The Epistemology of the Strengths Perspective

Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that examines knowledge claims: that is, it asks the question, “How do you know what you know?” Or how do you distinguish belief from knowledge; thinking it so from knowing that it is so? This also requires a distinction between knowing how and knowing that. To know how does not require the test of its truth or falsity; knowledge claims, however, can turn out to be either true or false or some discomfiting conglomeration of the two. The historic and social context might conceivably alter any knowledge claim; much of what has been thought to be true at one time has turned out to be discredited at another time. Also, it is common to distinguish between a priori and a posteriori knowledge; the former can be acquired and justified through reasoning alone; the latter is attained and justified through experience (e.g., empirical science, or experiential sensations).

So what does this mean for the strengths perspective? I suppose we could argue that the philosophical underpinnings of the strengths perspective are derived both from naive realism and pragmatism. That is to say, we believe that the strengths of individuals, groups, families, and communities are tangible, and that they can be assessed. We believe that these phenomena, at whatever level they occur, are not figments or mere constructions of our minds. Rather, they are grounded in the world as we encounter and experience it. We also believe that the knowledge claims of the strengths perspective can be tested and used in the real world with actual and sometimes predictable consequences.

On the other hand, one could argue that the strengths perspective, like all such conceptions, is a social construction, forged out of the experience and dialogic encounters between practitioners, clients, scholars, and students, within the social contexts where they meet and act. It is an agreement based on the idea that it is useful to regard people in trouble, all people for that matter, in terms of their strengths. It may be more helpful and heartening to do so for all involved rather than an exclusive or one-sided focus on their problems and deficiencies.

Quote

“By suggesting an alternative ‘at promise’ view [as opposed to the at risk paradigm], I have attempted to convey the importance of considering the possibilities in all children and the promise of partnerships with parents and community members of diverse backgrounds….By viewing parents and children as ‘at promise’ we enhance the possibilities of constructing authentic relations where we actively listen to and learn from one another.”

Beth Blue Swadener, Children and Families “at Promise”: Deconstructing the Discourse of Risk in the book of the same name, edited by Swadener and Sally Lubeck, 1995, p.42.