Finding meaning in tragedy: A social constructionist perspective

Under the banner of social constructionism, this study examined meaning making around tragedy. This was achieved through investigating the category of tragedy; in particular, how the category is applied and under what conditions it is deployed. Secondly, the study investigated the discursive resources with which we make sense of tragedy. The specific aims of this research were to examine how the category of tragedy is utilised in language; how meaning making around tragedies occurs in the discursive context; and to investigate how these resources are flexibly combined in both diverse and shared patterns understanding of tragedy. The scope of this research entailed (1) an examination of public text about tragedies in order to develop an understanding of the circumstances in which the category is deployed and what is being achieved by this deployment; (2) an identification of the resources available in public text via which we make sense of tragedy, and (3) an application of a representative sample of ways of talking about tragedy in order to investigate the ways in which these are flexibly and meaningfully combined. Two methodologies were employed to address these aims: a discursive psychological analysis and Q method. Social constructionism has provided an overarching framework for much of the unpacking of discursive interaction that occurs in a variety of settings. Social constructionism has highlighted the constructive and performative nature of language use, and under its umbrella, many hitherto taken-for-granted phenomena have been investigated. Within psychology, this has meant a reconceptualisation of the individual and many of the processes presumed by psychology to be intrinsically individual processes, such as memory, attitudes, attribution, motivation, and social categorisation. Following in the relatively new and arguably non-mainstream tradition of the application of social constructionist theorising and methodologies, this study explores tragedy from this fresh perspective, using a mixed method approach to do so. Material for the discursive analysis was gathered from two national newspapers (The Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald) spanning approximately a two-year period. Articles where the word tragedy was used or could reasonably be expected to be used were collected. This material was examined in order gain a sense of ‘characteristics’ of tragedy; what functions its use performed in the public text; and to investigate whether the meaning making themes identified in previous research were apparent in this data. Of interest were the variable ways the category of tragedy was utilised, the characteristics that appeared to make deployment of the category more likely, and the themes deployed in making sense of tragedy. Analysis demonstrated that the category of tragedy is applied flexibly across a range of situations, events, and outcomes and that its application performs different functions in different situations. For example, the descriptor ‘tragedy’ can signal the profound nature of an event and its impacts or it can be used ironically. Various meaning making themes were apparent in this public discourse, and these included accounting for why something happened (finding reasons), connection with others, coming to terms, moving on, and finding benefits from the experience. In addition to this newspaper text, data gathered from a series of 3 focus groups with a total of 12 participants and from a further 8 participants who supplied their written contributions to the topic formed the concourse from which the Q statements were drawn. Initially, 94 statements were pilot tested by 15 participants to check for clarity and relevance to the topic. The resultant final sort comprised 60 statements and was administered to a diverse group of 20 participants, including 8 males and 12 females, aged between 21 and 69 years. Five factors with eigenvalues above 1 resulted from the principal components analysis and were retained for rotation using the varimax technique. Factor one, labelled growth, was characterised by an emphasis on the good that comes out of tragedy. Factor two, connection, emphasised the interconnectedness that tragedy makes possible. Factor three, labelled pragmatic, captured the construction of tragedy as media and politically driven. Factor four, labelled the individual account, focussed on the subjective nature of the experience of tragedy, while Factor five, described an existential construction of tragedy that emphasised the impacts that tragedy has on our perspectives and psyches. The study confirmed prior findings that meaning making is of key importance in adjusting to major upheavals. It also illustrated that meaning is made socially through talking and other symbolic forms of interaction, such as ritual. Given the importance of meaning making for acceptance and positive growth, further investigation into meaning making, particularly after tragic events is warranted.