Constructivism Contested: Implications of a Genetic Perspective in Psychology

Regular Article

Abstract

Constructivism is an approach to knowledge and learning that focuses on the active role of knowers. Sanchez and Loredo (Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science 43:332–349, 2009) propose a classification of constructivist thinkers and address what they perceive to be internal problems of present-day constructivism. The remedy they propose is a return to the genetic constructivism of James Mark Baldwin, Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. In this article we first raise the question of whether thinkers like Baldwin, Vygotsky, Maturana and Varela are adequately depicted as constructivists, and subsequently argue that constructivism is caught in an overly epistemic version of the subject/object dichotomy. We then introduce a genetic logic that is not based on the Hegelian dialectics of negation and mediation, but rather on the idea of the recursive consensual coordination of actions that give rise to stylized cultural practices. We argue that a genuinely genetic and generative psychology should be concerned with the multifarious and ever-changing nature of human ‘life’ and not merely with the construction of knowledge about life.

Keywords

Constructivism Genetic logic Generativity Expressivism Enactivism 

References

  1. Baerveldt, C., & Verheggen, T. (1999). Enactivism and the experiential reality of culture. Culture & Psychology, 5, 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baerveldt, C., & Verheggen, T. (2012). Enactivism. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Oxford handbook of culture and psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, J. M. (1906). Mental development in the child and the race. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin, J. M. (1915). Genetic theory of reality. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
  5. Bergson, H. (1922). Creative evolution. (trans: A. Mitchell). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Berlin, I. (1977). Vico and Herder: Two studies in the history of ideas. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  7. Blunden, A. (2007). Hegel, recognition and intersubjectivity. Retrieved January 2011, from the World Wide Web: http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/on-hegel.htm.
  8. Branco, A. U. (2009). Why dichotomies can be misleading while dualities fit the analysis of complex phenomena. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 43, 350–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broughton, J. M. (1981). The genetic psychology of James Mark Baldwin. American Psychologist, 36, 396–407.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maturana, H. R. (1978a). Cognition. In P. M. Hejl, W. K. Köck, & G. Roth (Eds.), Wahrnehmung und Kommunikation (pp. 29–49). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  13. Maturana, H. R. (1978b). Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In G. Miller & E. Lenneberg (Eds.), Psychology and biology of language and thought: Essays in honor of Eric Lenneberg (pp. 27–63). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  14. Maturana, H. R. (1988). Ontology of observing: The biological foundations of self, consciousness and the physical domain of existence. In: R. Donaldson (Ed.), Texts in cybernetic theory: An in-depth exploration of the thought of Humberto Maturana, William T. Powers, and Ernst von Glasersfeld. Felton, CA: American Society for Cybernetics [conference workbook]. Retrieved online from Alfredo Ruiz (Ed.), at: http://www.inteco.cl/biology/ontology/index.htm.
  15. Maturana, H. R. (1997). Metadesign. Santiago de Chili: Instituto de Terapia Cognitiva INTECO. Retrieved January, 2010, from the World Wide Web: http://www.inteco.cl. A version of this text has been published as Maturana, H. R. (1997). “Metadesign”, In J. Brouwer and C. Hoekendijk (Eds.), Technomorphica. Rotterdam, Netherlands: V2_Organisatie.
  16. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). Signs. (trans: R. C. McCleary). Evanston Ill: Northwestern University Press. (Original work published 1960).Google Scholar
  17. Newman, F., & Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary scientist. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Piaget, J. (1980). Les formes élémentaires de la dialectique [Elementary forms of dialectic]. Paris: Editions Gallimard.Google Scholar
  19. Potter, J., & Whetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Proulx, J. (2008). Some differences between Maturana and Varela’s theory of cognition and constructivism. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 5, 11–26.Google Scholar
  21. Rockmore, T. (2006). Hegel and epistemological constructivism. Idealistic Studies, 36, 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ruiz, A. (2007). The contribution of Humberto Maturana to the sciences of complexity and psychology. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 9, 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sanchez, J. C., & Loredo, J. C. (2009). Constructivisms from a genetic point of view: a critical classification of current tendencies. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 43, 332–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Strauss, C. (1992). Models and motives. In R. D’Andrade & C. Strauss (Eds.), Human motives and cultural models (pp. 1–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Taylor, C. (1985). The concept of a person. In Philosophical papers: Vol. 1. Human agency and language (pp. 97–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Valsiner, J. (1989). Human development and culture: The social nature of personality and its study. Massachusetts/Toronto: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  29. Verheggen, T., & Baerveldt, C. (2007). ‘We don’t share!’ Exploring the theoretical ground for social and cultural psychology: the social representation approach versus an enactivist framework. Culture & Psychology, 13, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. von Glasersfeld, E. (2007). Aspects of constructivism: Vico, Berkeley, Piaget. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Key works in radical constructivism (pp. 91–99). Sense: Rotterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations