Gergen, K. J.  Constructionism and Realism: How Are We to Go On?  In Ian Parker (Ed.) Social Constructionism, Discourse and Realism.  Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998, pp. 147-156. 
 

"There is high drama to be derived in commitment to an ideal, set against the backdrop of an inimical other. Failure to participate in that drama is to miss one of the greatest pleasures of scholarly life.  Given the glories of championing the good in the face of evil, what are the central options deposited by our traditions at the doorstep of the present?" (p.149) 

"In many respects our most congenial option at this present juncture is isolation and subterranean warfare. It is simple enough to divide ourselves into fragmented, hostile and self-satisfied enclaves  [This] is a state that threatens now to divide all those who otherwise search for alternatives to what we blithely characterize as dominant discourse." (p.149) 

"How can we view this state as anything but unfortunate?...It Is. condition that deadens those within the contentious enclaves.  Because this system 
thrives on separation... there is little means of resolving conflict, no catalytic confrontation that might press the issues forward or offer new insights and potentials." (p.149) 

"[W]e must ask, what are the societal implications of this self-satisfying and self-affirming option [of separating into like-minded groups]?...[We scholars essentially tell society] that where cultural wars are concerned, we have 
little to offer." (p.150) 

"There is a second option animated by the existing animus, which is that of direct confrontation...We have acquired the capacity to replace the force of arms with a war of words." (p.150) 

"I have severe doubts in the potential of argumentation to yield compelling solutions...  First, both realism and constructionism operate as foundational ontologies....[T]he realist cannot convince the constructionist by pointing to evidence...[T]he constructionist cannot use rhetorical pyrotechnics to compel the realist...." (p.150) 

[And] there are further reasons why stalwart combatants need never capitulate....One may voice an argument, but whether these words are granted meaning, and the particular meaning they are allowed to convey, is not 
determined by oneself but by one's audience...  The means for destroying the other's intelligibility are ...vast and varied.  Sentences may be lifted from context, concepts altered through recontextualization, arguments pressed to 
absurd extremes..." (p.151) 

"The metaphor of arguments war virtually ensures that neither party will be willing to admit the superiority of the other." (151)