Continuing the discussion regarding the nature of truth and a potential shift in the ontological view from post-modern to a critical realist stance (Harre vs Bhaskar; Human Reality vs Social Reality). It seems to me that, in line with the post-modern perspection there are an infinite number of potential interpretations of an event. Philosophically at least, there can be no essential reality that we all know i.e.no eternal truth. However, social norms based on perceptions of acceptable behaviour have emerged as a consequence of social inaction/constructive and its reflexive relationship with society over time (structuration, Giddens) i.e. human interaction based on relationships effects the shape of society in terms of the nature of laws and institutions while the reverse is also true. Which came first i.e. Harre vs Bhasker appears to be largely immaterial. A temporal and negotiated consolidation of understanding in terms of social norms, laws and institutions then reflects an idea of truth. However this truth only exists in Society (Foucault). In a similiar vain, Plato recounts the metaphor of man in a cave, only seeing the shadows of some possible eternal truth.

In terms of my research, it is suggested that cultural and social norms (whatever there moral basis) represent a reality for the children and that reality will be reflected in their discourse. The potential for change in society is a question of changing the discourse, though naturally this can be a difficult task. Rather than focus on development and progress at this time the research is slanted towards and limited to the interpretation of understanding within the SOLE

What is important here the temporal requirement to link my research to the notions of development in some way. This requires some notion of what reality is for the participants and what progress means for them i.e social truths for marginalised Colombian children. This goal may only be achieved as a post doc but this research will provide the framework for achieving a meaningful learning environment for the children involved i.e in the absence of a certain truth, the post-modern paradigm is to limited. Now I require the appropriate interpretation of Foucault to fit my view (see Lopez and Potter, 2001).

Boudieu (Lopez, Potter, 2001; pp47) uses Marxist rhetoretic to suggest that the notion of social structure in subsequent divided by class. Furthermore Critical Realism seems to suggest that the entities of self concious individuals and social structure are of a different order; self conciousness characterises human actions but never the transformation of social structure. The relation of social structure to individuals conditions a reality where unconcious predispositions unconciously produce structure. Which suggests that if these relationships are made conscious that change is the result.
Pearce and Woodiwiss (in Lopez and Potter) also suggest that while the need to implement social change is positive, scientific work does not provide an adequate basis for moral commitment without knowledge of the prevailing political discourses. (ibid, pp53). Furthermore (to make Foucault intelligible ) ontological assumptions include the social world being composed of structural entities and their interactions rather than human beings. While human beings are self evidently social presences, they are only of interest in so far as they can be rendered socialogically intelligible; through their patterned enactment of social identities or the part they play in discursive formations (Foucault, 1977)

It should also be noted that Archer in addition to a social world also argues for an individual world an selfhood not totally subject to social influences (a personal identity). Reality is in essence a convergence of different world’s (personal, social and the natural)