Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Theory & Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Raskin, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Neimeyer, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Other

Coherent Constructivism

A Response to Mackay

Jonathan D. Raskin

State University of New York at New Paltz

Robert A. Neimeyer

University of Memphis

In this article we outline a response to Mackay's (2003) critique of constructivism as anti-realist, anti-determinist and anti-scientific. We argue that Mackay and constructivists operate from very different theoretical premises. Whereas Mackay sees his philosophical bases as foundational absolutes, constructivists see theirs (as well as Mackay's) as postulated premises. Thus, Mackay's theoretical assumptions, in combination with his construction of a `straw figure' version of his opponents, lead him to see constructivism as incoherent. However, this tells us more about Mackay's point of view than it does about constructivism's coherence. In our view, constructivism is not hostile to scientific discourse, and, indeed, converges at important points with Mackay's own treatment of `experiential meaning'. Ultimately, however, constructivists attempt to stretch the boundaries of permissible scholarly discourse beyond the realist bases advocated by Mackay, in order to analyze and critique the social epistemology by which both psychotherapeutic and scientific processes are constructed.

Key Words: constructivism • idealism • meaning • postmodernism • psychotherapy • realism • social constructionism

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 3, 397-409 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354303013003006
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
N. Mackay
On `Just Not Getting It': A Reply to McNamee and to Raskin and Neimeyer
Theory Psychology, June 1, 2003; 13(3): 411 - 419.
[Abstract] [PDF]