Lannamann J W
Department of Communication, University of New Hampshire, Horton Social Science Center, Durham 03824, USA.
Fam Process. 1998 Winter;37(4):393-413. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1998.00393.x.
By drawing parallels between the courtroom testimony of a Christian Science practitioner and an intersession conversation between systemic family therapists, I critique the abstract idealism of language-centered social constructionism. I argue that social constructionist inquiry that highlights the indeterminacy of meaning without a corresponding emphasis on the responsive embodied practices of family members glosses over the material conditions shaping the politics of interaction. The implications of this problem are discussed as they relate to the setting of family therapy, where social construction theory is often used to guide practical interventions.
通过将基督教科学派从业者的法庭证词与系统家庭治疗师的休会期间对话进行对比，我批判了以语言为中心的社会建构主义的抽象唯心主义。我认为，社会建构主义探究强调意义的不确定性，却没有相应地强调家庭成员的回应性身体实践，这掩盖了塑造互动政治的物质条件。当这些问题与家庭治疗的背景相关时，会进行讨论，在家庭治疗中，社会建构理论常被用于指导实际干预。
