Narrative Therapy, Postmodemism,
Social Constructionism, and Constructivism:
Discussion and Distinctions
Robert E. Doan
Abstract
Narrative assumptions are explored in
relation to social constructionism, radical
constructivism, and postmodernism. Com-
mon misunderstandings concerning these
concepts are discussed, and distinctions are
drawn, especially in relation to practicing a
therapy that is informed by a narrative
metaphor.
Being part ofthe postmodern age can have its
advantages. It offers the potential of less restric-
tions and intolerance than preceding eras. It
promises flexibility, diversity, and the space to
author a story that is primarily informed by
one's own perceptions, memories, and mean-
ings. It challenges the weight of undisputed
authorityand is, perhaps, the inevitable result of
overly trusting a single informing metaphor for
too many years, that is, assuming the world can
best be understood as a machine that can be
reduced to its various parts (Parry, 1997).
It has, ofcourse, an equal potential for the op-
posite. The same aspects that make the
aforementioned claims possible can also be
experiencedas a state of psychological free fall,
with no parachute or net. One can be left without
a foundation on which to base life's decisions and
a gnawing sense of being lost with no map within
reach. As stated by 0' Hara and Anderson (1991):
The premodern mind, whatever its pains
and sorrows, saw itself mirrored in every
detail of its world. There were psychic
anchors everywhere: in the myths that
explained the cosmos; in the environmental
signs, symbols and metaphors that gave
form to thought; in the rituals and customs
that shaped decision and action; in the
social organization that assigned to every
person a clear role for being. (pp. 20-21)
/28
Postmodernity has called everything into ques-
tion. We are in a state of grand flux in which
everythingis uncertain.The old psychic bedrock
is gone.
This is the case for all aspects of existence.
Therapy and therapists are not immune. What it
means to be a therapist and how this translates
itself into what we do when we are in the room
with a client(s), is undergoing intense scrutiny.
This was punctuated by Nichols and Schwartz
(1995):
Amazingly, the sprawling field of family
therapy changed more in the three years
between the second and third editions of
this book than it did in the seven years
between the first and second. Looking back
on the 1970s and 1980s-the time when
most teachers formed their strongest im-
pressions of the field-we see an era when
various schools had defined and entrenched
themselves. There were doctrinaire ap-
proaches to folIow and charismatic leaders
to look up to. Much has changed. Forceful
ideologies that once competed are now
being combined. Aggressive techniques are
giving way to subtler, more colIaborative
methods, as a shift from action to meaning
brings about a decreased urgency to control
and manipulate families in the name of
helping. (p. xv)
In the face of such uncertainty it is easy to
become confused. Therapists can no longer rest
easy in their "expert" chairs and write "true and
accurate" case notes. As the postmodern age
brings in more clients who are lost within mazes
of meaning, the therapist sits across the room
struggling with the same dilemma.
Narrative therapy has not escaped this di-
lemma. There is much confusion surrounding
this new therapeutic metaphor. Many have
jumped on the narrative bandwagon without
Transactional Analysis Journal
 NARRATIVE THERAPY, POSTMODERNISM, SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM, AND CONSTRUCTIVISM
really understanding the music; perhaps, to
some extent, we all have. The music seems to
keep changing, dependingon who is playing and
their instrument of choice. This article is no
exception.It is one melody among many. It may
harmonize with some of the works in this issue
and clash with others. That would be predicted
in the multiversal climate that characterizes
postmodern existence.
This article addresses some of the issues that
are potential sources of confusion for those
seeking to learn about, and perhaps adopt, a
narrative analogy for conducting therapy. It is
hoped that its contents will help lessen the
confusion rather than add to it. Only the reader
can decide whether that is the case.
Some Key Terms
Let us begin with some key terms and sug-
gested definitions. This seems appropriate
considering that one of the hallmarks of the
postmodern world is a confounded language in
which people use words with the assumption
that they carry singular meanings only to find
that others have varying definitions (Parry &
Doan, 1994). Just because we all speak English
does not mean that we understand each other.
Interpretation, more often than not, is necessary.
Postmodernism: The modern era assumed
there was a bedrockofuniversal truths on which
we could rely. (It is interesting to divide the
word universe into two parts-uni-verse-and
to noticethe singular nature of the versing.) The
modern age hunted for the one verse; and more,
it assumed that we-or at least some of us-had
access to it. The fact that there were literally
thousands of people and groups, each claiming
to have privileged access but who disagreed on
almost everything, may have inevitably brought
such assumptionsinto question and then demise.
The postmodern era was ushered in when it
became impossibleto continue to trust the major
political, philosophical, and religious root
metaphors of our culture and the world at large,
and when it became increasingly obvious that
we lived more in a multi-verse (Parry & Doan,
1994) than in anyone account. Alan Parry
(1997) has elegantly traced the evolution
(deconstructed) ofthis process in "Why We Tell
Stories" in another section of this issue.
Vol. 27. No.2, Apri//997
Simply put, postmodernism advises that we
beware ofany singular, totalizing account that
claims to contain the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, that is, a metaphor that has been
reified. As Pepper (1942) reminded us years
ago: "Once a metaphor has done its job of sense
making,the metaphoric quality tends to become
lost or submerged. The 'as if quality is forgot-
ten and users began to speak in literal terms....
i.e., it becomes reified" (pp. 4-5).
This does not mean that all stories and meta-
phors are created equal, that all are equally valid
and coherent. There has been much confusion
on this point. There is a large difference be-
tween sayingno singular account is sufficient to
stand solely on its own and saying all accounts
are equally valid. The main message of post-
modernityis the inherent danger of the one story
that has no room for alternate accounts.
The postmodern era was probably inevitable.
How long could we continue to see the planet be
ravaged by wars in the name of True Stories
without some form of response? Manifest Des-
tiny accounted for the deaths of 52 million
Native Americans in North, South, and Central
America It is understandable that at some point,
a portion of the population would begin to
question the validity of such powerful Grand
Narratives. The rise and fall of the Third Reich,
less expansive in numbers but more vivid in
execution, only added to the feeling that totaliz-
ing stories could be impersonal and dangerous;
that they could be, and often were, harmful to
living things.
Social Constructionism: A close cousin of
postmodernism, social constructionism focuses
on how ideas and attitudes have developed over
time within a social, community context. It is
especially interested in the narratives or dis-
courses that have taken on a normative standard
against which people measure and judge them-
selves. In other words, it deconstructs the Grand
Narratives by focusing on how the prevailing
norms have evolved over time, especially those
that marginalize and subjugate people (Dicker-
son & Zimmerman, in press). It focuses on
knowledge as power and recognizes that thera-
peutic practices are political. For example, un-
questioningallegiance to the body of knowledge
known as the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric
/29
ROBERT E. OOAN
Association, 1994) renders one a political agent
ofthe American Psychiatric Association and its
medical model and normative form of classifica-
tion and diagnosis. Social constructionists
challengeand critique narratives that claim to be
privilegedand entitled. They dare to ask decon-
structive questions such as:
Who stands to gain from the power wielded
by this account?
Who is most oppressed by this power?
Is there roomfor optional stories or are they
oppressed and subjugated?
Who authored this narrative? Did those most
oppressed by it have a voice?
How does it recruit people into its service?
What sort of power practices does it
employ?
Along with postrnodernism, social construc-
tionism does not imply that all stories are equal-
ly valid. In fact, it says much the opposite: that
some accounts are not respectful of difference,
gender, ethnicity, race, or religion. It would
agree with the postrnodern warning concerning
totalizing, singular accounts. Such forms of
power marginalize all those who cannot fit into
certain specifications,as well as those who have
no desire to do so. Social constructionists prefer
stories that are based on a person's lived
experience-that is, his or her own voice, per-
ception, and experiences-rather than on some
domain of"expert knowledge." Stories based on
lived experience allow for the experience of
personal agency (J. Adams-Wescott, 1995,
personal communication).
Grand Narratives are supported by the weight
of numbers, tradition, and firmly entrenched
power structures. They can be metaphorically
thought of as "living entities." From this frame
of reference, they have taken the place of
Tyrannosaurus Rex as a predator and consumer
of people. We are eaten and digested by such
stories, and we provide the fuel for their contin-
ued life. Some of us unwittingly function as the
claws and teeth of Grandnarritivus Rex and do
damage to our own species. So complete is our
assimilation, we speak with its voice and iden-
tity it as our own. When the oppression and re-
cruitment is extreme, those most oppressed
often become the most ardent defenders of the
beast that has consumed them.
130
Radical Constructivism: The constructivist
position, at its extreme, holds that since we are
basically prisoners of our biological percep-
tional systems, it is impossible to access external
reality in an undiluted form. Thus, context and
utility are proposed as the primary criteria in
ascertaining the value of a given account. If a
narrative works within a particular context, it is
valid. This is a short step away from an
anything-goes attitude in which nothing can be
defined as real or true. It represents a pendulum
swing to the opposite side of the continuum
from modernity. Not only is there no one, true
story,there is no basis for opting for one account
over another except on the basis of utility. If it
works, it is justified (Dickerson & Zimmerman,
in press; Freedman & Combs, 1996; Gergen,
1985; Hoffinan, 1990). Such radical construc-
tivist notions have been confused with social
constructionism to the extent that the words
have been used interchangeably. This has led to
misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the
postmodem/social constructionism assumptions
and philosophies.
From a constructivist position, it is more
difficultfor a therapist to take a stand or critique
a client's story. For example, it could be argued
that male violence and aggression has had great
utility over the course of history. Males who
were the best at these characteristics have
acquired most ofthe planet's material resources,
from the water hole to the oil field. History is
replete with examples documenting the utility of
this account in terms of acquiring resources and
power. Radical Constructivism flirts with de-
fending such a narrative based on its usefulness
in certain contexts.
The Position of Narrative Therapy
Parry and Doan (1994) asserted that narrative
therapy is to postrnodernism what psychoanaly-
sis was to modernism. Psychoanalysis under-
mined the notion that humans were totally
rational, logical beings via the introduction of
the unconscious; narrative subverts the notion of
a "true self' with the suggestion that people are
communities of selves, and that each person
contains a multitude of voices with varying
points ofview. Narrative therapists are comfort-
able with the assumptions of postmodernity and
Transactional Analysis Journal
 NARRATIVE THERAPY, POSTMODERNISM, SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM, AND CONSTRUCTIVISM
socialconstructionism. They especially share the
philosophythat there is reason to be cautious of
singular, totalizing accounts. They are less
interested in the relativistic, idealistic position of
the radical constructivist. They do not espouse
an anarchy of stories, but are interested in
accounts that honor and respect the community
of voices inherent in each individual and how
these accounts can be respected within a partic-
ular system. They are interested in helping
individuals with stories that have gone awry or
outlived their usefulness and families in which
stories are in collision. They recognize the
connection between all stories (Parry, 1990) and
that it is difficult for one story to go forward at
the expense of all others without causing inter-
personalconflicts and misunderstandings. They
are interested in deconstructing stories that
dominate, marginalize, subjugate, objectify, and
exclude people and in encouraging people to
become their own authors while recognizing the
social nature of human life.
Most narrative therapists are interested in
calling problems the problem rather than locat-
ing the problem inside of persons (Doan, 1995;
White, 1989), a position that is both subversive
and deconstructive of the dominant mental
health diagnostic criteria as represented by the
DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association,
1994). Externalizing problems is congruent with
the social constructionist interest in helping
people escape the dominating influences of
oppressivedomains of knowledge, even if some
of these domains are endorsed by the mental
health community at large.
Narrative Assumptions and Practices
Table 1 (see page 132) provides a brief
overviewof narrativeassumptions and a general
description of the therapeutic practices they
inform. Readers are referred to the references
for more detailed descriptions of these area.
Summing Up
Narrative therapy evolved within a postmod-
em climatethat is characterized by a loss of faith
and trust in "the one, true story." This affects
both clients and therapists in their search for
meaningand guiding frames of reference. It has
led some to adopt a constructivist position,
Vol. 27, No.2, April 1997
which in its most radical form, assumes that all
stories are equally valid and that utility and
usefulnessare the prime criteria for story selec-
tion. Others have been more interested in a
social constructionist stance, which emphasizes
the cultural component in the production of
dominant accounts. From this frame of refer-
ence, all stories are not equally valid, especially
those that seek power and control via the exclu-
sion, objectification, labeling, and marginalizing
of certain groups of people.
Narrative assumptions are more compatible
with a constructionist position than with a
constructivist one. As such, narrative therapy
and therapists can be viewed as being "subver-
sive" in relation to the Grand Narratives of our
culture.This is particularly accurate concerning
the Grand Narrative called "mental health care."
Those who find themselves interested in narra-
tive work should realize that such an interest
will potentially place them at odds with firmly
established domains of knowledge and power. It
will also place them, in my opinion, on the
cutting edge of therapeutic practices seeking to
come to terms with existence in the postrnodern
era.
Robert E. Doan, Ph.D., is a tenured, full
professor at the University of Central Okla-
homa in Edmond, Oklahoma. He has published
severaljournal articles and coauthored a book
with Alan Parry on narrative therapy. For the
last nine years he has utilized the narrative
metaphor in his private practice and the train-
ing of other therapists. Please send reprint
requests to him at the Department ofPsychol-
ogy, University of Central Oklahoma, Old
North Building #408, 100 N University, Ed-
mond, OK 73034, U.S.A.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and
statistical manual ofmental disorders (4th 00.). Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
Dickerson, V., & Zimmerman, 1. (In press). Myths, miscon-
ceptions, and a word or two about politics. Journal of
Systemic Therapies.
Doan, R. (1995). The art and craft of externalizing the
problem. Journal ofPsychological Practice, I, 60-66.
Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The
social construction ofpreferred realities. New York:
Norton.
131
ROBERT E. DOAN
Table 1
Narrative Assumptions and the Therapeutic Practices They Inform
Assumption
1. People live their lives by the stories they tell themselves
or allow others to tell them. Stories are constructed of
events as well as the application of meaning to events.
2. The stories that people tell themselves are not repre-
sentations of the world; they are the world. The map is
the territory.
3. The narratives we tell ourselves are not neutral in their
effects. Neither are their effects imagined. Stories have
formative and creative effects, and some stories are
more useful than others. All accounts are not created
equal.
4. Most clients are unWittingly cooperating with a singular
account, one that leaves little optionality or choice. They
are being lived by a story rather than being the author of
multiple accounts.
5. Stories are negotiated between people and the institu-
tions of their culture. Most accounts are the result of an
interaction between individuals and their families and
their cultures, that is, stories are socially constructed and
informed.
6. It is useful to speak of problems as problems rather
than of people as problems. This reframes the socially
constructed story concerning labeling and locating prob-
lems inside of persons.
132
Therapy Implications
The therapist is interested in liberat-
ing the client's voice and percep-
tions and in understanding how in-
dividuals were recruited into their
current stones and meanings.
It is the client's voice, not the thera-
pist's, that informs and constructs
his or her world. Therapy seeks to
liberate altemate voices from the
client rather than from the therapist.
Therapists challenge and critique
stories, but not from a knowing
stance. Rather, curiosity guides the
therapist in a collaborative explora-
tion of story lines, authors, and
meanings. Together they search for
the story that would match the pre-
ferred intentions of the client.
Therapists seek to provide space
for alternate accounts from clients.
Therapy is a comparison of at least
two stories (problem story versus
preferred story). Choice creates op-
tions.
The therapist actively explores the
familial and cultural history/herstory
of clients. Authors other than the
client are identified and held up for
inspection. Past events may not be
changeable, but it is possible to alter
the meanings attached to events.
(For example, "I'm bad" versus "Bad
Things Were Done to Me.")
Therapists engage in extemalizing
dialogues with clients rather than
internalizing ones. People are far
more than the problems that visit
them on occasion. Problems are
objectified rather than people. The
therapy allows the client to analyze
the problem separate from his or
her identity.
Transactional Analysis Journal
 NARRATIVE THERAPY, POSTMODERNISM, SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM,AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in
modem psychology. American Psychologist. 40,266-275.
Hoffman, L. (1990). Constructing realities: An an of lenses.
Family Process. 29, 1-12.
Nichols, M. P., & Schwanz, R. C. (1995). Family therapy:
Concepts and methods. Boston:Allynand Bacon.
O'Hara, M., & Anderson, W. T. (1991, September/
October). Welcome to the postmodem world. Family
TherapyNetworker, 18-22.
Parry, A (1997). Why\\C tellstories: The narrative construction
of reality. Transactional Analysis Journal. 27, 118-127.
Parry, A, & Doan, R. (1994). Story re-visions: Narrative
therapy in the postmodem world New York: Guilford
Press.
Parry, A. (1990). Story connecting: What therapy is all
about. The Calgary Participator. I, 12-15.
Pepper, S. (1942). World hypothesis. Berkeley: University
of CaliforniaPress.
White,M. (1989). The externalizing of problems and the
re-authoring oflives. In M. White, Selected papers
(5-28).Adelaide,Australia: DulwichCentre Publications.

Volume V ofthe ITAA Professional Videotape Library

Vann Joines
"Diagnosis and Treatment Planning
from a Transactional Analysis Perspective"

This video provides a comprehensive framework for diagnosis and treatment planning using
transactional analysis concepts and integrating them with traditional diagnostic information.
Cost: $45 members, $55 nonmembers (add $5 for PAL format).

Order Form

Name _

Address _

City/State _

Country/Postal Code _

o Please send "Diagnosis and Treatment Planning from a Transactional Analysis Perspective"
o Check enclosed in US funds drawn on a US bank or 0 MasterCard OVISA OJCB

Card Number Expiration Date _

Signature _

Send order form and payment to ITAA. 450 Pacific Ave.. Suite 250, San Francisco, CA 94133-4640
Phone: 415-989-5640; fax: 415-989-9343

1'01.27. No.2. April 1997 133