Posts
I thought today, after a long break, I would tackle the idea of constructivism. Constructivism is a theory of how people learn and construct meaning. I think it is an important aspect for us to understand because it conceptualises how we learn new ideas and concepts.
The basic tenet of constructivism is that when we encounter new knowledge or experiences we do one of two things. We assimilate that knowledge or we accommodate that knowledge.
When we assimilate knowledge or an experience we take it onboard within our existing framework of understanding without altering our framework. This can also mean that we 'miss' information or experiences because they do not fit within our existing framework.
When we are faced with knowledge or an experience that doesn't fit our existing framework, we accommodate it. We are forced to change our framework to meet this new knowledge or experience.
So why is this important for faith, discipleship and community development?
The idea of constructivism is that each person's knowledge is based on their experience. This is the idea that 'truth' is a relative concept. This contrasts with a positivist approach which suggests that there is one 'truth' to be known.
A constructivist approach to faith suggests that everyone's belief framework is based on their experience. I would suggest that this means that everyone's belief framework is incomplete. It needs to be shared with others in a faith community to break us out of our individual frameworks. When I read my bible and pray by myself I work from within my existing framework. When I am open to sharing with people who have a different framework I am forced to critique my existing framework. I think that this communal sharing is integral to both personal and communal growth.
What are your thoughts?
DISCLAIMER:
ReplyDeleteI THINK that I am a pathological constructivist. I believe in free will, and the notion that all of us are sovereign citizens who are empowered through democracy to make choices ( and to then live with the consequences of those choices).
I believe that we all have a world view that is informed by our experiences.
THE PREMISE:
By your definition, truth- to a constuctivist- is relative and I sense that you feel that it is less than perfect. By saying that ‘relative truth’ is less satisfactory to a shared truth, I infer from your statement a gnostic version of ‘truth’- some sort of knowledge attained by other people that others have yet to learn.
THE RHETORIC:
Who decides what knowledge, and indeed what truth, is authentic or to use your word- complete?
THE STARK RAVING HISTRIONICS:
Historically we have seen what happens when people choose to no longer accept others denying the ‘completeness’ of their truth. It is convenient to reach for the extreme examples such as persecution of early Christians, the trials of Torquemada, Catholics being burnt at the stake- but what modern examples? Gender exclusion, sexual orientation, political persuasion and - a particular beef of mine- the right to not unionise, are all contentious issues that are rife in communities and workplaces.
South Africa got a black President before the USA, and long before Mr Rudd said “Sorry” and yet they were sanctioned to the ends of the Earth. Whose truth is more complete?
Look at where democracy and free markets have taken the former soviet republics? In the current economic downturn, I can imagine some people in some of the bleaker parts of the world asking “What else is new?”
Look at lines redrawn on map, according to the ‘truth’ as the Western world knew it, created terrible conflict in places like Ireland, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and East Timor.
COOLER HEADS PREVAIL:
I can get a little less dramatic... Far too often we have the opinions of others projected on us. Don’t eat GM, vote for this person, don’t drive that car, dress in a particular way, drink this brand of beer,etc.
IN CONCLUSION, YOUR HONOUR...
Nobody ever says “It’s okay to disagree with me”. Truth SHOULD be relative. That’s where diversity comes from, and tolerance begins. I shouldn’t have to seek to impose or break down a truth because I feel it less complete- or suffer when someone does it to me. I should seek to understand where MY truth begins and ends in relation to others, where we can understand better what brings us together. It should be okay to disagree, or to have some point of conflict, and still be able to continue the conversation.
I once had a long and interesting conversation with one of Brendan O’Connor’s ( ALP, Gorton) secretaries. The minute I mentioned – in passing- that I was a conservative, the conversation ended.
That’s where the conversation should have started.
***climbs off soapbox....
I thought this post might elicit a response from you Paul. ;)
ReplyDelete"By your definition, truth- to a constuctivist- is relative and I sense that you feel that it is less than perfect. By saying that ‘relative truth’ is less satisfactory to a shared truth, I infer from your statement a gnostic version of ‘truth’- some sort of knowledge attained by other people that others have yet to learn. "
I hold a tension between two points with regards to truth.
As a true post-modernist I think that 'truth' is a relative concept.
As a Christian I believe that there is a metanarrative (a scary thought to a true post-modernist) of God's creation, love and redemption of the world.
I am not suggesting a gnostic idea of truth, that is if we all get together those with 'the truth' can impart it to others. I am suggesting that because 'truth' is constructed individually we need other's construction of 'truth' or else our construction is incomplete. I think that this is where the idea of a Christian metanarrative comes into the equation. If God created us as individuals, and created us to be in community, "it is not good for him to be alone", then it is in community that truth is to be found. And truth is to be found in community precisely because my 'truth' is incomplete without other's 'truth'. I would go so far as to suggest that all 'truth' is incomplete, except for God's omniscience. That is the way that I resolve the tension.
"Who decides what knowledge, and indeed what truth, is authentic or to use your word- complete? "
By my definition then no 'truth' is ever truly complete. People who make absolute 'truth' claims are the people we need to fear the most.
I agree with your conclusion. My point continues to be that we need to begin with diversity and an openness to share with and learn from one another.
Paul.. Are u commenting or blogging yourself :p hehe.
ReplyDeleteI struggle with this tension, I believe in an ultimate truth. I think Jesus is part of that an I think God has sent us hints as time goes on. I don't think one person is capable of fully understanding this truth as I experience that constructivist concept that truth us relative.
There just seems to be such a big gap between peoples perspectives.
Feeling much more comfortable when I'm in control I struggle with the reality that we can't find this truth alone.
I asked that question myself when responding, and then reviewed the blogspot I had to create for uni a few years back!
ReplyDeleteThere is a fine balance between responding and blogging I guess, but I'd like to think I'm demonstrating some encouragement to keep Liam blogging by taking the time to think about what he's blogging about :)