There has been increasing interest in the epistemological and ontological implications of social constructionism. The debate has been conducted on almost overwhelmingly neo-Kantian terms: Do concepts (social practices, discourse, narratives) constitute objects? What are the consequences for things as they are in themselves? How are social actors to be understood in the light of their mode of epistemological access to this world? The following argues for a reorientation of social constructionism in the direction of questions around the nature of group dynamics and intersubjectivity.
Edwards, D. , Ashmore, M., & Potter, J. (1995). Death and furniture: The rhetoric, politics and theology of bottom-line arguments against relativism. History of the Human Sciences, 8, 25-49.
2.
Gergen, K.J. (2001). Construction in contention: Toward consequential resolutions. Theory & Psychology, 11, 419-432.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1977). The phenomenology of spirit (A.V. Miller, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1807.)
5.
Hibberd, F.J. (2001). Gergen's social constructionism, logical positivism and the continuity of effor: Part 1: Conventionalism. Theory & Psychology, 11, 297-321.
6.
Jenkins, A.H. (2001). Individuality in cultural context: The case for psychological agency. Theory & Psychology, 11, 347-362.
7.
Liebrucks, A. (2001). The concept of social construction. Theory & Psychology, 11, 363-391.
8.
Maze, J.R. (2001). Social constructionism, deconstructionism and some requirements of discourse. Theory & Psychology, 11, 393-417.
9.
Taylor, C. (1975). Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
