La nota ampliativa

assumption – and an array of eleven corollaries – subsequent, ramifying propositions – through which the postulate manifests itself (Kelly, 1991: 32-72).



Kelly’s fundamental postulate establishes the philosophical position that each person is in a constant state of formulating predictions whilst interacting with his/her

surroundings so as to interpret and build his/her unique understanding of reality. By

so doing (and being), Kelly holds, a person is engaged in an everlasting process of

meaning-making informed by previous experiences upon which in turn the person can

anticipate future events. An image for humankind as ‘tantalised’ by future (not the

past) is hence created by Kelly by way of the fundamental postulate.

 Construction Corollary: a person anticipates events by construing their replications.

Kelly’s first corollary implies that a person who strives to make sense of their social world is also capable, by means of temporal and spatial observation, of noticing and

abstracting recurrent themes and patterns in the daily flow of events. Thus, s/he reacts to oncoming events encountered based on the meaning s/he had attributed to ‘similar’ antecedent events.

 Individuality Corollary: persons differ from each other in their construction of events.

The individuality corollary highlights Kelly’s view of constructive alternativism (3.3.1). The main assumption is that the ‘same’ event can be construed

differently/alternatively by different individuals and they may do so in a countless

79

conceptualisation of a given event in a given environment. This individual difference

also exists in how persons anticipate a said, ‘same’ event besides what they anticipate.

 Organization Corollary: each person characteristically evolves, for his convenience in anticipating events, a construction system embracing ordinal relationships between constructs.

Kelly sees personal psychology as a system of constructs, ordered hierarchically,

which indicates a superordinate and subordinate inter-relationship between them. With

his third corollary, Kelly posits that the organisation of this system is such that it is

subjected to constant review and revision by its possessor in a quest to maintain some

stability and to circumvent personal conflict which Kelly describes as ‘incompatible

predictions’.

 Dichotomy Corollary: a person’s construction system is composed of a finite number of dichotomous constructs.

The dichotomy corollary provides grounds for Kelly’s assumption that our constructs

are not only finite in number but also bipolar in nature but not necessarily dichotomous

(Butt, 2008). Kelly contends that nothing can be affirmed without some other thing

being disregarded in tandem, explicitly articulated or not. The bipolarity notion also

resonates with Kelly’s various definitions of a construct, one of which reads: ‘in its

minimum context a construct is a way in which at least two elements are similar and

contrast with a third’ (Kelly, 1991: 43). This trait of constructs also makes the design

and implementation of grid-based methods (e.g. RepGrid) possible for researchers’

attempts to explore both the nature and assembly of segments of individuals’ construct

systems.

 Choice Corollary: a person chooses for himself that alternative in a dichotomized construct through which he anticipates the greater possibility for extension and definition of his system.

In the light of the corollaries that precede it, the choice corollary maintains that when

80

does so by giving preferentiality to that end/pole of a construct duo (X versus Y) which

s/he construes to be potentially more suitable to accommodate their prediction and

anticipation than its alternative in the context of the system that surrounds it. As such,

the person makes what Kelly names ‘the elaborative choice’ of that construct-

alternative which would extend and compartmentalise more precisely their standing

construct system.

 Range Corollary: a construct is convenient for the anticipation of a finite range of events only.

With the range corollary, Kelly argues that constructs have boundaries in terms of their

focus and range of convenience. In other words, a construct’s range can be understood

as relating to the extent to which it can be applied to different types of events, people,

objects and so forth. While some constructs are highly ‘permeable’ and widely applicable (e.g. good versus bad, big versus small) some are bound to be relatively

restrictive (impermeable) or less comprehensive (e.g. carnivore versus herbivore,

consonant versus vowel etc.).

 Experience Corollary: a person’s construction system varies as he successively construes the replications of events.

By means of the experience corollary, Kelly stresses personal change (arguably for

‘better’ or for ‘worse’ depending on the perspective adopted) rooted in a never-ending self-review and alteration of one’s construct system as a response to the success or

failure of one’s anticipation of events. Kelly refers to this as ‘the validation process’ of the construct system during which, in the course of time, the person construes and

re-construes experiences as life unfolds before them.

 Modulation Corollary: the variation in a person’s construction system is limited by the permeability of the constructs within whose range of convenience the variants lie.

81

Kelly here maintains the importance of recognising not only the hierarchically

organised personal construct system but also its integral system of construction that

governs how it changes and evolves. He believes that this underpinning, active system

is also organised to have an inherent superordinate and subordinate relationship and

that whatever change is occurring, it is controlled by the superordinating system of

construction. Simply put, Kelly holds that any form of intended personal change must

be first construed by the possessor of the construct system because any ‘new’ viewpoint in itself is an event.

 Fragmentation Corollary: a person may successively employ a variety of construction subsystems which are inferentially incompatible with each other.

As established by the modulation corollary, a person’s system of construction is in perpetual movement with potential shifts happening from old to new constructs. Kelly,

however, contends that ‘new constructs are not necessarily direct derivatives of, or

special cases within, one’s old constructs. We can be sure only that the changes that take place from old to new constructs do so within a larger system’ (Kelly, 1991: 58).

Therefore, a discrepancy between one’s old and new constructs may come to being

but, as Kelly explains, this is tolerated through the modulation and fragmentation

corollaries in such a manner that we are able to keep our ‘psychological house’ intact

and do not become utterly dysfunctional every time we confront conflict in some form.

 Commonality Corollary: to the extent that one person employs a construction of experience which is similar to that employed by another, his psychological processes are similar to those of the other person.

The commonality corollary complements that of individuality in the Kellyan theory

and it focuses on interpersonal relations. Two individuals can construe seemingly

identical experiences differently and in the same way, they can be observed to act

82

corollary focuses on the latter phenomenon and proposes that ‘two persons’ psychological processes will be as similar as their constructions of experience’ (Kelly, 1991: 64) and that events as stimuli, however much similar looking, must not be taken

for granted at face value as the sole determinant of shared meaning between persons.

 Sociality Corollary: to the extent that one person construes the construction processes of another, he may play a role in a social process involving the other person.

Kelly’s last corollary is one with ‘meta’ features regarding the parameters of social construction of meaning. It is essentially concerned with people’s conscious effort of attempting to construe how others construe a given topic in a given context and then

utilising these personal meta-constructions to mediate their own social interactions

(see also 3.2). Kelly summarises this notion as ‘a psychology of interpersonal

understandings, not merely a psychology of common understandings’ (Kelly, 1991: 67). Some degree of interpersonal understanding, according to Kelly, is a prerequisite

for a harmonious relationship between people but he also reminds us that this does not

mean seeing things in the same way as the next person. What is highlighted here

appears as a need for a relative degree of acceptance between persons concerning one

another’s self- and world-views so that healthy (versus destructive, perhaps) social

relations can be facilitated and sustained.