It should be right to teach social constructionism being catholic?

[Archedreamer]

Hi everybody! I will explain you my problem.

I study both history and psychology. Both studies which have not an easy work insertion in Argentina (it could be something main to know, but not an excuse for my possible sin). I study history at a catholic university (the Universidad del Salvador, an ex- S.J university). There I been have educated under the philosophical, theological an ethic formation that a catholic professional should have.

The problem is that history is not my vocation, but ethnopsychology (social psychology if I do not want to be marked as a pseudo-scientist wizard at the academic community). I don’t study psychology at the Universidad del Salvador, but at the University of Buenos Aires. This is certainly not a catholic university, it is with the “French wave” (French Revolution paradigm, French romanticism paradigm, French decadentism, French posmodernism).

I would desire to become a social psychologist and the surest way to that is to begin with the teaching career (to become a teaching assitant and by that way “to be introduced to the Guild”). Here is the problem, because the current at which ascribes this chair is the social-constructionism. I don’t know if it should be ethic from me to be introduced in a chair which has that thinking.

I know that social constructionism denies an human essence, so it denies an human ethic.

I do not know if philosophical, suprapsychological teaching are suposed in the teaching of this chair. Anyway psychology students (and, once diplomés, psychologist) certainly use to become pseudo-philosophers in their typical attitude of take the chair of specialists of existence… I could clarify as a teacher that being useful for social psychology, social constructionism is not right for metaphysics… but I don’t know if it would be well taken by the chair.

I would be able too to try to become teacher not at the University of Buenos Aires, but at the Universidad del Salvador. It shoud be harder since there are much less needing of teacher. And the most important thing is that I would not like to become a light in a catholic university, which has certainly much of that, I would like to become a light in a darked university, like the relativist University of Buenos Aires is. .

I hug you!

PS: I do too much questions and I don’t do an equal number of answers… forgive me! I am just a too-down person.

 

[fboley]

It is a hard thing to deal with. I agree with you–we need many more obedient Catholics (or Christians of any stripe) in professorships. We need to engage with the world at all levels. My own goal is to get tenure at a research university and influence generations of academics and professionals.

As far as social constructivism goes, the philosophy is incompatible with Christianity. In psychology, constructivism can mean anything, almost, and has produced some good things (which, in my opinion, are good inasmuch as they are not really social constructivism or radical constructivism). You can use Solution Focused Brief Therapy, for example, or Strategic Family Therapy, etc, without espousing the epistemology of their founders.

I would encourage you to become expert in the philosophy of St. Thomas (if indeed you are not already). There are great courses available online at International Society of Scolastics (societyofscholastics.org/). At the very least, let all of us who wish to be psychologists and faithful Catholics stick together and support each other!

FD Boley
as you can see I am the most popular fellow in RCIA (not!)

 

[Archedreamer]

Reading the subject program it seems that the social approach is more an excuse than another thing. The program says that the subject’s intention is to give the psychology students awareness to that of the subjectivity (psychological) which has social roots.

It is also remarked the desire to give the consciousness to distinguish what is really real from what is just socially real (it is to say, what has been reified by the social order). Maybe it wants to be more an purificationism of realism than an anti-realism.

But there are also declaration how this: “We want to show that without the socialness the concept of the human nature is not thinkable”. Maybe (maybe…) It is not necessary a denial of human nature but a denial of the philosopical anthropology of the Great Heros. It remembers me to Aristotle and even to Christ (in a very superficial manner like superficial is this approach that I do!).

I have given you excuses for all those problems that I see (social-construccionism of essences, not orthodox realism, not not-social human nature) but I do not know if these excuses are valid… most probably they are not. I would need your help about those three concerning things… (if you can give me that).

Thank you so much FBoley by your comment. I want also to be in contact with you. As a christian I feel, we need each other.

 

[ChadS]

If they accept you for study at the University and you have explained or attempted to explain what problems you want to study then you shouldn’t have a problem. Ideally there should be a professor there that has an interest in the field you want to work in, in graduate school that is more important than having a degree from a name brand university. Most importantly you need to do your work and research and maybe you’ll have to back up your reasoning with more sources and research than another grad student that falls in line with the department philosophy, but in the end it will make you a better researcher.

I wouldn’t worry about the perceived biases or leanings of the department. They should be dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge not grinding certain ideological axes just because one of their students isn’t a post-modernist etc. etc.

ChadS

 

[Archedreamer]

If they accept you for study at the University and you have explained or attempted to explain what problems you want to study then you shouldn’t have a problem. Ideally there should be a professor there that has an interest in the field you want to work in, in graduate school that is more important than having a degree from a name brand university. Most importantly you need to do your work and research and maybe you’ll have to back up your reasoning with more sources and research than another grad student that falls in line with the department philosophy, but in the end it will make you a better researcher.

I wouldn’t worry about the perceived biases or leanings of the department. They should be dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge not grinding certain ideological axes just because one of their students isn’t a post-modernist etc. etc.

ChadS

Thank you, this that you say me gives me peace. Because…

I am pretty sure that crying with a laud voice that I am (thomistically) realist will mark me as a paria among the University’s “inteligentsia”. But if I can to be introduced without accepting at the way the social-construccionism in a methaphysic manner I will be well with my soul at with the soul of the other people, which won’t enter in a way of darkness. It is because I think that a spontaneous philosophy (that I should to develope) is a realistic philosophy.

I think that the new philosophies are machines more than another thing . So it is real that a better equipped (social constructionist) student will move faster than me… but just a place will give me that I need to rise. I don’t hate the effort, I don’t hate the conformation with the Nature… (since realistic philosophies are not machines, but organs).