Social Conrtrrrctionr of Self l9

and the ways in which certain specific models reflect dominant power rela-
tions that must be resisted, an emnphasis on the extreme relativism and plural-
ity of diffexnces may lead to a k i d ul conceptual "tolerance" and perhaps
even eclecticism; but it may also prove inadequate for real struggles against
general interlocking structures of concentrated power at the heart of ex-
ploitation and opprc.ssion.
Second, and even more fundamentally, many contemporary philosophical
and cufcura) or;entariuns deny ur minimize the real krerdcpendencies, inter-
connections, and commonality of humankind. Muhandas Gandhi and Mar-
tin Luther King, Jr., among others, were correct in emphasizing that there is
something fundamental about what unites us as human beings. Racism, sex-
ism, homophobia, classism, ageism, national chauvinisrrr, violence, mili-
tarism, war, exploitation, and oppression--all reflect a primary normative
focus on differences and what divides us, and thus an undermixling or denial
of &at: unites us, a denial of our commonality as human beings. Recogniz-
ing our commonality with otller humall beings allows us to relate to orller
persons and other cultures in terms of unity with a respect for diiferences.
Third, in my stuCIic"n the p h e n ~ m e n o l qof~religion, I havc at times an-
alyzed this sense of commonality in terms of profound mythic and symbolic
structures found throughout the world.2' Such general mythic and symbolic
structures arise from and reveal basic existential crises, allowing for general
patterns of self-constiturion, creativity, and self/ego-transcendence. O n e
cannot decipher the meanings conslftuted by such essential, myths and sym-
bols without acknowledging an underlying dimension of commonalily, of
general structures and patterns not fully exhausted by or reduced to cultural
and historical "boundaries" and differences,
At the same time, if concerned with interpreting the meaning of real
lived historical and cultural phenomena, one cannot remain on the rather
abstract level of essential mythic and symbolic structures, general or uni-
versal existential crises, and patterns of self-constitution. Although the
particular qua particular may be unintelligible, people d o not live their
fives on the level of ""pure"universal or general structures and meanings.
Such a recognition of " e ~ e q f a r ~"pa~adigmatic,~
" or 'kcssential" struc-
tures involves a process of imaginative and conceptual abstraction, ab-
stracting from concrete, particular variables that define the specific con-
texts within which general slrrrcturcs of meaning are simated, expericrsced,
and constitured. Even general symbolic structures of self-constitution are
always revalorized in new ways; they are reconsritured in terms that ex-
press historical and cultural specificiry, rclfecting c u h r a l l y constituted
self-concepts and differences.
Fourth, the process of relating to others, in terms of both appreciating
differences and recognizing commonality, is of the grextesc urgency for un-
derstanding the contemporary world. The world is rapidly becoming