George A. Kelly’s Constructive Alternativism — An Application to Religious & Ideological Radicalism
The theory of psychological constructs was pioneered by a psychologist named George A. Kelly (1905–19671). Kelley suggested that every man is a scientist who creates testable hypotheses in their mind as a way of explaining the world. These hypotheses are called constructs and are under constant flux across the lifespan.
Kelly’s theory, called Constructive Alternativism, has application within the development of radacalist dogma in the human mind; whether in the form of religious fundamentalism or ideological extremism. Given the polarised debate in the political and social spheres and the implications of such conflict upon global humanitarian progress, Kelly’s theory provides meaningful insights into the psychological underpinnings of radicalism.
Understanding the psychological underpinnings of radicalism helps us to avoid it in ourselves and understand it in others. This discernment will enable us to approach social commentary and infrastructural improvement with an understanding of the tendency of the human mind towards extremism (Lifton, 2019)¹
An Overview of Kelley’s Theory
In A Theory of Personality — The Psychology of Personal Constructs (1963)², Kelly asserts that human personality is composed of a library of psychological constructs. Psychological constructs are a filter through which we pass the data gain from personal experience. According to Kelly, we then use these psychological constructs to inform behavioral decisions. Our collective behavioral decisions become our personality.
Psychological constructs can appear in consciousness in the form of associated opposites (black-white, left-right, slave-free) or other interrelations (democratic/liberalism, republican/conservative, Islam/terrorism, Islam/peace, etc). Kelley’s theory suggests that we use these constructs to predict outcomes in an otherwise confusing and uncertain world. We all dropped from our mothers’ wombs’ as curious little beings with an inherent need to make some sense of our existence; or at least to alight upon useful knowledge that we can use to make our way, reduce suffering and reach personally meaningful goals. Although they are potentially faulty or illusory, psychological constructs allow us to accomplish the aforementioned goals.
Kelly’s theory is intuitive. Most readers will be familiar with the process a child undergoes as they develop greater understanding through personal experience and the instruction of parents. New knowledge is assimilated into existing schemas and the child develops toward a more nuanced and complex worldview. At various stages in psychological maturation, a child will be forced by environmental and social factors to deconstruct and shuffle the priority of their constructs in order to chart a sustainable course in the world.
A similar process continues beyond adolescence into adulthood; although perhaps with less frequency. Once an individual settles into a sustainable lifestyle that meets their intellectual and material needs, they settle into familiar constructs that, when not challenged with new life experience and learning, increase in indelibility. The extent that an individual allows further cognitive expansion and determines cadence of this psychological process.
Kelly’s “Man-As-The-Scientist”
Kelly is known for his assertion that every human is a psychological scientist, claiming that we test our constructs across the lifespan, hone them, and eventually create a comprehensive set. In this analogy, our psychological constructs are like a scientist’s hypothesis. Once we have created our hypotheses, we then test it out in the world to determine it’s applicability. As in the research lab, tests of the correctness of our hypotheses are conducted and reconducted as we edge closer and closer to the truth of a matter. Although I agree that all humans have the potential for such a psychological quest, I do not agree that all humans approach their constructs in such an inquisitive manner.
For a hypothesis to be truly scientific it must be falsifiable. This means that “it is possible to conceive of an experimental observation that disproves the idea in question. That is, one of the possible outcomes of the designed experiment must be an answer, that if obtained, would disprove the hypothesis” (Rock, 2018)³. Basically, in order for a person to be a psychological scientist, they must be in constant search for evidence that disproves their hypotheses and expands their constructs. Without an accurate understanding of this fundamental principle of scientific research, not all humans will be scientists
Of course, most functioning adults experienced the deconstruction of parentally prescribed constructs during the years of teenage rebellion. Beyond this, those who do not actively seek to disprove their hypotheses fall into patterns of behavior similar to those of previous generations and end their days in the psychological science lab at a relatively early age.
The Challenge of Radicalized Religion & Ideology
Many people consider extremist groups to be somewhat of a mystery. Some dismissively refer to ideological opponents as uneducated, immoral, or insane. Recent activism on the political far-right shocked the nation. In the religious sphere, outsiders peer at a distance at fundamentalist religious groups and exclaim “how could anyone ever think like that”. Readers of global news are shocked at atrocities performed in the name of Islam. However, when one applies a Kellyian approach to the human psyche and personality, such radicalized thinking becomes less of a mystery.
In A Theory of Personality, Kelly provides some insight into the polarization of human thought. He speaks of a common occurrence in the development of psychological constructs that may explain why some extremists refuse to moderate their stance:
“In seeking improvement [an individual] is repeatedly halted by the damage to the system [of constructs] that will result from the alteration of the subordinate construct. Frequently, his personal investment in the larger system, or his personal dependence on it, is so great that he will forgo the adoption of a more precise construct in the substructure. It may take a major act of psychotherapy or experience to get him to adjust his construction system to the point where the new and more precise construct can be incorporated”
In the above, Kelly explains why some will choose to reject information that contradicts their extreme constructs. The cost to their larger psychological network would be too great. Absorbing a more nuanced subconstruct would precipitate a wholescale dissolution of the individual’s entire worldview. Such a collapse can be psychologically traumatic. As shown in research into moral injury PTSD and Religious Trauma Syndrome, such an ideological reversal can even contribute to symptoms commonly associated with PTSD; depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and drug use.
This aligns with the psychological concept of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance suggests that when a conflict arises in consciousness (usually between the ego and the superego), we use defense mechanisms to resolve the psychological discomfort caused by the conflict. This common response to cognitive dissonance contributes to my argument that the scientific propensity of man identified by Kelley can be mute or muted.
Radicalized groups all have one thing in common, the rejection of outsiders who hold conflicting world views. Cult researcher Robert Jay Lifton refers to this as “milieu control”; heavy-handed censorship of information in a community that he identifies as one of the criteria of ideologically totalist environments (Lifton, 2019)¹. The avoidance of interaction with outside voices of those who maintain conflicting psychological constructs provides a means for an individual to avoid the uncomfortable experience of cognitive dissonance and the “damage” to the system of constructs mentioned in the quote above. Social polarization results wherein the ideological position of those in the censored environment becomes even more polarized further engraining and strengthening the existing psychological constructs and prohibiting growth towards complexity.
It can be difficult to spend time around people who hold fundamentally different worldviews than our own and deal with the idiosyncratic behavior that results. To remain in the presence of such opposites, allow space for the uncomfortable experience of cognitive dissonance to subside, and allow for the construction of a more complex and comprehensive system of constructs, is a profoundly centering experience. The result of avoiding this initially uncomfortable then profoundly enlightening experience is at the root of radicalized ideology.
Because of marketing algorithms designed to expose us to content that we would consider interesting based on our digital footprint, our milieu can become very similar to that of an ideologically totalist environment. Our constructs are reinforced daily, often with astounding frequency and ferocity. Every tweet, Instagram post, and podcast confirms our preexisting constructs. The odd-ball that challenges our previously existing theory is usually rejected immediately. Most do not seek out information to prove their falsifiable hypothesis, as a true scientist would, and take the humble path of admitting the limited nature of previously accepted constructs and progress towards a more complex and moderate worldview.
Mindful Presence & The Birth of New Constructs.
It’s hard to turn off thought. Many go their entire lifespan without experiencing this enlightening strength. To dwell in raw sensory perception in the absence of psychological constructs is a rejuvenating experience. The quiet expansiveness of the mind in this state allows for greater creativity and opportunity for intuitive learning. This mindful state is also an opportunity to embrace the uncomfortable experience of cognitive dissonance; to sit with it and allow a new understanding to arrive in consciousness.
In day-to-day life, Kelley’s “scientist man” is a researcher, testing a proposed hypothesis. However, the dimming of constructs in a profoundly mindful moment allows a person to transition into the more creative aspects of science. In the depths of mediation, an individual becomes a scientist developing a new research question, a new mystery to satisfy their natural human curiosity.
This is how new constructs are born.
While I marvel at the possibility of a multidisciplinary mapping of the human cognitive laws, I don’t believe that a comprehensive construct could ever exist. If it did, we would have denied ourselves the full potential of ever-evolving human thought. Our constructs are never finished. We must continually construct and deconstruct; test and revise. Alighting on a complete understanding of the world would be the indicator that a new one awaits.
In the meantime, we can at the very least, view it as our contribution to the decrease of social and political disunity to mature our constructs toward a more complex, comprehensible, and sustainable system; one that ever distances itself to the poles of political, ideological, or religious radicalism. This is, indeed, worthy work in the laboratory of our minds.
References:
Robert Jay Lifton. (2019). Losing Reality : On Cults, Cultism, and the Mindset of Political and Religious Zealotry. The New Press.
Kelly, G., Kelly, G. A., & Kelly, G. A. (1963). A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs (№152). WW Norton & Company.
Rock, Charles (2018) A hypothesis can’t be right unless it can be proven wrong. Retrieved from: https://blogs.stjude.org/progress/hypothesis-must-be-falsifiable/#:~:text=A%20hypothesis%20or%20model%20is,obtained%2C%20would%20disprove%20the%20hypothesis.
