When I try to explain the relationship between Kelly's constructs re
core-non-core and superordinate-subordinate, I find it useful to suggest that
all core constructs are superordinate, but the reverse is not the case.
This is in part because what writers have suggested about the relative nature
of superodinacy is important, but also because not all relatively
superordinate constructs, or even those high in the hierarchy, are critical
for the person's 'maintenance processes'. This seems to me to indicate
something substantially more specific than one's values. Without these, this
implies to me, we do not (construe ourselves to) exist. Our very being is at
issue. One subset of these core constructs is the group that I have been most
concerned with in my research - viz. dependency constructs.
By contrast I think I could hold superordinate constructs about other things
that my very existence is not threatened by their invalidation (e.g. in my
case aesthetics, though for many artists this might be quite core).
Season's greetings to all,
Beverly (Walker)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%