To better frame (and gain clarity about) this set of challenging questions regarding the nature and fate of those who are returning to the cave, we must turn away from an epistemology that is based on an objectivist perspective to one that is based on constructivism. In doing so, I return to the four-fold model I offered at the start of this essay. Specifically, I describe the two remaining options in this model: static constructivism and dynamic constructivism. These two options are closely aligned with the more fully expanded version of Plato’s allegory. They also challenge our traditional and comforting assumptions about the nature and value of interpersonal relationships.
While dynamic objectivism has proved to be challenging for many philosophers, scientists and other thought leaders, social constructivism has offered Western thought an even greater challenge (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). It also offers a major challenge to Extraverts who wish to gobble up experiences and interpersonal relationships. How do the Extraverts deal with a world that they can never fully comprehend or with relationships that are not based on any concrete reality?
Static Constructivism
I return to the concept of social construction. Advocates of social constructivism believe that we construct our own social realities. At the extreme, we find “biocentrism” (Lanza and Berman, 2010). This solipsistic stance, based in part on quantum theory, suggests that each of us constructs our own reality. A more common conception of social constructivism involves a collaborative venture. Our reality is based in large part on societal inventions—the traditions and needs of culture and the interpersonal context in which we find ourselves. There are no universal truths or principles, nor are there any ways in which to be sure about our relationships. From this perspective, we are not sure about either the “reality” of the world in which we live (remember the cave) or the interpersonal relationships in which we are engaged (the co-inhabitants of the cave).
While this constructivist perspective on epistemology is often considered a product of late 20th century thought (at least in the Western world) the early versions of social constructivism can be traced back to the anthropology and sociology of the early 20th century. Reports from these disciplines documented radically different perspectives operating in many nonwestern societies and cultures regarding the nature of reality and ways in which members of diverse communities view themselves and their interpersonal and group relationships. This initial version of constructivism is essentially static, for these social constructions are based on deeply rooted beliefs and assumptions of specific societies and cultures. There are widely divergent communities that espouse their own unique ways of knowing. These communities may consist of people who are living together or people who are working together.
With a colleague (Bergquist and Brock, 2008) I have coauthored a chapter in which six unique cultures were described that exist in most contemporary organizations. Each of these cultures has its own stable construction of reality and is resistant to change. Specific ways of knowing within each of these six cultures are based on and reinforced by the community and do not allow for significant divergence among those living in the community. There are specific ways to envision and engage in relationships with other people that often are embedded in important assumptions about such matters as social-status, tribal affiliations, gender, and age.
In contemporary organizational setting they are often based on level of authority in the organization—as well (sadly) as gender and age. Who can construct the collective narrative and who are privileged to share the narrative with other members of the organization? Furthermore, while these ways of knowing and relating to other people may themselves change over time and in differing situations, such changes are gradual and often not noticed for many years. Those in authority and those who are privileged may change; however, the process of selecting and reinforcing the hierarchy remains in place: new people but old rules. We thus find a constructivism that is static and a process of epistemological analysis that focuses on surfacing these stable, but often unacknowledged and very powerful, societal assumptions and beliefs.
