Relational constructivism

Relational constructivism can be perceived as a relational consequence of the radical constructivism. In contrary to social constructivism, it picks up the epistemological threads and maintains the radical constructivist idea that humans cannot overcome their limited conditions of reception (i.e. self referentially operating cognition). Therefore, humans are not able to come to objective conclusions about the world.

In spite of the subjectivity of human constructions of reality, relational constructivism focusses on the relational conditions applying to human perceptional processes. Björn Kraus puts it in a nutshell:

„It is substantial for relational constructivism that it basically originates from an epistemological point of view, thus from the subject and its construction processes. Coming from this perspective it then focusses on the (not only social, but also material) relations under which these cognitive construction processes are performed. Consequently, it‘s not only about social construction processes, but about cognitive construction processes performed under certain relational conditions.“[1]

Lifeworld and life conditions as relational constructions

In the course of recent constructivist discourses a discussion about the lifeworld term took place as well. Björn Kraus' relational-constructivist[2] version of the lifeworld term considers its phenomenological roots (Husserl and Schütz), but expands it within the range of epistemological constructivist theory building.[3] In consequence, a new approach is created, which is not only focusing on the individual perspective upon the lifeworld term, but is also taking account of social and material environmental conditions and their relevance as emphasized for example by Habermas. Essential therefore is Kraus' basic assumption that cognitive development depends on two determining factors. On the one hand a person's own reality is her subjective construct. On the other hand, this construct—in spite of all subjectivity—is not random: Since a person is still linked to her environment, her own reality is influenced by the conditions of this environment (German Grundsätzliche Doppelbindung menschlicher Strukturentwicklung).[4]

Building up on this point of view, a separation of individual perception and the social and material environmental conditions is made possible. Kraus accordingly picks up the lifeworld term, adds the term "life conditions" (German Lebenslage[5]) and opposes the two terms to each other.

By this means, lifeworld describes a person's subjectively experienced world, whereas life conditions describe the person's actual circumstances in life. Accordingly, it could be said that a person's lifeworld is built depending on their particular life conditions. More precisely, the life conditions include the material and immaterial living circumstances as for example employment situation, availability of material resources, housing conditions, social environment (friends, foes, acquaintances, relatives, etc.) as well as the persons physical condition (fat/thin, tall/small, female/male, healthy/sick, etc.). The lifeworld, in contrast, describes the subjective perception of these conditions.[6]

Kraus uses the epistemological distinction between subjective reality and objective reality. Thus, a person's lifeworld correlates with the person's life conditions in the same way than subjective reality correlates with objective reality. The one is the insurmountable, subjective construct built depending on the other one's conditions.[7]

Kraus defined lifeworld and life conditions as follows:

"Life conditions mean a person's material and immaterial circumstances of life.

Lifeworld means a person's subjective construction of reality, which he or she forms under the condition of his or her life circumstances."[8]

This contrasting comparison provides a conceptual specification, enabling in the first step the distinction between a subjectively experienced world and its material and social conditions and allowing in the second step to focus on these conditions' relevance for the subjective construction of reality.

With this in mind, Manfred Ferdinand, who is reviewing the lifeworld terms used by Alfred Schütz, Edmund Husserl, Björn Kraus and Ludwig Wittgenstein, concludes: Kraus' "thoughts on a constructivist comprehension of lifeworlds contours the integration of micro-, meso- and macroscopic approaches, as it is demanded by Invernizzi and Butterwege: This integration is not only necessary in order to relate the subjective perspectives and the objective frame conditions to each other but also because the objective frame conditions obtain their relevance for the subjective lifeworlds not before they are perceived and assessed."[9]

A relational constructivist theory of power: Instructive vs. destructive power

Björn Kraus deals with the epistemological perspective upon power regarding the question about possibilities of interpersonal influence by developing a special form of constructivism ("Machtanalytischer Konstruktivismus").[10]

Instead of focussing on the valuation and distribution of power, he asks first and foremost what the term can describe at all.[11] Coming from Max Weber's definition of power,[12] he realizes that the term of power has to be split into "instructive power" and "destructive power".[13]:105[14]:126

More precisely, instructive power means the chance to determine the actions and thoughts of another person, whereas destructive power means the chance to diminish the opportunities of another person.[11]

Kraus defined "instructive power" and "destructive power" as follows:

"Instructive power means the chance to determine a human’s thinking or behaviour.

(Instructive power as chance for instructive interaction is dependent on the instructed person’s own will, which ultimately can refuse instructive power.)

Destructive power means the chance to restrict a human’s possibilities.

(Destructive power as chance for destructive interaction is independent of the instructed person’s own will, which can’t refuse destructive power.)"[15]

How significant this distinction really is, becomes evident by looking at the possibilities of rejecting power attempts: Rejecting instructive power is possible – rejecting destructive power is not. By using this distinction, proportions of power can be analyzed in a more sophisticated way, helping to sufficiently reflect on matters of responsibility.[14]:139 f. This perspective permits to get over an "either-or-position" (either there is power, or there isn't), which is common especially in epistemological discourses about power theories,[16][17][18] and to introduce the possibility of an "as well as-position".[14]:120

As Wolf Ritscher says, it is Björn Kraus who “has reflected on the topic of power as a substantial aspect of social existence in a constructivist manner and has shown that constructivism can also be used in terms of social theory”.[19]

References

  1. ↑ Björn Kraus: Plädoyer für den Relationalen Konstruktivismus und eine Relationale Soziale Arbeit. in Forum Sozial (2017) 1 pp. 29-35, http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/51948
  2. ↑ Björn Kraus: Plädoyer für den Relationalen Konstruktivismus und eine Relationale Soziale Arbeit. in Forum Sozial (2017) 1 pp. 29-35 http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/51948
  3. ↑ See Björn Kraus: Erkennen und Entscheiden. Grundlagen und Konsequenzen eines erkenntnistheoretischen Konstruktivismus für die Soziale Arbeit. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim/Basel 2013. P. 145 ff.
  4. ↑ See Björn Kraus: Erkennen und Entscheiden. Grundlagen und Konsequenzen eines erkenntnistheoretischen Konstruktivismus für die Soziale Arbeit. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim/Basel 2013. P. 66.
  5. ↑ See Neurath 1931/Weisser 1956 in Björn Kraus: Lebenswelt und Lebensweltorientierung – eine begriffliche Revision als Angebot an eine systemisch-konstruktivistische Sozialarbeitswissenschaft. Kontext. Zeitschrift für Systemische Therapie und Familientherapie. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Heft 37/02, 2006 p. 116–129. Also available online: http://www.webnetwork-nordwest.de/sowi/article.php?sid=92 2004, p. 7. See also Björn Kraus 2013, p. 143 ff.
  6. ↑ See Björn Kraus: Erkennen und Entscheiden. Grundlagen und Konsequenzen eines erkenntnistheoretischen Konstruktivismus für die Soziale Arbeit. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim/Basel 2013. P. 152 f.
  7. ↑ See Björn Kraus: The Life We Live and the Life We Experience: Introducing the Epistemological Difference between “Lifeworld” (Lebenswelt) and “Life Conditions” (Lebenslage) Social Work and Society. International Online Journal. Vol. 13, No. 2 2015, http://www.socwork.net/sws/article/view/438; Björn Kraus: Erkennen und Entscheiden.. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim/Basel 2013. P. 152.
  8. ↑ See Björn Kraus: The Life We Live and the Life We Experience: Introducing the Epistemological Difference between "Lifeworld" (Lebenswelt) and "Life Conditions" (Lebenslage) Social Work and Society. International Online Journal. Vol. 13, No. 2 2015, P. 4. http://www.socwork.net/sws/article/view/438
  9. ↑ See Manfred Ferdinand: Lebenswelten - Lebensschnüre. Heidelberger Studien zur praktischen Theologie.: Lit Verlag: Münster 2014. P. 31.
  10. ↑ Heiko Kleve: Vom Erweitern der Möglichkeiten. In: Bernhard Pörksen (ed.): Schlüsselwerke des Konstruktivismus. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden/Germany 2011. pp. 506–519, p. 509.
  11. 1 2 Kraus, Björn (2014). "Introducing a Model for Analyzing the Possibilities of Power, Help and Control". Social Work & Society. 12 (1). Retrieved 12 August 2014.
  12. ↑ Max Weber: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Mohr, Tübingen/Germany 1972. S.28
  13. ↑ Kraus, Björn (2011). "Soziale Arbeit – Macht – Hilfe und Kontrolle. Die Entwicklung und Anwendung eines systemisch-konstruktivistischen Machtmodells" (PDF). In Kraus, Björn; Krieger, Wolfgang. Macht in der Sozialen Arbeit – Interaktionsverhältnisse zwischen Kontrolle, Partizipation und Freisetzung. Lage, Germany: Jacobs. pp. 95–118.
  14. 1 2 3 See Björn Kraus: Erkennen und Entscheiden. Grundlagen und Konsequenzen eines erkenntnistheoretischen Konstruktivismus für die Soziale Arbeit. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim/Basel 2013.
  15. ↑ Kraus, Björn (2014). "Introducing a Model for Analyzing the Possibilities of Power, Help and Control". Social Work & Society. 12 (1): 8. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
  16. ↑ Reimund Böse, Günter Schiepek: Systemische Theorie und Therapie: ein Handwörterbuch. Asanger, Heidelberg/Germany 1994.
  17. ↑ Gregory Bateson: Ökologie des Geistes: anthropologische, psychologische, biologische und epistemologische Perspektiven. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main/Germany 1996.
  18. ↑ Heinz von Foerster: Wissen und Gewissen. Versuch einer Brücke. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main/Germany 1996.
  19. ↑ Wolf Ritscher: Soziale Arbeit: systemisch. Ein Konzept und seine Anwendung. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen/Germany 2007. P. 55.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.