edu

John W. Lannamann

University of New Hampshire,john.lannamann{at}unh.edu

In a recent exchange in Theory & Psychology, in which (mostly Gergen's) social constructionism was the subject of some criticism, Gergen (2001a) remarked toward the end of his response, `I no longer find the tradition of argumentation a viable one.... Yet in order to sustain the dialogue, I find myself nevertheless drawn into the ritual' (p. 431). He does not, however, expand any further on this comment. Yet, as he is someone committed to the view that constructions are `social artefacts, products of historically situated interchanges among people' (Gergen, 1985, p. 267), we feel that he should. For, to the extent that he is a participant in `the Ritual' (the ritual of theory-criticism-and-debate), it is constitutive of his own identity. Indeed, there is thus something strangely paradoxical in all discussions of social constructionist theory and metatheory within the Ritual. For participant theorists still all center their talk-talk of theoretical concepts and ideas, of theoretical structures, and of how such structures might explain human conduct-within their own self-contained consciousnesses. As a consequence, although many would like to think of themselves as having moved away from a philosophy centered in the thought and ideas of individuals, such talk fails to achieve its aim. In ignoring the fact that the topics of their talk, their debates, exist only as joint achievements, they pass each other by. In this article, we explore what is entailed in re-situating social constructionism within the dialogically structured, spontaneously responsive, living events occurring between ourselves and the others and othemesses around us.

Key Words: debate • Descartes • social constructionism • theory-criticism-and-debate • Wittgenstein

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 5, 577-609 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354302012005894


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. Hollway Paradox in the Pursuit of a Critical Theorization of the Development of Self in Family Relationships Theory Psychology, August 1, 2006; 16(4): 465 - 482. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. J. Gergen and B. Zielke Theory in Action Theory Psychology, June 1, 2006; 16(3): 299 - 309. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. Drewery Why We Should Watch What We Say: Position Calls, Everyday Speech and the Production of Relational Subjectivity Theory Psychology, June 1, 2005; 15(3): 305 - 324. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. J. Stam Introduction: Varieties of Social Constructionism and the Rituals of Critique Theory Psychology, October 1, 2002; 12(5): 571 - 576. [Abstract] [PDF]