Relational constructivism

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Relational Constructivism can be used as relational development of the radical constructivism be understood. In contrast to social constructivism , relational constructivism remains epistemologically tied back and retains the radical constructivist assumption that people cannot overcome the limited conditions of their knowledge ( cognitive ). Because of this, people cannot, in principle, come to observer- independent knowledge about the world. Despite the subjectivity of human constructions of reality based on this, relational constructivism then focuses its attention primarily on the relational conditions of human cognitive processes .

“It is essential for relational constructivism that it basically has an epistemological starting point and thus starts with the knowing subject and its construction processes. Starting from this perspective, however, the focus is then placed on the relations (and not only on the social, but also on the material relations) under which these cognitive construction processes are carried out. So it's not just about social construction processes, but about cognitive construction processes under relational conditions. "

- Bjorn Kraus

Location

In the first high phase of constructivist theorizing in the 1980s and early 1990s, constructivist positions in general and radical constructivist positions in particular were accused of concentrating excessively on the subjectivity of human thought. Social phenomena are therefore not radically constructivist to explain. This accusation became particularly clear, for example, in the discussion about the question of whether there is such a thing as power . Bateson called power "epistemological nonsense" and Heinz von Foerster and Maturana also explicitly denied the possibility of power. This is where the work of Björn Kraus begins in the 1990s, who emphasized in his early writings that although he shares the basic epistemological assumptions of radical constructivism, his focus is on working out its "intersystemic perspective". By comparing the epistemological foundations with social science, he develops a constructivist theory of the social constitution of individual realities, which has meanwhile been identified as relational constructivism . For Kraus, the decisive factor is ...

"... that the focus is neither solely on the cognizing and acting subject, nor on the social and material structures and environmental conditions, but rather on the relationships between one and the other. This focus should be an exclusive consideration of the environment or the subject oppose this, but in no way restrict the focus to the relations themselves and exclude the relevance of subjects as constructors and environments as reference points for subjective constructions. So it is a matter of paying attention to subjects, environments and their relations. "

starting point

Relational constructivism can be understood as a relational advancement of radical constructivism . Kraus himself locates his approach as a specific systemic-constructivist perspective and names the following constructivist approaches as relevant starting and reference points: "In particular, these are philosophical and structural- genetic ( Glasersfeld von ), neurobiological ( Maturana and Varela , Roth), cybernetic ( Heinz von Foerster ), communication theory (Gerhard Rusch, Schmidt , NIKOL group , monsters , Juchem ), multiple logical ( Spencer Brown ) and sociological ( Hejl , Luhmann ) perspectives (see. Pörksen 2011, Kraus 2013, p 11 f., 16 f .). "

He stands in the tradition of a fundamental skepticism already formulated by the pre-Socratics or by Immanuel Kant about human possibilities of knowledge. The starting point is the assumption that cognition has no direct access to reality and that our “knowledge” cannot ultimately be checked by the world. Based on this, the focus is primarily on the relevance of social and material environments for cognitive construction processes. As a result, the "double bond of human structural development" is the decisive basis for Kraus:

“The structural development of living systems is subject to a fundamental double bond. On the one hand, the reality of a person's life is their subjective construction; on the other hand, this construction is not arbitrary, but influenced and limited by the conditions of reality. "

Living environment and situation as relational constructions

Building on this understanding, a separation is made between individual perception and the social and material framework of the perceiver. Kraus uses the concept of life situation for the relational-constructivist concretization of the concept of the lifeworld and contrasts the two terms and defines them as follows:

“The material and immaterial living conditions of a person are regarded as living conditions.

The life world is the subjective construct of reality of a person, which he forms under the conditions of his life situation. "

“In this respect (...) the lifeworld is on the one hand an unavoidable subjective category, which on the other hand is subject to the conditions of the living situation due to the structural coupling. Specifically, a person's life situation includes their material and immaterial equipment. This includes not only the general conditions in terms of material equipment, living space, financial resources, etc. E., But also the intangible equipment, such as the available social network. In addition, the equipment of his organism belongs to the situation in life; for example his physical condition would also be a condition of the living situation. The perception of these conditions, on the other hand, defines a person's living environment. "

In his examination of the lifeworld concepts of Schütz , Husserl , Kraus and Wittgenstein, Manfred Ferdinand comes to the conclusion: Kraus' "remarks on a constructivist understanding of lifeworlds now profile the integration of micro-, meso- and macroscopic approaches called for by Invernizzi and Butterwege: These Integration is not only necessary in order to relate the subjective perspectives and the objective framework conditions to one another, but also because the objective framework conditions only acquire their relevance to the subjective life worlds in their subjective perception and evaluation. "

The relational constructivist understanding of the world and situation in life is used in various disciplines. For example in sociology, in social work, in educational science (educational work, disabled pedagogy and community pedagogy) and in practical theology. In social work it is also the decisive basis of the so-called systemic-constructivist lifeworld orientation and relational social work . The fundamental perspectives of Relational Constructivism are used to determine the responsibility as well as the professionalism of Relational Social Work. especially emphasized the need for reflective skills.

Relational Constructivist Power Theory: Instructive Power and Destructive Power

In view of the allegation constructivist theories are "blinds" writes Heiko Kleve "Kraus takes the (sic) merit, discusses the power issue in the context of his constructivist position and conceptualized a constructivist theory of power (...) to have" Based on Max Weber of power Definition, Kraus comes to the conclusion that the concept of power must be differentiated. Central to his approach is the differentiation of the concept of power into “instructive power” and “destructive power”.

"Instructive power is the potential of a system, determined from an observer's perspective, to determine the behavior or thinking of another system according to one's own will.

(Instructive power as a possibility for instructive interactions depends on the obstinacy of the person to be instructed.)

Destructive power is the potential of a system, determined from an observer's perspective, to reduce the possibilities of another system according to one's own will.

(Destructive power as a possibility for destructive interactions is independent of the obstinacy of those to be instructed.) "

In concrete terms, Kraus uses instructive power to describe the chance to determine the behavior or thinking of another. With destructive power, however, he describes the chance to reduce the possibilities of another. The relevance of this distinction becomes clear above all in the possibility of refusing to strive for power. Refusal is possible in relation to instructive power - not in relation to destructive power. With this distinction, power relations can be analyzed in a more differentiated manner and only then, questions of responsibility can be adequately reflected.

Micha Brumlik states:

“By theoretically distinguishing between“ instructive power ”and“ destructive power ”, Kraus gains new analytical potential for socio-educational interactions and at the same time avoids cynical theory formation. With these distinctions he can avoid the otherwise obvious consequence of radical constructivism that the individuals subject to the system of social control - who, according to constructivist belief, are even responsible for their cognitive processes - are always responsible for their own submission. "

This perspective makes it possible to overcome the "either-or position" (either there is power or it does not exist), which up until then was common in (radical) constructivist power discourses, and opens up the possibility of a "both-and- Position". With this, according to Wolf Ritscher, Kraus has

"An essential aspect of social existence, the issue of power, was reflected in a constructivist manner and thus demonstrated that constructivism can also be turned in terms of social theory."

Observed relations - relational constructivist system concept

What is central to relational constructivism is that social relationships cannot supposedly be objectively recognized, but are described from an observer position in social relationships based on criteria to be determined. In this sense, power, for example, is not regarded as objectively recognizable, but as a relational phenomenon, the description of which depends on the point of view of the observer.

"The definition of instructive power and destructive power focuses, as with Weber, on the" chance within a social relationship to enforce one's own will even against resistance "(Weber 1972, p. 28). The category power is not seen as one in itself existing, but rather as a social phenomenon. In this respect, the terms instructive power and destructive power do not describe any observer-independent, existing units that a person has or attributes that are a person's own, but assertion potential in social relations. "

The same applies to the relational constructivist understanding of living environments and situations. With regard to the supposed recognizability of life situations, Kraus emphasizes:

"But what applies to all phenomena also applies to the situation in life: they can only be determined from an observer perspective - from which there are in principle always different ones. Statements about the situation in life are just as inevitable statements from an observer as statements about The difference lies in the fact that statements about the life situation relate directly to the observation of the person making the statement; statements about the life world, on the other hand, relate to assumed cognitive constructions that are not accessible to observation. In this respect, life situations can be more easily identified with sociological indicators can be described as lifeworlds. "

If cognitive and social systems are viewed from this perspective, Björn Kraus emphasizes, "it is essential that systems cannot be recorded as observer-independent units, but that criteria must be named by which an observer can identify a system from her environment."

In this sense, Kraus defines systems as follows:

"From an observer's perspective, a system is defined as coherent units (elements) whose relationships differ quantitatively and / or qualitatively from their relationships to other entities. These differences, determined from an observer's perspective, enable the constitution of a system boundary through which the system differs from its Environment is delimited. "

Criticism and Counter-Criticism - Loss of Truth and "Fakenews"

Constructivist positions are accused of being “blind to the difference between truth and lies”. It is problematized that truths only seem to exist in the plural and that the associated task of differentiating between lies and truth is "on the one hand dangerous and on the other hand inappropriate".

Kraus deals extensively with this problem at various points and, with recourse to philosophical truth discourses, clarifies that a distinction must first be made between "truth" and "truthfulness" and that the opposite of "truth" is not the "lie" but the " Falsehood "is. The opposite of "truthfulness", however, is the category of "lies".

So there are the following comparisons: Truth - falsehood and truthfulness - lies

On this basis, Kraus defines a lie as a contradiction to the subjective belief that it is true.

"A person's statement is considered a lie if he contradicts his / her own 'holding to be true'."

He then differentiates between lies (as a conscious false statement) and error (as a subjective belief that is true that is assessed as false or false). It also makes it clear that a decision can only ever be made from an observer's position as to whether a statement is true or false. That these decisions can by no means be made arbitrarily, but must be justified in a comprehensible manner.

"In this respect, from the perspective of a constructivist epistemology, there can be no objective truth, but it is still possible to justify when a statement should be considered true in terms of consensus and / or coherence theory."

It is thus also constructivistically possible to make a well-founded decision about the difference between news and fakenews.

The topic was discussed on February 1, 2017 in the broadcast of the Austrian broadcasting company "Die Kraft des Zweifelns" . In the program, Hans-Rudi Fischer , Hans Geisslinger , Heiner Keupp , Björn Kraus , Josef Mitterer and Fritz Simon spoke about the function of doubt in view of a seemingly multi-optional world, numerous unchecked information and "alternative facts".

Literature and instructional video

  • Kraus, Björn (2019): Relational Constructivism - Relational Social Work. From the systemic-constructivist lifeworld orientation to a relational theory of social work. Weinheim, Munich: Beltz, Juventa.
  • Kraus, Björn (2019): Relational constructivism and relational social work. In: Webb, Stephen, A. (edt.) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Social Work. Routledge international handbooks. London and New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
  • Kraus, Björn (2017): Plea for Relational Constructivism and Relational Social Work. (Forum Sozial, 1/2017). ( http://www.pedocs.de/frontdoor.php?source_opus=15381 )
  • Kraus, Björn (2015): The Life We Live and the Life We Experience: Introducing the Epistemological Difference between “Lifeworld” and “Life Conditions”. In: Social Work and Society. International Online Journal. Retrieved August 27, 2018 ( http://www.socwork.net/sws/article/view/438 )
  • Kraus, Björn (2014): Introducing a model for analyzing the possibilities of power, help and control. In: Social Work and Society. International Online Journal. Retrieved April 3, 2019 ( http://www.socwork.net/sws/article/view/393 )

Film document

Footnotes

  1. ^ Björn Kraus: Plea for Relational Constructivism and Relational Social Work. in Forum Sozial (2017) 1 pp. 29-35, p. 35
  2. ↑ Nüse, R., Groeben, N., Friday, B. Schreier, M., (1991): About the invention / s of radical constructivism. Critical counter-arguments from a psychological point of view. Weinheim: German study publisher. For criticism of criticism and internal criticism, cf. Kraus, B. (2013). Recognize and decide. Weinheim: Beltz Juvenat. P. 53f.
  3. ↑ Bateson, G. (1996): Ecology of Mind. Anthropological, psychological, biological and epistemological perspectives. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (6th edition). P. 625
  4. ↑ Keeney, BP (1985): A (Second) Look at the “Power” Metaphor: A Conversation with Bradford P. Keeney. Journal for Systemic Therapy 3, 1-2, pp. 110-112
  5. ^ Björn Kraus: Constructivism - Communication - Social Work. Carl Auer: Heidelberg 2002.
  6. ^ Björn Kraus: Plea for Relational Constructivism and Relational Social Work. in Forum Sozial (2017) 1 pp. 29–35 http://www.pedocs.de/frontdoor.php?source_opus=15381
  7. ^ Björn Kraus: Plea for Relational Constructivism and Relational Social Work. in Forum Sozial (2017) 1 pp. 29–35, p. 29 http://www.pedocs.de/frontdoor.php?source_opus=15381
  8. ↑ Björn Kraus: Plea for Relational Constructivism and Relational Social Work, in: Forum Sozial (2017) 1 pp. 29–35 [1]
  9. ↑ Björn Kraus: Recognize and Decide. Basics and consequences of an epistemological constructivism for social work . Beltz Juventa, Weinheim / Basel 2013, p. 70.
  10. ↑ Cf. Neurath 1931 / Weisser 1956 in Björn Kraus: Lebenswelt und Lebensweltorientierung - a conceptual revision as an offer to a systemic-constructivist social work science. In: context. Journal of Systemic Therapy and Family Therapy. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, issue 37/02, 2006, pp. 116–129. Already in 2004 in the social work science portal http://www.pedocs.de/frontdoor.php?source_opus=12387 , p. 7. See also Björn Kraus 2013, p. 143 ff.
  11. ↑ a b Björn Kraus: Recognize and decide. Basics and consequences of an epistemological constructivism for social work . Beltz Juventa, Weinheim / Basel 2013, p. 153.
  12. ^ Robert Nadler: Should I stay or should I go? International migrants in the rural town of Zittau (Saxony) and their potential impact on rural development. In: European Countryside . Issue 04/01, 2012, pp. 57–72. ( Source )
  13. ↑ Peter Pantucek: professionalism and ambivalence. 2006. ( source )
  14. ↑ Matthias Nauert: Understanding diversity. The “extended multi-level model” as an orientation aid in social work. In: Herbert Effinger et al. (Ed.): Diversity and social inequality. Analytical approaches and professional action in social work. Budrich, Leverkusen 2012, pp. 56–67.
  15. ↑ Holger Klose: “Lebenswelten” - A photo-pedagogical project at an international primary school. In: Alfred Holzbrecher (Ed.): Photo + Text. Handbook for educational work. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2006, pp. 101–114 ( PDF ( Memento of April 17, 2012 in the Internet Archive )); Iris Beck, Heinrich Greving: Situation in life and coping with life. In: Wolfgang Jantzen (Hrsg.): Encyclopedia manual of the disabled pedagogy. Volume 5. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2012; Dirk Oesselmann: Introduction to Part C: Living Worlds. In: Peter Bubmann et al. (Ed.): Community pedagogy . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / Boston 2012, pp. 185–188.
  16. ↑ Manfred Ferdinand: Lebenswelten - Lebensschnüren . Heidelberg studies on practical theology. Lit Verlag, Münster 2014.
  17. ↑ Dewe B. & Otto HU. (2012): Reflexive Social Pedagogy. In: Thole W. (Ed.): Grundriss Soziale Arbeit. VS Verlag for Social Sciences, Wiesbaden.
  18. ↑ Kraus, Björn (2017): Plea for Relational Constructivism and Relational Social Work . In: Forum Sozial, 1/2017, p. 35.
  19. ↑ Heiko Kleve: On expanding the possibilities . In: Bernhard Pörksen (ed.): Key works of constructivism . VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2011, pp. 506-519, here p. 506.
  20. ^ Max Weber: Economy and Society. Outline of understanding sociology . Mohr, Tübingen 1972, p. 28.
  21. ↑ Björn Kraus: Power - Help - Control. Foundations and extensions of a systemic-constructivist power model . In: Björn Kraus, Wolfgang Krieger (Hrsg.): Power in social work - interaction relationships between control, participation and release . Jacobs, Lage 2016, pp. 101–130 ( [2] ). See also Björn Kraus: Recognizing and Deciding. 2013, p. 126.
  22. ↑ See Kraus, Björn (2016): Power - Help - Control. Foundations and extensions of a systemic-constructivist power model. In: Kraus, B., Krieger, W. (ed.): Power in social work. Interaction relationships between control, participation and release. Revised version in the 4th edition. Location: Jacobs. Pp. 101-130. ( [3] ).
  23. ↑ See Kraus, Björn (2016): Power - Help - Control. Foundations and extensions of a systemic-constructivist power model. In: Kraus, B., Krieger, W. (ed.): Power in social work. Interaction relationships between control, participation and release. Revised version in the 4th edition. Location: Jacobs. Pp. 101-130. ( [4] ). See also Björn Kraus: Recognizing and Deciding. 2013, p. 126.
  24. ↑ Kraus, Björn (2016): Power - Help - Control. Foundations and extensions of a systemic-constructivist power model. In: Kraus, B., Krieger, W. (ed.): Power in social work. Interaction relationships between control, participation and release. Revised version in the 4th edition. Location: Jacobs. Pp. 101-130. ( [5] ). See also Björn Kraus: Recognizing and Deciding. 2013, p. 126.
  25. ↑ See Björn Kraus: Recognize and decide. Basics and consequences of an epistemological constructivism for social work . Beltz Juventa, Weinheim / Basel 2013, p. 139 f.
  26. ↑ Micha Brumlik: Foreword. In: Constructivism - Communication - Social Work. Carl Auer, Heidelberg 2002, p. 6.
  27. ↑ See Reimund Böse, Günter Schiepek: Systemic theory and therapy: a concise dictionary . Asanger, Heidelberg 1994; Gregory Bateson: Ecology of Mind: Anthropological, Psychological, Biological, and Epistemological Perspectives . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1996; Heinz von Foerster: Knowledge and Conscience. Attempt a bridge . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1996.
  28. ↑ Björn Kraus: Recognize and Decide. Basics and consequences of an epistemological constructivism for social work . Beltz Juventa, Weinheim / Basel 2013, p. 120.
  29. ↑ Wolf Ritscher: Social work: systemic. A concept and its application. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2007, p. 55.
  30. ^ Björn Kraus: Plea for Relational Constructivism and Relational Social Work. in Forum Sozial (2017) 1 pp. 29-35, p. 34 http://www.pedocs.de/frontdoor.php?source_opus=15381
  31. ^ Björn Kraus: Plea for Relational Constructivism and Relational Social Work. in Forum Sozial (2017) 1 pp. 29-35, p. 34 http://www.pedocs.de/frontdoor.php?source_opus=15381
  32. ^ Björn Kraus: Plea for Relational Constructivism and Relational Social Work. in Forum Sozial (2017) 1 pp. 29–35 http://www.pedocs.de/frontdoor.php?source_opus=15381
  33. ^ Björn Kraus: Plea for Relational Constructivism and Relational Social Work. in Forum Sozial (2017) 1 pp. 29–35 http://www.pedocs.de/frontdoor.php?source_opus=15381
  34. ↑ Ulrich Pfeifer-Schaupp: Thinking beyond radical constructivism - The middle way of knowledge. Journal for systemic therapy and advice 29 (2), pp. 55–61. 2011, p. 56 .
  35. ↑ Ulrich Pfeifer-Schaupp: Thinking beyond radical constructivism - The middle way of knowledge. Journal for systemic therapy and advice 29 (2), pp. 55–61. 2011, p. 57 .
  36. ↑ Björn Kraus: Recognize and Decide. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim 2013, ISBN 978-3-7799-2854-6 , pp. 61-64 .
  37. ↑ Marcus Willaschek: Truth . In: Peter Prechtl, Franz-Peter Burkard (Ed.): Metzler Lexikon Philosophy. Terms and Definitions . 3. Edition. Metzler, Weimar 2008, ISBN 978-3-476-02187-8 , pp. 666-668 .
  38. ↑ Björn Kraus: Recognize and Decide . Beltz Juventa, Weinheim, ISBN 978-3-7799-2854-6 , p. 63 .
  39. ↑ Björn Kraus: Recognize and Decide . Beltz Juventa, Weinheim 2013, ISBN 978-3-7799-2854-6 , pp. 63 .
  40. ^ Björn Kraus: Constructivism (Philosophy). In: socialnet lexicon. February 13, 2018, accessed November 1, 2018 .
  41. ↑ Björn Kraus: From the normativity of practice to the normativity of the science of social work - a legitimate way? In: Wolfgang Krieger, Björn Kraus (Hrsg.): Normativity and science in the science of social work. On the critique of normative dimensions in theory, science and practice of social work . Beltz Juventa, Weinheim 2018, ISBN 978-3-7799-3836-1 , p. 152-193 .
  42. ↑ The Power of Doubt. In: ORF. Salzburger Nachtstudio, February 1, 2017, accessed on November 1, 2018 .