ABSTRACT
Constructivism could come in for severe questioning if, as with certain other schools of thought, it did not show its epistemological colors, which is to say, the limitations, both constraining and empowering, within which it operates. On that point, it seems to me that radical constructivism, as conceived by Glasersfeld, is relatively clear: it is not a theory of the world, but rather of the organism which constructs for himself or herself a theory of the world (Glasersfeld, 1987a, 1995). Furthermore, this organism is not seen as an agent or an actor in his or her psycho-sociological totality, but rather as an observer or an ‘ordinary’1 subject of which the historicity and sociality are also of ‘ordinary’ variety (wherein historicity refers to a sort of operative genesis whereas sociality refers to the constitution of the ‘I and you’ via the reciprocity of routine experiences shared by subjects).2
