{"id":466,"date":"2011-05-07T11:35:18","date_gmt":"2011-05-07T18:35:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kooleady.ca\/thoughts\/?p=466"},"modified":"2011-05-07T12:04:36","modified_gmt":"2011-05-07T19:04:36","slug":"micro-vs-macro-social-constructionism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kooleady.ca\/thoughts\/?p=466","title":{"rendered":"Micro vs. Macro Social Constructionism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here in North America, many people talk about constructivism and constructionism, but mostly from the Piaget vs. Papert perspective<\/a> (also note their focus on child development). (Oh, some excellent links here: The Nature of Constructionist Learning<\/a>, MIT.) In Europe, constructionism seems to focus on dialogue and relationship. The following comes from my notes mostly on Vivan Burr’s book:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism<\/em> (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Routledge.URL: <\/strong>http:\/\/www.amazon.ca\/Social-Constructionism-Vivien-Burr\/dp\/0415317606<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

All forms of social constructionism see language as \u201cperformative and constructive\u201d (p. 176).<\/p>\n

For both critical realists and constructiv<\/span><\/strong>ists, I believe (as per the European take on it), they both see dialogue as leading to the arrival at a common Truth (leading towards an Essentialist viewpoint of some underlying, foundational reality). But, construction<\/span><\/strong>ists would hold that there is no ultimate Truth; rather, everyone has their own perspective on truth. Although individuals can construct ideas together, no two people will hold the exact same view on it.<\/p>\n

From Gergen’s book (see my previous posts):<\/p>\n

\u201c. . . the constructiv<\/span><\/strong>ist movement, which has been centrally concerned with the way in which the world is constructed or construed by individual minds. The central message here is that our actions are based not on the way the world is, but on the meaning it has for this individual\u201d (Gergen, 2009, p. 26).<\/p>\n

\u201cAlthough resonant with constructionist views, constructiv<\/span><\/strong>ists tend to place meaning within the mind of the individual, while social construction<\/span><\/strong>ists locate the origin of meaning in relationships\u201d (Gergen, 2009, p. 26).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

From my discussions with [unnamed professor]: Construction<\/span><\/strong>ism suggests that there are multiple valid views, but there is no ultimate truth\/reality. Our understandings are shaped by language\u2014which is an imperfect vehicle for expression. The problem with language is in the inability to accurately transmit meaning. This explains the close relationship constructionism has with \u201cdialogue\u201d. Derrida and Leotard (post-modernists) propose that all human concepts are relative; we can never really understand how another human being thinks, experiences, etc.<\/p>\n

All that said, there are also different flavours of constructionism. Burr outlines the following:<\/p>\n

Macro Social Constructionism<\/h3>\n

Foucauldian & Critical Discourse Analysis (p. 150) <\/strong><\/p>\n