This article presents a dialogue about personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism. The dialogue is based on a symposium conducted in July 2011 at the 19th International Congress on Personal Construct Psychology. Jay Efran, Sheila McNamee, and Bill Warren were the participants, with Jonathan Raskin as moderator. The dialogue addresses points of contact and divergence across these three theories, how these theories deal with the issue of relativism, and how theorists from these three perspectives might best “go on” together. Relevance: The paper covers the relationship between radical constructivism and personal construct psychology and social constructionism.

Many scholars criticize constructivist approaches to psychology for culminating in a nihilistic relativism. This article reviews the problem of relativism within personal construct psychology and social constructionism. It argues that labeling constructivist approaches to psychology as essentially relativist or nonrelativist simplifies the debate by assigning indisputable characteristics to a family of theories. Both relativist and nonrelativist interpretations of personal constructivism and social constructionism are presented in suggesting that the current terms of the relativism debate often hinder constructivists, who are forced to defend themselves against charges of relativism using objectivist terminology. Some common arguments about the advantages and disadvantages of constructivist relativism are outlined and discussed. Further, the implications of relativism for constructivist ethics and action are contemplated, with particular attention paid to the roles of commitment and hermeneutic understanding. The article concludes that, while constructivist psychologists may not agree on whether to endorse or reject relativism, in order to maintain the viability of the constructivist viewpoint, they need to be able to formulate thoughtful responses to those accusing them of relativism.

This paper attempts to clarify similarities and differences among three keyconstructivist psychologies. I describe “personal construct psychology,” “radical constructivism,” and“social constructionism.” I suggest – as has Lyddon (1995) – that the commonalities among theseapproaches outweigh the points of divergence. Highlighting this common ground should be useful to bothpsychologists and non-psychologists. I contend that all three approaches center on human meaning makingas psychology’s primary focus of inquiry. In comparing and contrasting these approaches, I try to overcomesome of the convoluted jargon that has inhibited communication about the larger meaning of theconstructivist movement.

In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, constructivist psychology has been criticized for its presumed “anything goes” relativism and passivity. This paper counters such a view, arguing that while constructivism does accept perspectivism, it rejects “anything goes. ” Constructivist psychologists evaluate responses to terrorism in terms of meaningfulness and viability. They suggest that there are an unlimited number of possible responses to terrorism, none of which are precluded simply because constructivists are skeptical that human experience constitutes a mirror on external reality. Believing that human beings invent ways of understanding to guide them through their lives does not preclude constructivists from taking action. On the contrary, it provides the very basis for such action. The implications of this position are briefly outlined.

This chapter reviews constructivist perspectives on personality and psychopathology. Three approaches to constructivism receive attention – personal constructivism, radical constructivism, and social constructionism. The chapter presents a summary of these constructivist theories, including explicit attention to developmental and physiological considerations. Discussion of theoretical boundaries among constructivist theories and between constructivist and nonconstructivist theories occurs, followed by a review of evidence for and against constructivist theories. Finally, the chapter offers predictions for family life, school, work, retirement, and recreation based on constructivist perspectives.

Donald T. Campbell’s evolutionary epistemology is used as a framework for examining five issues facing constructivism: (1) realism, (2) cognitivism, (3) relativism, (4) dualism, and (5) social constructionism. It is suggested that a nuanced application of evolutionary epistemology facilitates fresh ways for constructivists to accommodate these issues.

Open peer commentary on the target article “Who Conceives of Society?” by Ernst von Glasersfeld. Excerpt: Von Glasersfeld’s presupposition that all organisms are isolated subjective knowers can thus remain viable within a framework that sees the personal and social as mutually informing. Implying that isolated knowers coordinate the ways in which they “bump” into one another – and that this coordination impacts the kinds of perturbations that arise within them – constitutes a perfectly rational variation on von Glasersfeld’s theory of rational knowing.

This paper examines Kelly’s notion of aggression

Golden section studies based in Kelly’s personal constructivism have a long history within personal construct psychology.

Upshot: Gabriele Chiari and the late Maria Laura Nuzzo’s new book, Constructivist Psychotherapy: A Narrative Hermeneutic Approach, is a densely packed little tome that marks the most fully developed effort so far to present a model of personal construct psychotherapy that theoretically incorporates aspects of radical constructivism, narrative psychology, and social constructionism. The theoretically inclined will not be disappointed.