As I noted in the first essay in this series, a 21st Century intellectual revolution is currently taking place, involving three disciplines (psychology, economics and neurobiology). Called behavioral economics, this revolution is as if three tectonic plates were coming together, creating majestic mountains but also disturbing earthquakes. In offering a series of essays that explore the implications of this revolution for professional coaching, I offer in this second essay a philosophical (or more precisely an epistemological) framework for understanding the profound nature of the tectonic collision that has taken place.
I have based the concepts I offer in this essay on an interview I conducted with Julio Olalla (Olalla and Bergquist, 2008), a renowned coach and philosopher, as well as work I did several years ago with Kristin Teresa Eggen, my Norwegian colleague, and Simon Selvakumar, my colleague from Singapore. I propose that there are two different perspectives regarding the nature of being and, more basically, the nature of reality which have been challenged by behavioral economists: objectivism and constructivism. Furthermore, each of these perspectives breaks down into two subgroups. I will introduce all four of these frameworks and consider how each one relates to the new field of behavioral economics. In keeping with the theme of this set of essays, I will also consider the implications of these perspectives for those engaged in professional coaching as related to matter of economics and psychology.
Static Objectivism
Advocates for the objectivist perspective assume that there is a reality out there that we can know and articulate. There are universal truths or at least universal principles that can be applied to the improvement of the human condition, resolution of human conflicts, restoration of human rights, or even construction of a global order and community. Donald Schön (1983) suggests that this perspective emerges from and remains closely associated with a tradition that he calls “technical rationality.” We might also refer to this perspective as it applied to the domain of economics. Technical economics would be based on the assumption that money is real and that rational processes can be engaged when dealing with the reality of money. Underlying this perspective would be a set of assumptions regarding the identity and “worth” of money. It is the American dollar that would determine the identity and worth of money. All other financial currencies and items of economic worth would be assessed on the basis of the “almighty US dollar.”
Download Article
