In the field of family therapy, most theorists these days are postmodern and take care to spell out their epistemological lens–how and why they think they know what they know. They know that their theories are colored by their beliefs, so they want their readers to know what biases were involved in creating their theory.
I’m on page 33 of a very promising family-therapy-theory book called Metaframeworks: Transcending the Models of Family Therapy. The authors describe four views of reality, how they relate to each other, and which one they choose. The four are:
Objectivism: The often unconscious belief that there is an objective reality and that we have direct access to it. This view is also called “naive realism.”
Constructivism: This camp generally believe that a reality exists out there independent of us, but that we can’t know what it is like because our access to it is completely mediated and limited by our senses and cognitive processes. This is also called “pessimistic realism.”
Perspectivism: There is a reality out there and we have only mediated, distorted access to it, but it is possible to map it to greater and greater degrees of accuracy. That is, some maps are better than others. This is the authors’ camp.
Radical Constructivism: As far as we know, “reality” exists only in the mind. We are not qualified to make any statements about what actually exists or goes on “out there.”
November 19, 2010 at 5:16 pm
So cool! I’ve been thinking a lot about reality in regards to spirituality lately and, though I didn’t have the words for it, am somewhere between being a a Constructivist and a Radical Constructivist…
November 20, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Hmm, looks like Descartes was a radical constructivist, according to this. In my class, this last view is called rationalism.
November 20, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Hmm. I’m no expert here, but I do see parallels between constructivism, which believes that knowledge is basically invented, and rationalism, which holds that knowledge comes mostly from reasoning. I wonder what Descartes would say about radical constructivism and postmodern philosophy in general. In a real way, the whole movement is a reaction against his “modern” ideas. I think he at least eventually believed that we could count on our senses to give us accurate data about reality–that God wouldn’t trick us like that.
That’s a good question for you teacher. Let me know the answer!
And what about you? Is there a reality out there, and can you know what it is?