Dynamic Constructivism
While the objectivist perspective was prevalent during the modern era, and is still influencing our notions about “being,” the static constructivist perspective has often played a role as counterpoint in late 20th century social discourse. This static constructivism has been a source of many challenges that have upset a modernist stance on the nature of knowledge. Static constructivists have encouraged or even forced many of us to move from an absolute set of principles to a more situation-based relativism. Even greater challenges, however, are present. A dynamic constructivism moves well beyond the stability of broad-based societal and cultural perspectives. Interpersonal relationships are dancing on a floor of assumptions that is often moving. The emergence of a dynamic constructivist perspective represents a revolutionary change in the true sense of the term.
Language, Narratives and Self
Story and performance are hallmarks of dynamic constructivism. We live in a world of constructed realities that is constantly shifting and populated by language, semiotics and narratives. Language is no longer simply considered a handmaiden for reality, as the objectivists would suggest, nor does it construct a permanent (or at least resistant) reality, as the traditional social constructivists would argue. Furthermore, language is not a secondary vehicle we employ when commenting on the reality that underlies and is the reference point for this language.
Dynamic constructivists take this analysis one step further by proposing that language is itself the primary reality in our daily life experiences—and particularly in our interpersonal relations. Language, originally and primarily relationship-based, assumes its own reality, and ceases to be an abstract sign that substitutes for the “real” things. Our cave is filled with language and conversations. This is reality—there is nothing outside the cave (or perhaps the cave doesn’t even exist).
While objectivism is based on the assumption that there is a constant reality to which one can refer (through the use of language and other symbol/sign systems) and static constructivism is based on an assumption that there is a constant societal base for our constructions of reality, dynamic constructivism is based on the assumption that the mode and content of discourse and the relationship(s) that underlie this discourse are the closest thing we have to “reality.” We are constantly reconstructing our reality because this reality is based on the specific relationship through which we are engaged via our discourse.
We are not confined to Plato’s cave because the relationship and the discourse is itself reality—it is not just a reflection of reality. Societal narratives of our time and our sense of self is reality. We are often distant from many of the most important events that impact on our lives. We live in a complex, global community and have many connections to a vaster world. Most importantly, we may no longer have direct experience of this world. Nor can we have much influence over this world or the relationships existing in the world. If there is a cave, it has grown much larger than Plato might have imagined—or the cave might no longer even exist. The only access we have to this vast world is through language and narratives. As a result, we often share narratives about things and events rather than actually experiencing them. Language itself becomes the shared experience. And language might be the province of Introverts more than Extraverts.
