Gergen, K. J.  Constructionism and Realism: How Are We to Go On?  In Ian Parker (Ed.) Social Constructionism, Discourse and Realism.  Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998, pp.147-156. (click here for commentary)

Social constructionism emerged as an argument against a form of realism that dominated postivist/empiricist science in psychology for many years now. It was particularly appealing to people who felt that their voices had been discriminated against and it assisted their arguments for social equality and justice. 

And so, after a while, a conflict emerged between the realists who thought in terms of empirical studies and foundational truths, and the discriminated against, who argued for social equality and justice by appealing to social constructionism. 

Slowly, however, those who used social constructionism to advocate social justice found that social constructionism was used against them.  It started like this: Some of the enthusiasts for social constructionism found that they needed to document their points with research.  These people did studies of natural conversations, but in doing so they had to violate the very canons of constructionism.  Second, there were numerous other groups of psychologists who, initially enthusiastic about social constructionism, were less enthusiastic on second glance because their areas of personal interest and research were being challenged by the social constructionist critique 

So, what do we do now?  Social constructionism is at loggerheads with realism, and the conflict is seriously disrupting progress on either side. 

I would like to proceed by taking a step back from the conflict to see if I can imagine a way in which these two perspectives can live together.  That is, my purpose is to look at the debate rather than to engage in the debate, to understand the conflict, rather than simply try to win. 

Why are we having this debate?  Because, perhaps, it is exciting to engage in academic conflicts like the one between constructionism and realism.  And in this atmosphere, the most tempting thing to do seems to be to separate into likeminded groups and plan ways to defeat the opposition. 

But this way of dividing into likeminded groups is self-defeating and deadening.  Our likeminded groups do not challenge us and they leave us with no way of resolving our debates with our opponents.  It is just that confronting disagreeing parties can cause us to think through our own theories better and become more creative.  If we are situated only in likeminded groups, this simply does not happen. 

This is not just an academic matter.  There are real social implications in conducting our debates in this agonistic way.  We need to discover a better way. 

Right now, the only alternative to segregating into like minded groups seems to be that we confront each other directly and engage in a war of words.  But, personally, I have doubts that this warring confrontation will be of any use at all.  Our beliefs are so different that we seem to have no way to make our arguments convincing, or even intelligible,  to each other.  There are just too many ways for each side to defeat the other side regardless of the value of the argument.  (For example, we can defeat each other by making direct ad hominem attacks on the interlocutor's character.  So, what if it is unfair?  It defeats the opposition.)  As long as we think of our debates on the model of war, no one is willing to admit defeat, and no one really wins. 

So, what else can we do?  Perhaps the best we can do is to discover a new mode of discourse, one which both realism and constructionism can embrace.  But what will this be? 

Let us suppose that people on both sides of the argument are capable of arguing from the other point of view.  This seems likely.  After all, constructionists teach their children to say things like "This is a dog," and realists teach their children to say things like, "That's just your story."  We all use both social constructionist and realist forms of statements in our ordinary language.  And when we argue against each other, we use the other's form of argument in order to increase our chances of being heard.  No one really wants to erase the opponent's form of discourse. 

If this is so, then perhaps we should think of there being two forms of discourse, realist and constructionist, rather than thinking of there being two kinds of people, realist and constructionist. 

So, if there are merely two kinds of discourse, which we each can speak,  why do we engage in such warlike arguments?  Is it merely a matter of defending our egos or enlarging our academic turfs?  Why not encourage a flourishing of both discourses. 

This proposal that we all foster both sides of the debate is probably too idealistic.  Even if we want the other's language to flourish, we might still object to the points they are raising.  Also, it neglects the extent to which our arguments grow out of our personal and professional obligations and interests. 

So, perhaps the question is:  How are we to go on? What are we to do? 

I have three suggestions:  First, we can try to avoid accusatory modes of speech that intensify conflict.  Second, we can remember to make our points less personal, more directed to the text of the argument.  And third we can study what is similar in our beliefs, not just what is different. 

In conclusion, now that we are not merely trying to win, perhaps we can find ways to promote the growth of better ideas, not just a single and consensual point of view, but the growth and improvement of many points of view that can live with each other and seed each other's improvement.