1. Beginning the Journey

Humans cannot live alone. To envision human life is to envision relationships. Our beliefs and feelings, what we find pleasing or displeasing, beautiful or ugly, right or wrong, are all products of social relationships. This, in a nutshell, is the guiding principle of social construction. Since the mid-1980s, I have spent much time exploring, discussing, playing with, and trying to live in accord with social constructionist ideas and sensibilities. I have been fortunate to teach in a program in which social construction is a primary theme of the curriculum. This has given me relatively free reign to teach about and from a social constructionist framework. It has also afforded me the opportunity to observe how students take up these ideas and what excites, puzzles, angers, and intrigues them about this form of sense making. The idea for this book sprang from these experiences.

One of the more challenging aspects of social construction is its non-prescriptive stance. Although different practices can be judged as more or less congruent with social constructionist ideas, no particular collection of methods or techniques is social constructionist practice. For students entering a graduate program in a profession like social work, this position may be contrary to what they were expecting or hoping, can feel threatening, or may even be considered an abrogation of the program’s responsibility to them. Simply put, many, if not most, students to varying degrees (and I might add that I was no different as an MSW student) want to be taught techniques they can readily apply to various problems. This desire is not surprising given the considerable responsibility they will bear as social workers. They will encounter people in great need, people who have been marginalized by society, people who are in pain, who are angry, scared, and confused. In many cases, their professional judgments will have a significant impact on the lives of these people. In such circumstances, being taught methods and techniques, what to do in given situations, provides a level of comfort and sense of competence that is highly appealing.

In addition to the anxiety associated with the uncertainty about the “right” way to respond to problems, practice tends to be thought of as constituted primarily of techniques or specific interventions. For instance, a behavioral approach might be described as skills training, desensitization, self-monitoring, and the use of rewards. These techniques are reasonable responses to how problems are understood—for example, as responses to reinforcements and punishments. Criteria used for identifying positive change (e.g., increases in the frequency of targeted behaviors) and their assessment (e.g., monitoring of frequency counts) are consistent with the approach. This gives the approach coherence and intelligibility. It would not make sense, for example, for a behavioral practitioner to treat superego or transference issues with a behavioral procedure. In this case, the “nature” of these problems, that is, the way they are construed and understood, invites psychodynamic treatment—for example, the awareness and identification of repressed memories and their impact on current feelings.

For social constructionist–oriented practitioners neither of these approaches is out-of-bounds. The assumptions and beliefs of each approach, and the language that constitutes them, render the ways problems are constructed and their treatment sensible and appropriate. Both problem and treatment reflect and generate each other.

Theoretical allegiances extend beyond problem definitions and practice techniques to how we value different forms of information or understanding. Behavioral practitioners, for example, will likely be proponents of evidence-based practice, believing that randomized clinical trials provide the most authoritative information for practice. They will also be interested in concepts like practice effectiveness and “what works.” On the other hand, the relative value of learning the client’s narrative will likely be low (the very idea may seem like fiction). In addition, the nature of the practitioner-client relationship and the importance or relevance of dialogue may be secondary to carrying out particular methods in a precise manner.

Social constructionist–informed practitioners tend to adopt a pragmatic position, looking at what seems to be most useful in a particular situation. Of course, determinations of “most useful” will be congruent with social constructionist ideas which will invite particular understandings and justify related ways of working with others. In this sense all belief systems are similar and social construction does not claim superiority. It too is a social construction, albeit one that its adherents believe leads to better ways of practicing. One notable difference from other approaches is the reluctance to prescribe particular techniques as constituting social constructionist practice. Rather, practitioners’ actions emerge from the interaction with their clients. In other words, the ever evolving, co-constructed character of the relationship, not particular methods or techniques, guides practitioners’ actions.

Not having a prespecified “toolbox” of techniques increases uncertainty and decreases professional authority. While practicing from such a position may generate anxiety, it also enables greater freedom to respond creatively to the nuances and particularities of the situation. The case examples in this book illustrate this theme—showing different ways that social constructionist ideas are taken up and expressed in practice. The aim of this approach is to be instructive without being formulaic or authoritative.

No one learns about social construction, or any other framework, in a vacuum. It therefore seemed relevant for the chapter authors to address how they encountered social construction and what ideas attracted them. In my own case, social interactions have always fascinated me. From my early undergraduate courses in social psychology in which I was captivated by symbolic interactionism, to my MSW studies where I specialized in group work, and then to my doctoral studies, which focused on marital relationships, the interdependencies, intricacies, and mysteries of social relations seemed central to understanding social life.

Despite these interests, my graduate work was primarily informed by conventional research, and my practice approach was behavioral. At the time (early- to mid-1970s), my allegiance to empirical methodology and behaviorism led me to overlook their limited capacity to address the dynamics of social processes. Ironically, it was through a behavioral psychologist, Michael Mahoney, that I was introduced to critiques of the dominant views of science that undergirded these approaches (e.g., Kuhn, 1962; Weimer, 1979). Mahoney’s own book on the psychology of scientists (1976) shattered the mythology that many (including me) held about the characteristics of scientists and how they performed their work. I found this literature to be revelatory and attempted to integrate these ideas with my social work–based commitment to social justice and to apply this thinking to social work research and practice (e.g., Witkin, 1989; Witkin and Gottschalk, 1988). While engaged in this project, I came across Ken Gergen’s article “The Social Constructionist Movement in Modern Psychology” (1985), in which he outlined salient assumptions and beliefs of social construction. These were exciting ideas! In particular, the notion of language as constituting rather than reflecting what we take as real and the idea of challenging taken-for-granted beliefs seemed supportive of my own beliefs and values. As often happens in such encounters, I experienced an articulation and crystallization of my own inchoate thoughts, like seeing an out-of-focus image suddenly achieve laser clarity. I also found many social constructionist ideas to be congruent with my vision of social work, a topic I discuss in the next chapter.

As I continue this intellectual journey into the present, my understanding of social construction changes and deepens. And its implications and applications keep expanding. The current work is one such manifestation of this ongoing development.

The primary aims of this book are to introduce students and practitioners to the salient ideas of social construction and to illustrate some of the ways these ideas influence and are expressed in practice. I hope these illustrations will address questions you may have about social construction’s relevance and applicability to social work and encourage you to explore its potential expressions in your practice.

Given these aims, the book is written in a style intended to be reader accessible, particularly to those not versed in “postmodern speak” (more about this in chapter 2). Academic formats, while not ignored, were flexibly applied to allow more personal, essay-style narratives. A “telling” rather than a “showing” writing style was used (Taylor, 2008), in which authors are conspicuously present within the text. The practices they write about are embedded in their biographies. Ample use of case examples creates a bridge between concepts and their application, helping readers see the possibilities of practices inspired by social constructionist ideas. Although authors present their topics in different ways, each was guided by the following structure:

While these guidelines were intended to provide a common framework for the chapters and overall coherence for the book, they were flexible enough for authors to tell their social constructionist–themed stories. There was no attempt to have authors sound alike; rather, the intention was to provide adequate literary license to enable them to write in a way that made their descriptions interesting and their practice illustrations genuine. We do not take up, articulate, or express ideas in the same way, and I made no attempt to impose such uniformity on the chapters. This meant redefining the oft-identified “unevenness” critique of edited books as a strength rather than a weakness.

The diversity of the authors’ backgrounds, their practice interests, and their understanding and use of social constructionist ideas demonstrate a range of interpretations and approaches. They illustrate the adaptability and applicability of social constructionist ideas to diverse international contexts, practice settings, and issues. Of course, this sampling is not exhaustive and social constructionist–oriented practitioners operate in other areas not specifically addressed here (for example, see Atwood and Dreher, 2010; Browne, 2004; McNamee, 2002). Of importance to social workers is the focus on different marginalized groups, such as children who suffer abuse and neglect, “resistant” adolescents, disadvantaged families, indigenous people, refugees, and men who have sexually abused children.

“An Introduction to Social Constructions” (chapter 2) invites you to reflect on what may be a new way of thinking about the world. I attempt to provide basic information about social construction to facilitate understanding of the following chapters that focus on how social construction can inform practice. A brief discussion of the historical context of social construction, particularly its postmodern connections, is followed by a discussion of variations and commonalities in how social construction is understood. Particular attention is paid to the central role of language and how it functions within micro and macro discursive contexts. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the similarities and differences between social construction and social work. In the case of differences, I try to show how social construction can enable social work to move closer to its claim to be “social” work.

In chapter 3, J. Christopher Hall compares traditional assessments in clinical practice to his use of constructionist-based assessment. The latter complicates the concept of “problem” by considering it culturally and relationally, and by allowing for multiple interpretations with no one interpretation singled out as “truth.” Chris describes his pathway to social construction as beginning with his childhood participation in the well-known Louisville Twin Study. These early and ongoing experiences with research (he was in the study for sixteen years) were influential in his seeking alternative perspectives. He uses case examples to describe three styles of social constructionist–informed assessment: a polylingual, collaborative approach, which seeks an understanding of the client’s theory of the problem and of change; a deconstructive practice approach, which explores the client’s understanding of the construction of the problem and of the solution; and a nonpathology, strengths-based approach.

In chapter 4, Ruth Dean describes how she was introduced to social construction through her doctoral studies in the late-1980s. Having been educated in the psychodynamic tradition, social construction provided a way to address social context, so relevant to the oppression and economic disadvantages experienced by many of her clients. Her interest in social construction led her to study narrative therapy and then to practice and eventually teach it. Ruth elaborates on her integrative understanding of social construction and provides case examples that illustrate how she has used ideas such as practitioner transparency, collaboration, and respectful curiosity in her practice. She discusses how she teaches social constructionist ideas such as “multiple truths” to clients and connects them to social justice. She also shows how she has integrated narrative with contemporary psychodynamic theory and social construction.

The practice approach called critical reflection is the focus of chapter 5 by Fiona Gardner. According to Fiona, critical reflection is both a theory and a process enabling practitioners to examine taken-for-granted assumptions and values in the light of their social context. Using a critical reflection incident from her own social work practice, she illustrates how assumptions about another culture, in this case an indigenous Australian community, can inhibit an effective working relationship. A conversation with a member of that community—while sitting in a car in the rain—challenged her to move outside existing cultural and professional understandings and led to new and deeper levels of meaning and connection. Fiona also discusses reflexivity as an aspect of social construction and its use as an aid in deconstructing assumptions and extending possibilities.

Nigel Parton focuses on child protection work in chapter 6. He begins by recalling how the tragic death of a child in 1973 and the subsequent public inquiry inspired him to explore new perspectives for advancing policy and practice. Drawing upon the constructionist-oriented, U.S.-based social problems literature, Nigel describes his attempt to analyze the conceptual category of child abuse and how it had been constructed as a social problem requiring state intervention. He also discusses his more recent focus on deconstructing policy development for the purpose of trying to work out “what is going on” so that critical perspectives—at the level of policy—can be developed. Finally, Nigel discusses his development and use of an approach to practice he calls “constructive social work” (Parton and O’Byrne, 2000) and its current application in a child welfare agency. His overall aim is to consider how these approaches can make a difference in the way we think about both policy and practice and, crucially, inform what we do on a day-to-day basis.

Continuing the theme of child welfare, Deborah Major (chapter 7) suggests that the social constructionist emphasis on contextual meaning makes it particularly well suited for practice with families in the child welfare system. According to Deborah, this emphasis is critical since parents in these families are often judged as if they enjoyed the same opportunities available to middle-class families, but simply choose to turn them down because they prefer lives mired in chaos, violence, or addiction. She describes how her early practice experience led her to social construction, in particular, the demands on children in foster care to reconstruct their identities and to resist others’ attempts to ascribe an identity to them. Using case examples, she describes how a social constructionist framework helped her to invite children and parents to explain how they viewed their worlds and to listen to the meanings of their relationships and how they saw those relationships operating in their lives. In addition, it enabled her to include herself and her role in these relationships as part of what was being evaluated. She examines a case involving serious injury where it nevertheless became possible to advocate with guardians and judges for returning the children to their parents.

A different aspect of child welfare work is taken up in Trish Walsh’s chapter 8 exploration on being an expert witness. Drawing on a Foucaultian analysis of the relationships among power, knowledge, and discourse, she redefines the role of the “expert” witness in order to open up possibilities for creative practice. For Trish, adopting a social constructionist mindset means remaining wary of the tendency to label or essentialize others’ experiences and to avoid being reductionist. In her role as an expert witness, social construction provides flexibility, allowing her to set aside unanswerable or unhelpful questions; reframing concerns in ways that promote joint work rather than conflictual positions; and allowing her to search for new solutions before legal interventions restrict these options. Although social constructionist ideas do not in themselves address the complex economic, environmental, psychological, and interpersonal factors that contribute to problems of child maltreatment, they can provide a strategy for rendering less rigid the demands of expert-led child protection and legal systems.

Working within a family context, Sally St. George and Dan Wulff (chapter 9) discuss how to connect the problems encountered in clinical settings to broader social issues that contribute to those problems. Integrating social constructionist ideas with family therapy and social work, they demonstrate through case examples how their work addresses issues of gender imbalances and violence in society. Sally identifies discourses that allow her to converse with families in ways that help them solve/resolve/dissolve their presenting issues while simultaneously raising the issue of discrimination in gender relationships. Dan shows how he works with families to address their concerns while not reinscribing the use of violence (verbal and/or physical). In both of these initiatives, they demonstrate that social workers and family therapists can perform their therapeutic work and promote social justice. This blending of therapeutic work and activism presents a challenging and exciting re-visioning of therapeutic work.

In chapter 10, Marie Keenan discusses the contributions of a social constructionist perspective in her work with child sexual offenders. Drawing on her clinical and research experience with victims and perpetrators of sexual offenses and the relevant literature on the subject, she describes how social constructionist thought has enhanced her theoretical and practice endeavors in this area. Focusing on conversations with men who have committed such offenses, she discusses challenges to generating a space in which meaningful dialogue can take place and where hope can be maintained. She draws on an allegory from Celtic mythology, “The Fifth Province,” to help create such a dialogical space. She also discusses the challenges of using a social constructionist perspective in this politicized and highly policed area of professional practice and the difficulties of adopting a research and practice position not premised on a notion of “scientific certainty.”

Moving from work with a therapeutic population to a professional one, Wai-fong Ting (chapter 11) describes her work with teachers interested in better addressing the challenges arising from changing societal and educational factors—for example, declining birth rates and increased managerialism. She describes her early experience of researching teenage suicide and her puzzlement over the absence of the teens’ own voices in the research literature. This led her to embark on a project in which youth served as collaborators in generating narratives about their own lives. Her experiences led to formal study of narrative, the approach she used in her work with the teachers in helping them view their “problem-saturated” story and how it affected their sense of agency and commitment. She worked with this group to develop an alternative story in which they were more reconnected with the values and ethics that undergirded their career choice. As these values and commitment were made more explicit and available to the teachers, they became more energized and empowered to re-embark on a more positive collaborative educational endeavor. Her chapter documents the journey of how this social constructionist–informed narrative supervision and professional development project helped teachers reauthor their narratives and bring them back in touch with their lost vocational mission.

Chapter 12, by Martha Kuwee Kumsa, is an autoethnographic tale of courage, passion, and struggle. She uses this writing format to share her exposure to and engagement with social constructionist ideas as they relate to the discursive practices of the nation-state, a topic infrequently explored even in this era of increased globalization. Addressing the dominant influence of the Western world, Martha attempts to increase readers’ awareness of lives situated in different cultural contexts. Her chapter is divided into three parts. Part one includes stories of her encounters with the term “woman-at-risk,” a label ascribed to her by international human rights organizations. In part two, she shares her sense of social construction, focusing on her personal and collective historical trajectory vis-à-vis the nation-state. Part three focuses on a case illustration of how her sense of social construction plays itself out in a social work encounter between a woman-at-risk and youth-at-risk. She discusses the difficult challenges and consequent creative possibilities of social construction that come out of such encounters. Martha concludes her chapter by speculating about where social construction leaves us as individuals and collectives.

So there you have it. Twelve chapters that I hope will interest you, intrigue you, and enrich your understanding of social construction and its applications to practice. The various cultural contexts of the contributors speak to social construction’s adaptability and capacity to accommodate a range of beliefs, worldviews, and practice settings.

As you read this book, I encourage you to reflect on these ideas, to use them as entrées into dialogues, and to explore their possible expressions in your practice. Try to envision the ways in which the practices presented do not automatically accept or run counter to the prevailing orthodoxy about human behavior. A striking example is Marie Keenan’s chapter on working with men who have sexually abused children. This population is often assumed to no longer be persons in the sense that personhood warrants certain kinds of treatment from others and from society. Marie does not accept this position as her starting point but insists on retaining these men’s personhood. The result is a way of thinking and practicing that is decidedly different from typical intervention approaches.

This case also illustrates the courage it sometimes takes to practice from an atypical perspective. Dominant discourses are not only expressed in the language we use but in the institutions (e.g., legal, educational, medical) that organize our lives, including their material and regulatory structures, their assumptions, and their values. Working from a competing discourse can bring condemnation and criticism. However, I would submit that it is the willingness to explore such alternative spaces that is among social work’s greatest contribution and, as I discuss in the next chapter, what makes social work and social construction such a complementary pairing.