Metaphor and the the social constructivism perspective

Metaphor and the the social constructivism perspective

What is social constructivism? Why is metaphor important in social constructivism theory?

Language is the most crucial aspect in the process of any knowledge production that cannot be conceived as describing and representing the universe, but as a way of molding the world, and that is a form of social action by human beings.

The meaning of language is gained through the context it is used in[1].

Social constructivism is an approach that gains meaning through the ability to make things a reality, through many forms of presentation – such as stimulation of a continuous process of creation.

According to McNamee & Hosking[2], postmodern intelligence and social constructivism call for a review of modern assumptions about knowledge production, such as a) the individual rationality, (b) empirical evaluation, (c) language as representation, and (d) narrative of progress.

Constructivism’s approach is unique in that it is able to broaden the horizon, and the behaviors, stemming from different cultures, thus creating room for change in society and social norms.

This approach shows that knowledge comes from two sources; through social interactions and through dialogue[3]. Burr[4] argues that “knowledge is what someone has or does not have but something that people do together”.

In the world of business, social constructivism brings with it different concepts, such as imagination, co-creation and meaning. These give managers, consultants and leaders tools for organizational interventions. The value of these resources is found in their interconnection and mutual influence.

Further, analysis of resources is useful and can stimulate the creativity of a professional to come up with new ways of working with their people.

Dialogue, debate, discussion and persuasion are different from one another. In constructivism’s perspective, dialogue is an ongoing process that is interactive and happening in conversation, and there is a likelihood that many different realities can be shared by the people having a conversation[5].

At the outset of a conversation, different perspectives and understandings are welcomed. In constructivism, the best solution or opinion cannot be achieved through observation or describing the world the way it is, but requires an ever-changing process that considers the existing cultural and even historical features.

When debating, there is a clash of views from both opposing and proposing sides, and only the best view is considered to have won the argument. Persuasion, however, takes a  different approach, which is softer and aimed at finding the most convincing way to make people join your side.

Dialogue is different in that it creates a place for both parties to bring different ideas – part of the process of co-creating new realities[6]. In a real sense, dialogue is not about finding the ‘right way’, but finding a generative way of doing things that people will be connected to and involved in.

This makes the participants feel responsible and concerned for the ongoing project. It is therefore acceptable to say that discussion will be successful if as many people as possible are involved and come up with ideas. In dialogue, the different perspectives given by different individuals culminate in a fresh way of looking at things[7].

In the process of dialogue, imagination is very important in coming up with less rigid, spontaneous and original ideas. When the imagination is encouraged, the way of thinking is given freedom and new knowledge is created. Also, getting many people to participate in the same topic of discussion magnifies the potential for creating very important experiences.

The ability to use imagination to look at the future generates tremendous potential for social change, and thus organizations should view dialogue as a process that has the ability to change the habitual way of thinking, talking, and creating totally new experiences.

Therefore new organizations should engage and include their employees, to generate a sense of belonging and co-responsibility among the employees and management.

Co-creation can enhance the process of building more trustworthy relationships in an organization. Although technology is a critical tool in bringing people together, it should not be assumed that it brings with it a concomitant shift in human relations[8].

The environment for co-creation is enhanced by the use of dialogue in any process or communication which will yield potential for people to be able to invest in other forms of interactions among the people involved. In the process of co-creating in an organization, with the facilitation of a coordinator, in the process they can use their collective thinking to come up with new ideas and interesting stories that can speak about themselves and their immediate surroundings[9].

In organizational development, imagination and co-creation are crucial in the deconstruction of old patterns of thinking, creating new meanings and opening up transformation within an organization.

Consequently, according to social constructionism there is a need to create a place for dialogue in any organization, to increase the use of imagination in the process of change through the co-creation of new possibilities.

Mead’s proposal gives rise to symbolic interactionism which claims to find the processes by which people interpret their social environment, give meaning to actions and form accurate representations of their immediate reality, so that they can develop appropriately within them. It is believed that man is not a passive observer, but an active agent of the environment.

Although analogical thinking can produce a particular interpretation, it forces other interpretations into the background. This means metaphor can reveal as well as hide[10]. Therefore, we should be very careful about the source and target of a metaphor, and use any other additional metaphors to describe the aspects of the intended target.

It is also advisable to note that the meanings of metaphors have been extended, from the rhetorical or linguistic devices, to include visual metaphors and metaphors expressed through behavior.

For example, the ritual of the Japanese tea ceremony as a metaphor for the natural world[11]. In the functioning of a business organization, the relevance of metaphors is ranked by:

v  Their support for the understanding of the organizational context (that is, explaining the concept),

v  How far they enable interpretation of the organizational context in different ways (as viewed from different perspectives),

v  Their support for new ideas about the organizational context (developing new hypotheses or theories).

This stands in agreement with specific concerns into organizational conversations that the analysis of an organization’s dialogue should be the important part of organizational studies.

This is in line with certain ontological assumptions about the nature of social life, namely, that social phenomena are socially constructed in line with people’s concepts of the world that they live in, and act to contribute to its reproduction and transformation. Dialogue analysis is generally obtained by analysis of ‘text’ in the wider sense of written texts, spoken interactions, multi-media and the internet.

Unlocking the Power of Figurative Language

When we speak or write, we often use language that goes beyond the literal. This is known as figurative language—a creative way to express ideas, emotions, and concepts more vividly. One of the most impactful and commonly used forms of figurative language is the metaphor.

From literature and poetry to marketing and everyday conversation, metaphors help us draw meaningful connections and make complex thoughts more relatable. But what exactly is a metaphor, and how does it work?

👉 Click here to explore our in-depth guide on metaphors – including definitions, real-life examples, types, and why they’re essential for effective communication.

Start your journey into the world of figurative expression by understanding metaphors—the foundation of powerful storytelling and rich language.
Metaphor and the the social constructivism perspective literature and bibliography

[1] Burr V., Social constructionism, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York 2003; Gergen M.M., Gergen K.J., The social construction of narrative accounts [In] Gergen K.J., Gergen M.M (Ed.), Historical social psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale 1984, pp.173-189; McNamee S., Relational bridges between constructionism and constructivism, [In] Raskin J.D. and Bridges S.K. (Ed.), Studies in meaning 2: Bridging the personal and social in constructivist psychology, Pace University Press, New York 2004, pp. 37-50.

[2] McNamee S., Hosking D.M., Research and social change. A relational constructionist approach, Routledge, New York 2012.

[3] Gergen K.J., Gergen M., Social construction: Entering the dialogue, Taos Institute Press, Chagrin Falls 2004.

[4] Burr V., Social constructionism, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York 2003, p. 9.

[5] Gergen K.J., McNamee S., Barrett F., Toward transformative dialogue, „International Journal of Public Administration”, No. 24, 2001.

[6] Gergen K.J., McNamee S., Barrett F., Toward transformative dialogue, „International Journal of Public Administration”, No. 24, 2001.

[7] Camargo-Borges C., Collaborative group practices: Exercizing dialogue in healthcare setting, Taos Institute Pres, Chagrin Falls, in press.

[8] Ramaswamy V., Gouillart F., Building the co-creative enterprise, „Harvard Business Review”, No. 88, 2010.

[9] McNamee S., Gergen K.J. (Eds.), Relational responsibility, Sage, Thousand Oaks 1999.

[10] Morgan G., An afterword: Is there anything more to be said about metaphor?, [In] Grant D., Oswick C. (eds), Metaphor and organizations, Sage, London 1996, p. 234.

[11] Holyoak K.J., Thagard P., Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought, MIT press 1996.