Telling Tales of Relations: Appreciating Relational Constructionism

TLDR

Social constructionism and constructivism are used in varied contexts, and relational constructionism focuses on language‑based relational processes that reconstruct local realities, contrasting the hard self‑other differentiation of Western individualism. The article introduces relational constructionism as a social‑science perspective that permits soft self‑other differentiation. Relational constructionism is characterized by its explicit attention to ontology and power, its emphasis on construction processes rather than static entities, its view of persons and worlds as emergent, its allowance of soft self‑other differentiation, and its focus on dialogical practices that support multiple local forms of life.

Abstract

The terms social constructionism and (social) constructivism are employed in the context of different problematics and different philosophical assumptions. This article presents ‘relational constructionism’ as a social science perspective. The perspective centres language-based relational processes as they (re)construct more or less local relational realities. The latter includes western individualism and its construction of the bounded, separately existing individual relating to a separately existing other where ‘other’ is everything which is not self; this has been called ‘hard’ self-other differentiation. The perspective of relational constructionism allows that ‘soft’ self-other differentiation also is possible — for example, in the practice of relationally engaged inquiry and change work. Relational constructionism, as outlined here, has a number of distinctive features: it clearly speaks about ontology and power (unlike many other constructionisms); it centres and gives ontology to construction processes (to how, rather than what) and sees persons and worlds as emerging in processes (rather than assuming individual minds and actions); it opens up the possibility of soft self-other differentiation (rather than assuming that ‘hard differentiation is ‘how it really is’); and it centres dialogical practices as ways of relating that can enable and support multiple local forms of life rather than imposing one dominant rationality on others.