The dynamic constructivists often take this analysis one step further by proposing that language is itself the primary reality in our daily life experiences. Language, originally and primarily relationship-based, assumes its own reality, and ceases to be an abstract sign that substitutes for the “real” things. The language of economics, in particular, constructs a reality that profoundly influences the decisions we make and actions we take in the world of money and finances. Our economic cave is filled with language and conversations. This is reality. There is nothing outside the cave (or perhaps the cave doesn’t even exist).
While objectivism is based on the assumption that there is a constant reality to which one can refer (through the use of language and other symbol/sign systems) and static constructivism is based on the assumption that there is a constant societal base for our constructions of reality, dynamic constructivism is based on the assumption that the mode and content of discourse and the relationship(s) that underlie this discourse are the closest thing we have to a reality. We are constantly reconstructing our reality because this reality is based on the specific relationship through which we are engaged via our discourse.
We need not stay within Plato’s cave, because the relationship and the discourse is itself reality. These are not just a reflection of the reality. The inside and outside of the cave are one in the same thing. The cave doesn’t exist. Economics becomes an extended conversation about not just money, but also priorities, values and life aspirations. This conversation is constantly shifting as not only the economic environment shifts but also our own needs, wants, fears and regrets shift.
Narratives of our time and of our self
We are often distant from many of the most important events that impact on our lives. As Julio Olalla has so eloquently noted, we live in a complex, global community and we have many connections to a vast world. Yet, we can no longer have direct experience of, nor can we have much influence over, this world. The economic cave has grown much larger than Plato might have imagined. This cave is either flat and accessible to all members of the global community (Friedman, 2007) or it is hot and potentially unsustainable (Friedman, 2008). The cave might instead be curved and both volatile and dangerous (Smick, 2008). Actually, the economic cave may no longer even exist given the shattering of national boundaries.
The only access we have to this vast world is through diverse languages and narratives. A single “grand narrative” no longer exists. The “almighty US dollar” is now not as almighty or as stable. As a result, we often share multiple narratives about things and events rather than actually experiencing them. Language itself becomes a shared—(and often confusing or even contradictory-) experience. On first impression, this perspective does not differ greatly from that offered by Plato. The narratives can be considered nothing more than second-hand conversations about the images of the cave’s walls. Yet there is a difference, for, as Julio Olalla suggests, the narratives and conversations are not just about experiences, they are themselves experiences.
Download Article
