Relational Being in Question: A Reply to My Colleagues

Abstract

I thank my colleagues for their generosity and their engaging reactions to my book. It is interesting, as well, to see the variations in the readings they give to the text. Churchill's initial view that I am not offering ontology is useful, as it speaks to a pervasive concern within the other commentaries that I am dismissing or dismantling cherished concepts of agency, experience, responsibility, and, indeed, physical reality. I underscore that the conception of relational being—just as these concepts—is a social construction. I do not wish to debate ontology but, rather, to explore how such constructions function, for good or ill, in everyday life.

Acknowledgments

This article was originally presented at the 118th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association in San Diego, August 2010. The presentation was part of a symposium entitled “Exploring and Critiquing Ken Gergen's Book Relational Being.”