Ketrin:
Bob Green raises a good point -- What are your expectations regarding your respondents' construction of conflict?
You might start by trying to formulate, as clearly as possible, a constructivist view of conflict.
As I see it, the ramifications of how we construct the construction signified by the term conflict would make that construction one of the most important
constructions in our current social world!!! I believe that its importance cannot be overemphasized.
First, let me make some comment on my use of the term construction in this context. The construction conflict would stand as a good exemplar for my
efforts to outline my construction of construction.
When I use the term construction I intend to signify a "mental map" (metaphor!) that one creates by plotting any stimulus input on a series of two poled
constructs. Conflict stands as a construction, in that a person's experiences leads him/her to develop a "mental map" by which to "know" a particular type
of social interaction.
The construction labeled by the construction conflict would be applied to those social situations which have been "mapped out" on the two poled
constructs -- among others -- such as material - social, indisputable-ambiguous, negating-affirming, discordant - condordant, etc., etc.
Once a person has developed a well-worked out constuction, like conflict, that construction can stand as one pole of a construct. Thus, one can use a
two-poled construct such as accord - conflict, so that a social situation can be immediately categorized on that construct.
In short, this kind of theorizing begins, I would propose, by taking a strong position on the construction that is to be signified by the terms
construct and construction.
From that point, I would proceed to establish what I intend to signify by the term conflict, knowing that each person's construction will be unique!!!
And, certainly, we would need to exercise a great deal of intersubjective exploration in order to "map out" any dialogue partner's construction of conflict.
So, the whole idea of your venture, Ketrin, would be -- as I see it -- an effort to find a way to map out the constructions that people use when they
observe social situations which they would locate toward the conflict end of whatever supordinate construct they have created for use in mapping out
situations which they would categorize at the conflict end of their xxxxx - conflict construct.
From there, of course, you would have an even larger task -- the task of relating particular kinds of conflict-defining construct systems to particular
kinds of conduct in conflict situation!.
Now, it would not be surprising if I would call up The Sociality Corollary, and would use a construct like lack of sociality - complete sociality when I
construe a social situation which I would locate at the conflict end of my construct harmonious - conflictual.
And, owing to the way I construe social situations which I define at the conflictual end of of that construct, I am convinced the ways in which people
construe those situations makes their xxxx - conflict one of the most important of all their personal constructs.
Consider (and this is only one of the examples I could give to demonstrate why I regard this construct as superimportant in one's personal construct
system) -- those of us who have been schooled in Marxist and Post-Marxist interpretations of history have been very attuned to the framing of history in
terms of class struggle.
At base, however, class struggle represents a grand example of what I reference when I speak of conflict. That is, the base of class struggle is a matter
of "whose construct system shall prevail!"
Then, when we introduce the idea that one can, by whatever means, determine whose construct system best maps out "reality," we have a grand field of
battle. And the term battle is intended to be literal -- How many deaths are owed to efforts to affirm that one or another construct system better maps out
"reality???"
Can we find a constructivist social scientist who can convince scholars that the effort to maintain the stability and integrety of one's construct
system (Choice Corollary) has been far more important in determining the course of human history than has been economics?? Enough of Adam Smith and Karl
Marx -- forward with Giambattista Vico and George Kelly!!!
Jim Mancuso
SAUD@mary.fordham.edu wrote:
> To Jim Mancuso,
>
> Thanks for your wishes. I certainly need all the best wishes I can get.
> I, too, am looking forward to suggestions and advice.
>
> To Bob Green,
>
> I think your suggestion is a good one - that it will be difficult to distinguishbetween some of the elements. I also will need to clarify what I mean by
> conflict situation.
>
> As I think about this some more, perhaps it might be better to use situations for the elements - situations such as:
>
> Two situations in which conflict was resolved successfully
> Two situations in which conflict was resolved unsuccessfully
> A situation in which conflict was resolved aggressively
> A situation in which conflict was resolved violently
> another situation in which conflict was resolved violently
> Two situations in which conflict was resolved nonviolently
> A situation in which conflict was resolved in a cowardly fashion
> A situation in which conflict was resolved in a moral fashion
> A situation in which conflict was resolved in a way in which you admire
> A situation in which conflict was resolved in a way in which you despise
> A situation in which conflict was resolved in a compassionate manner
>
> Any ideas about these suggestions?
>
> Also, thanks for your previous suggestions!
>
> Ketrin Saud
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/soi
A website related to Italian-American Affairs
--------------17F502B1401401C76BB4594B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ketrin:
Bob Green raises a good point -- What are your expectations
regarding your respondents' construction of conflict?
You might start by trying to formulate, as clearly
as possible, a constructivist view of conflict.
As I see it, the ramifications of how we construct
the construction signified by the term conflict would make that
construction one of the most important constructions in our current social
world!!! I believe that its importance cannot be overemphasized.
First, let me make some comment on my use of the
term construction in this context. The construction conflict
would stand as a good exemplar for my efforts to outline my construction
of construction.
When I use the term construction I intend
to signify a "mental map" (metaphor!) that one creates by plotting any
stimulus input on a series of two poled constructs. Conflict
stands as a construction, in that a person's experiences leads him/her
to develop a "mental map" by which to "know" a particular type of social
interaction.
The construction labeled by the construction conflict
would be applied to those social situations which have been "mapped out"
on the two poled constructs -- among others -- such as material - social,
indisputable-ambiguous, negating-affirming, discordant - condordant,
etc., etc.
Once a person has developed a well-worked out constuction,
like conflict, that construction can stand as one pole of a construct.
Thus, one can use a two-poled construct such as accord - conflict,
so that a social situation can be immediately categorized on that construct.
In short, this kind of theorizing begins, I would
propose, by taking a strong position on the construction that is
to be signified by the terms construct and construction.
From that point, I would proceed to establish what
I intend to signify by the term conflict, knowing that each person's
construction will be unique!!! And, certainly, we would need to exercise
a great deal of intersubjective exploration in order to "map out" any dialogue
partner's construction of conflict.
So, the whole idea of your venture, Ketrin, would
be -- as I see it -- an effort to find a way to map out the constructions
that people use when they observe social situations which they would locate
toward the conflict end of whatever supordinate construct they have
created for use in mapping out situations which they would categorize at
the conflict end of their xxxxx - conflict construct.
From there, of course, you would have an even larger
task -- the task of relating particular kinds of conflict-defining
construct systems to particular kinds of conduct in conflict situation!.
Now, it would not be surprising if I would call up
The Sociality Corollary, and would use a construct like lack of sociality
- complete sociality when I construe a social situation which I would
locate at the conflict end of my construct harmonious -
conflictual.
And, owing to the way I construe social situations
which I define at the conflictual end of of that construct,
I am convinced the ways in which people construe those situations makes
their xxxx - conflict one of the most important of all their personal
constructs.
Consider (and this is only one of the examples I
could give to demonstrate why I regard this construct as superimportant
in one's personal construct system) -- those of us who have been schooled
in Marxist and Post-Marxist interpretations of history have been very attuned
to the framing of history in terms of class struggle.
At base, however, class struggle represents a grand
example of what I reference when I speak of conflict. That is, the
base of class struggle is a matter of "whose construct system shall prevail!"
Then, when we introduce the idea that one can, by
whatever means, determine whose construct system best maps out "reality,"
we have a grand field of battle. And the term battle is intended
to be literal -- How many deaths are owed to efforts to affirm that one
or another construct system better maps out "reality???"
Can we find a constructivist social scientist who
can convince scholars that the effort to maintain the stability and integrety
of one's construct system (Choice Corollary) has been far more important
in determining the course of human history than has been economics??
Enough of Adam Smith and Karl Marx -- forward with Giambattista Vico and
George Kelly!!!
Jim Mancuso
SAUD@mary.fordham.edu wrote:
To Jim Mancuso,
Thanks for your wishes. I certainly need all the best wishes I
can get.
I, too, am looking forward to suggestions and advice.
To Bob Green,
I think your suggestion is a good one - that it will be difficult to
distinguishbetween some of the elements. I also will need to clarify
what I mean by
conflict situation.
As I think about this some more, perhaps it might be better to use situations
for the elements - situations such as:
Two situations in which conflict was resolved successfully
Two situations in which conflict was resolved unsuccessfully
A situation in which conflict was resolved aggressively
A situation in which conflict was resolved violently
another situation in which conflict was resolved violently
Two situations in which conflict was resolved nonviolently
A situation in which conflict was resolved in a cowardly fashion
A situation in which conflict was resolved in a moral fashion
A situation in which conflict was resolved in a way in which you admire
A situation in which conflict was resolved in a way in which you despise
A situation in which conflict was resolved in a compassionate manner
Any ideas about these suggestions?
Also, thanks for your previous suggestions!
Ketrin Saud
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of
Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University
at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington
Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/soi
A website related to Italian-American Affairs
--------------17F502B1401401C76BB4594B--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%