Misplaced Pages

Social constructionism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:33, 7 February 2024 editIra Leviton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users331,341 editsm Fixed a reference. Please see Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:02, 24 December 2024 edit undoAadirulez8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users43,495 editsm v2.05 - Autofix / Fix errors for CW project (Link equal to linktext)Tag: WPCleaner 
(22 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
⚫ {{merge|Social construct|date=January 2024}}
{{Short description|Sociological theory regarding shared understandings}} {{Short description|Sociological theory regarding shared understandings}}
{{Redirect|Constructed reality|the effect in reality television|Criticism of reality television#Scripting and staging}} {{Redirect|Constructed reality|the effect in reality television|Criticism of reality television#Scripting and staging}}
Line 24: Line 23:
] ]


In the 16th century, ] wrote that, "We need to interpret interpretations more than to interpret things."<ref>Derrida, "Structure, Sign, and Play" (1966), as printed/translated by Macksey & Donato (1970). pp. 278. Derrida quotes Montagne</ref> In 1886 or 1887, ] put it similarly: ] In his 1922 book ], ] said, "The real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance" between people and their environment. Each person constructs a pseudo-environment that is a subjective, biased, and necessarily abridged mental image of the world, and to a degree, everyone's pseudo-environment is a fiction. People "live in the same world, but they think and feel in different ones."<ref>{{cite Q|Q1768450}}<!-- Public Opinion -->, pp. 16, 20.</ref> Lippman's "environment" might be called "reality", and his "pseudo-environment" seems equivalent to what today is called "constructed reality". In his 1922 book ], ] said, "The real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance" between people and their environment. Each person constructs a pseudo-environment that is a subjective, biased, and necessarily abridged mental image of the world, and to a degree, everyone's pseudo-environment is a fiction. People "live in the same world, but they think and feel in different ones."<ref>{{cite Q|Q1768450}}<!-- Public Opinion -->, pp. 16, 20.</ref> Lippman's "environment" might be called "reality", and his "pseudo-environment" seems equivalent to what today is called "constructed reality".{{Improper synthesis|date=October 2024}}


Social constructionism has more recently been rooted in "]" and "]".<ref>{{cite book|first=David |last=Woodruff Smith|editor-first=Edward N.|editor-last=Zalta|contribution-url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/phenomenology/|contribution=Phenomenology |title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|date=2018|issn=1095-5054|location=Stanford, California|via=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|title-link=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|first1 = Gail T.|last1 = Fairhurst|first2 = David|last2 = Grant|title = The Social Construction of Leadership: A Sailing Guide|journal = ]|publisher=Sage|location=Thouisand Oaks, California|date = 1 May 2010|issn = 0893-3189|pages = 171–210|volume = 24|issue = 2|doi = 10.1177/0893318909359697|s2cid = 145363598|language = en}}</ref> With ] and ] '']'' published in 1966, this concept found its hold. More than four decades later, much theory and research pledged itself to the basic tenet that people "make their social and cultural worlds at the same time these worlds make them."<ref name=":1"/> It is a viewpoint that uproots social processes "simultaneously playful and serious, by which reality is both revealed and concealed, created and destroyed by our activities."<ref name=":1"/> It provides a substitute to the "Western intellectual tradition" where the researcher "earnestly seeks certainty in a representation of reality by means of ]."<ref name=":1"/> Social constructionism has more recently been rooted in "]" and "]".<ref>{{cite book|first=David |last=Woodruff Smith|editor-first=Edward N.|editor-last=Zalta|contribution-url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/phenomenology/|contribution=Phenomenology |title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|date=2018|issn=1095-5054|location=Stanford, California|via=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|title-link=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|first1 = Gail T.|last1 = Fairhurst|first2 = David|last2 = Grant|title = The Social Construction of Leadership: A Sailing Guide|journal = ]|publisher=Sage|location=Thouisand Oaks, California|date = 1 May 2010|issn = 0893-3189|pages = 171–210|volume = 24|issue = 2|doi = 10.1177/0893318909359697|s2cid = 145363598|language = en}}</ref> With ] and ] '']'' published in 1966, this concept found its hold. More than four decades later, much theory and research pledged itself to the basic tenet that people "make their social and cultural worlds at the same time these worlds make them."<ref name=":1"/> It is a viewpoint that uproots social processes "simultaneously playful and serious, by which reality is both revealed and concealed, created and destroyed by our activities."<ref name=":1"/> It provides a substitute to the "Western intellectual tradition" where the researcher "earnestly seeks certainty in a representation of reality by means of ]."<ref name=":1"/>
Line 36: Line 35:
Berger and Luckmann give credit to ] as a large influence as he created the idea of ] which influenced social construction theory. Berger and Luckmann give credit to ] as a large influence as he created the idea of ] which influenced social construction theory.


According to Lock and Strong, other influential thinkers whose work has affected the development of social constructionism are: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and John Shotter.<ref name="encyclopedia"/> According to Lock and Strong, other influential thinkers whose work has affected the development of social constructionism are: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ].<ref name="encyclopedia"/>


== Applications == == Applications ==
Line 53: Line 52:


===Systemic therapy=== ===Systemic therapy===
Some of the systemic models that use social constructionism include ] and ]<ref>{{Cite web|title=APA PsycNet|url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-59956-008|access-date=2021-05-10|website=psycnet.apa.org|language=en}}</ref> Some of the systemic models that use social constructionism include ] and ].<ref>{{Cite web|title=APA PsycNet|url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-59956-008|access-date=2021-05-10|website=psycnet.apa.org|language=en}}</ref>


=== Poverty === === Poverty ===
Max Rose and Frank R. Baumgartner (2013), in ''Framing the Poor: Media Coverage and U.S. Poverty Policy, 1960-2008'', examine how media has framed the poor in the U.S. and how negative framing has caused a shift in government spending. Since 1960, the government has decreasingly spent money on social services such as welfare. Evidence shows the media framing the poor more negatively since 1960, with more usage of words such as "lazy" and "fraud".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Rose |first1=Max |last2=Baumgartner |first2=Frank R. |date=February 2013 |title=Framing the Poor: Media Coverage and <scp>U.S.</scp> Poverty Policy, 1960–2008 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/psj.12001 |journal=Policy Studies Journal |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=22–53 |doi=10.1111/psj.12001 |issn=0190-292X}}</ref> Max Rose and Frank R. Baumgartner (2013), in ''Framing the Poor: Media Coverage and U.S. Poverty Policy, 1960-2008'', examine how media has framed the poor in the U.S. and how negative framing has caused a shift in government spending. Since 1960, the government has decreasingly spent money on social services such as welfare. Evidence shows the media framing the poor more negatively since 1960, with more usage of words such as ''lazy'' and ''fraud''.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Rose |first1=Max |last2=Baumgartner |first2=Frank R. |date=February 2013 |title=Framing the Poor: Media Coverage and <scp>U.S.</scp> Poverty Policy, 1960–2008 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/psj.12001 |journal=Policy Studies Journal |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=22–53 |doi=10.1111/psj.12001 |issn=0190-292X}}</ref>


=== Crime === === Crime ===
Line 68: Line 67:
{{more citations needed section|find=social construction|find2=Berger and Luckmann|reason=Unsourced since 2005|talk=Berger and Luckmann Section|date=October 2021}} {{more citations needed section|find=social construction|find2=Berger and Luckmann|reason=Unsourced since 2005|talk=Berger and Luckmann Section|date=October 2021}}


Constructionism became prominent in the U.S. with ] and ]'s 1966 book, '']''.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Knoblauch|first1=Hubert|last2=Wilke|first2=René|author1-link=Hubert Knoblauch|date=2016|title=The Common Denominator: The Reception and Impact of Berger and Luckmann's ''The Social Construction of Reality''|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10746-016-9387-3|journal=Human Studies|language=en|volume=39|issue=1|pages=51–69|doi=10.1007/s10746-016-9387-3|s2cid=146905539|issn=0163-8548|quote="Although the phrase "social construction" had been used by Ward as early as 1905, we will try to show here that the concept only took off after the publication of Berger and Luckmann’s book, particularly after the publication of an inexpensive paperback edition in 1967"}}</ref> Berger and Luckmann argue that all knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted ] knowledge of everyday reality, is derived from and maintained by ].<ref>{{harvnb|Knoblauch|2016}}: "Berger and Luckmann stressed the role of typification and other constitutional processes like meaning and knowledge only, as they state explicitly{{snd}}a difference which has hardly been addressed in the literature{{snd}}because it is "knowledge that guides conduct in everyday life" (1966: 33). The social construction, Berger and Luckmann stress, is accomplished not by meaning, typification, or consciousness; social reality is, rather, constructed by processes which are specifically social, such as social actions, social interactions, and institutions."</ref> In their model, people interact on the understanding that their perceptions of everyday life are shared with others, and this common knowledge of reality is in turn reinforced by these interactions.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Czepczynski|first=Mariusz|title=Cultural Landscapes of Post-Socialist Cities : Representation of Powers and Needs |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cultural_Landscapes_of_Post_Socialist_Ci/LgIHDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA34 |date=2016|publisher=Taylor and Francis|isbn=978-1-317-15640-6|location=London|page=34|oclc=1018167337}}</ref> Since this common sense knowledge is negotiated by people, human ]s, ]ifications and ]s come to be presented as part of an objective reality, particularly for future generations who were not involved in the original process of negotiation. For example, as parents negotiate rules for their children to follow, those rules confront the children as externally produced "givens" that they cannot change. Berger and Luckmann's social constructionism has its roots in ]. It links to ] and ] through the teaching of ], who was also Berger's PhD adviser. Constructionism became prominent in the U.S. with ] and ]'s 1966 book, '']''.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Knoblauch|first1=Hubert|last2=Wilke|first2=René|author1-link=Hubert Knoblauch|date=2016|title=The Common Denominator: The Reception and Impact of Berger and Luckmann's ''The Social Construction of Reality''|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10746-016-9387-3|journal=Human Studies|language=en|volume=39|issue=1|pages=51–69|doi=10.1007/s10746-016-9387-3|s2cid=146905539|issn=0163-8548|quote="Although the phrase "social construction" had been used by Ward as early as 1905, we will try to show here that the concept only took off after the publication of Berger and Luckmann’s book, particularly after the publication of an inexpensive paperback edition in 1967"}}</ref> Berger and Luckmann argue that all knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted ] knowledge of everyday reality, is derived from and maintained by ].<ref>{{harvnb|Knoblauch|2016}}: "Berger and Luckmann stressed the role of typification and other constitutional processes like meaning and knowledge only, as they state explicitly{{snd}}a difference which has hardly been addressed in the literature{{snd}}because it is "knowledge that guides conduct in everyday life" (1966: 33). The social construction, Berger and Luckmann stress, is accomplished not by meaning, typification, or consciousness; social reality is, rather, constructed by processes which are specifically social, such as social actions, social interactions, and institutions."</ref> In their model, people interact on the understanding that their perceptions of everyday life are shared with others, and this common knowledge of reality is in turn reinforced by these interactions.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Czepczynski|first=Mariusz|title=Cultural Landscapes of Post-Socialist Cities : Representation of Powers and Needs |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LgIHDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA34 |date=2016|publisher=Taylor and Francis|isbn=978-1-317-15640-6|location=London|page=34|oclc=1018167337}}</ref> Since this common-sense knowledge is negotiated by people, human ]s, ]ifications and ]s come to be presented as part of an objective reality, particularly for future generations who were not involved in the original process of negotiation. For example, as parents negotiate rules for their children to follow, those rules confront the children as externally produced "givens" that they cannot change. Berger and Luckmann's social constructionism has its roots in ]. It links to ] and ] through the teaching of ], who was also Berger's PhD adviser.


===Narrative turn=== ===Narrative turn===
During the 1970s and 1980s, social constructionist theory underwent a transformation as constructionist sociologists engaged with the work of ] and others as a narrative turn in the social sciences was worked out in practice. This particularly affected the emergent ] and the growing field of ]. In particular, ], ], ], ], and others used social constructionism to relate what science has typically characterized as objective facts to the processes of social construction. Their goal was to show that human ] imposes itself on the facts taken as objective, not solely the other way around. A particularly provocative title in this line of thought is ]'s ''Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics''. At the same time, social constructionism shaped studies of technology{{snd}}the Sofield, especially on the ], or SCOT, and authors as ], ], Maarten van Wesel, etc.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Pinch |first1=T. J. |chapter=The Social Construction of Technology: a Review |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Technological_Change/Jz9PVU-28vgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA17 |pages=17–35 |editor1-last=Fox |editor1-first=Robert |year=1996 |title=Technological Change: Methods and Themes in the History of Technology |publisher=Psychology Press |isbn=978-3-7186-5792-6 }}</ref><ref>{{cite thesis |last1=van Wesel |first1=Maarten |year=2006 |title=Why we do not always get what we want: The power imbalance in the Social Shaping of Technology |s2cid=152555823 }}</ref> Despite its common perception as objective, mathematics is not immune to social constructionist accounts. Sociologists such as ] and ], mathematicians including ] and ], and philosophers including ] have published social constructionist treatments of mathematics.{{citation needed|date=August 2020}} During the 1970s and 1980s, social constructionist theory underwent a transformation as constructionist sociologists engaged with the work of ] and others as a narrative turn in the social sciences was worked out in practice. This particularly affected the emergent ] and the growing field of ]. In particular, ], ], ], ], and others used social constructionism to relate what science has typically characterized as objective facts to the processes of social construction. Their goal was to show that human ] imposes itself on the facts taken as objective, not solely the other way around. A particularly provocative title in this line of thought is ]'s ''Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics''. At the same time, social constructionism shaped studies of technology{{snd}}the Sofield, especially on the ], or SCOT, and authors as ], ], Maarten van Wesel, etc.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Pinch |first1=T. J. |chapter=The Social Construction of Technology: a Review |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Jz9PVU-28vgC&pg=PA17 |pages=17–35 |editor1-last=Fox |editor1-first=Robert |year=1996 |title=Technological Change: Methods and Themes in the History of Technology |publisher=Psychology Press |isbn=978-3-7186-5792-6 }}</ref><ref>{{cite thesis |last1=van Wesel |first1=Maarten |year=2006 |title=Why we do not always get what we want: The power imbalance in the Social Shaping of Technology |s2cid=152555823 }}</ref> Despite its common perception as objective, mathematics is not immune to social constructionist accounts. Sociologists such as ] and ], mathematicians including ] and ], and philosophers including ] have published social constructionist treatments of mathematics.{{citation needed|date=August 2020}}


===Postmodernism=== ===Postmodernism===
Line 80: Line 79:


== Criticisms == == Criticisms ==
{{expand section|date=January 2024}}
{{further|Science wars}} {{further|Science wars}}
⚫ {{expand section|date=January 2024}}
⚫ Critics argue that social constructionism rejects the influences of ] on behaviour and culture, or suggests that they are unimportant to achieve an understanding of ].<ref name="Mallon" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Brickell|first=Chris|date=2006-02-01|title=The Sociological Construction of Gender and Sexuality|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00603.x|journal=The Sociological Review|language=en|volume=54|issue=1|pages=87–113|doi=10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00603.x|s2cid=23558016|issn=0038-0261}}</ref><ref name="Sokal">{{Cite book |author=Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. |title=Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science |publisher=Picador |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-312-20407-5 |location=New York}}</ref> Social constructionism has also been criticized for having an overly narrow focus on society and culture as a ] in human behavior, excluding the influence of innate biological tendencies. This criticism has been explored by psychologists such as ] in '']''<ref>{{cite book|last=Pinker|first=Steven|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7rJ5gI1LbXoC&q=social%20constructionism&pg=PA40|title=The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature|date=2016|publisher=Penguin Books|isbn=978-1101200322|page=40}}</ref> as well as by Asian Studies scholar Edward Slingerland in ''What Science Offers the Humanities''.<ref>{{cite book|last=Slingerland|first=Edward|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BRPAoofyfDsC|title=What Science Offers the Humanities|date=2008|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1139470360}}{{page needed|date=August 2020}}</ref> ] and ] used the term "]" to refer to ] that they believe fail to take into account the evolved properties of the brain.<ref>Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. 1992. ''The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.{{page needed|date=August 2020}} {{ISBN?}}</ref>
Critics argue that social constructionism rejects the influences of ] on behaviour and culture, or suggests that they are unimportant to achieve an understanding of ].<ref name="Mallon" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Brickell|first=Chris|date=2006-02-01|title=The Sociological Construction of Gender and Sexuality|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00603.x|journal=The Sociological Review|language=en|volume=54|issue=1|pages=87–113|doi=10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00603.x|s2cid=23558016|issn=0038-0261}}</ref><ref name="Sokal">{{Cite book |author=Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. |title=Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science |publisher=Picador |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-312-20407-5 |location=New York}}</ref> Scientific estimates of ] and ]s have shown almost always substantial influences of both genetics and social, often in an inseparable manner.<ref>] 2003. '']''. ]. {{ISBN|0-00-200663-4}}.</ref> Claims that genetics does not affect humans are seen as outdated by most contemporary scholars of human development.<ref>Esposito, E. A., E. L. Grigorenko, and ]. 2011. "The Nature–Nurture Issue (an Illustration Using Behaviour-Genetic Research on Cognitive Development)." In ''An Introduction to Developmental Psychology'' (2nd ed.), edited by A. Slater and G. Bremner. ]. p. 85.</ref>

⚫ Social constructionism has also been criticized for having an overly narrow focus on society and culture as a ] in human behavior, excluding the influence of innate biological tendencies. This criticism has been explored by psychologists such as ] in '']''<ref>{{cite book|last=Pinker|first=Steven|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7rJ5gI1LbXoC&q=social%20constructionism&pg=PA40|title=The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature|date=2016|publisher=Penguin Books|isbn=978-1101200322|page=40}}</ref> as well as by Asian studies scholar Edward Slingerland in ''What Science Offers the Humanities''.<ref>{{cite book|last=Slingerland|first=Edward|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BRPAoofyfDsC|title=What Science Offers the Humanities|date=2008|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1139470360}}{{page needed|date=August 2020}}</ref> ] and ] used the term '']'' to refer to ] that they believe fail to take into account the evolved properties of the brain.<ref>Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. 1992. ''The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.{{page needed|date=August 2020}} {{ISBN?}}</ref>


In 1996, to illustrate what he believed to be the intellectual weaknesses of social constructionism and postmodernism, physics professor ] submitted an article to the academic journal '']'' deliberately written to be incomprehensible but including phrases and jargon typical of the articles published by the journal. ], which was published, was an experiment to see if the journal would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html |title=A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies |access-date=3 April 2007 |last=Sokal |first=Alan D. |author-link=Alan Sokal |work=] |date=May 1996}}</ref><ref name="Sokal"/> In 1999, Sokal, with coauthor Jean Bricmont published the book '']'', which criticized ] and social constructionism. In 1996, to illustrate what he believed to be the intellectual weaknesses of social constructionism and postmodernism, physics professor ] submitted an article to the academic journal '']'' deliberately written to be incomprehensible but including phrases and jargon typical of the articles published by the journal. ], which was published, was an experiment to see if the journal would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html |title=A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies |access-date=3 April 2007 |last=Sokal |first=Alan D. |author-link=Alan Sokal |work=] |date=May 1996}}</ref><ref name="Sokal"/> In 1999, Sokal, with coauthor Jean Bricmont published the book '']'', which criticized ] and social constructionism.
Line 92: Line 93:
Woolgar and Pawluch argue that constructionists tend to "ontologically ]" social conditions in and out of their analysis.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Woolgar |first1=Steve |last2=Pawluch |first2=Dorothy |title=Ontological Gerrymandering: The Anatomy of Social Problems Explanations |journal=Social Problems |date=February 1985 |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=214–227 |doi=10.1525/sp.1985.32.3.03a00020 }}</ref> Woolgar and Pawluch argue that constructionists tend to "ontologically ]" social conditions in and out of their analysis.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Woolgar |first1=Steve |last2=Pawluch |first2=Dorothy |title=Ontological Gerrymandering: The Anatomy of Social Problems Explanations |journal=Social Problems |date=February 1985 |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=214–227 |doi=10.1525/sp.1985.32.3.03a00020 }}</ref>


Alan Sokal also criticize social constructionism for contradicting itself on the knowability of the existence of societies. The argument is that if there was no knowable objective reality, there would be no way of knowing whether or not societies exist and if so, what their rules and other characteristics are. One example of the contradiction is that the claim that "phenomena must be measured by what is considered average in their respective cultures, not by an objective standard."<ref>Sokal, Alan D. (March 2008) "Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy, and Culture"</ref> Since there are languages that have no word for average and therefore the whole application of the concept of "average" to such cultures contradict social constructionism's own claim that cultures can only be measured by their own standards. Social constructionism is a diverse field with varying stances on these matters. Some social constructionists do acknowledge the existence of an ] but argue that human understanding and interpretation of that reality are socially constructed. Others might contend that while the term "average" may not exist in all languages, equivalent or analogous concepts might still be applied within those cultures, thereby not completely invalidating the principle of cultural relativity in measuring phenomena. Alan Sokal also criticizes social constructionism for contradicting itself on the knowability of the existence of societies. The argument is that if there was no knowable objective reality, there would be no way of knowing whether or not societies exist and if so, what their rules and other characteristics are. One example of the contradiction is that the claim that "phenomena must be measured by what is considered average in their respective cultures, not by an objective standard."<ref>Sokal, Alan D. (March 2008) "Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy, and Culture"</ref> Since there are languages that have no word for average and therefore the whole application of the concept of "average" to such cultures contradict social constructionism's own claim that cultures can only be measured by their own standards. Social constructionism is a diverse field with varying stances on these matters. Some social constructionists do acknowledge the existence of an ] but argue that human understanding and interpretation of that reality are socially constructed. Others might contend that while the term ''average'' may not exist in all languages, equivalent or analogous concepts might still be applied within those cultures, thereby not completely invalidating the principle of cultural relativity in measuring phenomena.


== See also == == See also ==
Line 173: Line 174:
] ]
] ]
]

Latest revision as of 10:02, 24 December 2024

Sociological theory regarding shared understandings "Constructed reality" redirects here. For the effect in reality television, see Criticism of reality television § Scripting and staging. Not to be confused with Social constructivism or Social determinism.

Part of a series on
Sociology
Key themes
Perspectives
Branches
Methods
Major theorists

1800s: Martineau · Tocqueville · Marx · Spencer · Le Bon · Ward · Pareto · Tönnies · Veblen · Simmel · Durkheim · Addams · Mead · Weber · Du Bois · Mannheim · Elias

1900s: Fromm · Adorno · Gehlen · Aron · Merton · Nisbet · Mills · Bell · Schoeck · Goffman · Bauman · Foucault · Luhmann · Habermas · Baudrillard · Bourdieu · Giddens
Lists

Social constructionism is a term used in sociology, social ontology, and communication theory. The term can serve somewhat different functions in each field; however, the foundation of this theoretical framework suggests various facets of social reality—such as concepts, beliefs, norms, and values—are formed through continuous interactions and negotiations among society's members, rather than empirical observation of physical reality. The theory of social constructionism posits that much of what individuals perceive as 'reality' is actually the outcome of a dynamic process of construction influenced by social conventions and structures.

Unlike phenomena that are innately determined or biologically predetermined, these social constructs are collectively formulated, sustained, and shaped by the social contexts in which they exist. These constructs significantly impact both the behavior and perceptions of individuals, often being internalized based on cultural narratives, whether or not these are empirically verifiable. In this two-way process of reality construction, individuals not only interpret and assimilate information through their social relations but also contribute to shaping existing societal narratives.

Examples of social constructs range widely, encompassing the assigned value of money, conceptions of concept of self/self-identity, beauty standards, gender, language, race, ethnicity, social class, social hierarchy, nationality, religion, social norms, the modern calendar and other units of time, marriage, education, citizenship, stereotypes, femininity and masculinity, social institutions, and even the idea of 'social construct' itself. These constructs are not universal truths but are flexible entities that can vary dramatically across different cultures and societies. They arise from collaborative consensus and are shaped and maintained through collective human interactions, cultural practices, and shared beliefs. This articulates the view that people in society construct ideas or concepts that may not exist without the existence of people or language to validate those concepts, meaning without a society these constructs would cease to exist.

Overview

A social construct or construction is the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an object or event by a society, and adopted by that society with respect to how they view or deal with the object or event.

The social construction of target populations refers to the cultural characterizations or popular images of the persons or groups whose behavior and well-being are affected by public policy.

Social constructionism posits that the meanings of phenomena do not have an independent foundation outside the mental and linguistic representation that people develop about them throughout their history, and which becomes their shared reality. From a linguistic viewpoint, social constructionism centres meaning as an internal reference within language (words refer to words, definitions to other definitions) rather than to an external reality.

Origins

Each person creates their own "constructed reality" that drives their behaviors.

In his 1922 book Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann said, "The real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance" between people and their environment. Each person constructs a pseudo-environment that is a subjective, biased, and necessarily abridged mental image of the world, and to a degree, everyone's pseudo-environment is a fiction. People "live in the same world, but they think and feel in different ones." Lippman's "environment" might be called "reality", and his "pseudo-environment" seems equivalent to what today is called "constructed reality".

Social constructionism has more recently been rooted in "symbolic interactionism" and "phenomenology". With Berger and Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality published in 1966, this concept found its hold. More than four decades later, much theory and research pledged itself to the basic tenet that people "make their social and cultural worlds at the same time these worlds make them." It is a viewpoint that uproots social processes "simultaneously playful and serious, by which reality is both revealed and concealed, created and destroyed by our activities." It provides a substitute to the "Western intellectual tradition" where the researcher "earnestly seeks certainty in a representation of reality by means of propositions."

In social constructionist terms, "taken-for-granted realities" are cultivated from "interactions between and among social agents"; furthermore, reality is not some objective truth "waiting to be uncovered through positivist scientific inquiry." Rather, there can be "multiple realities that compete for truth and legitimacy." Social constructionism understands the "fundamental role of language and communication" and this understanding has "contributed to the linguistic turn" and more recently the "turn to discourse theory". The majority of social constructionists abide by the belief that "language does not mirror reality; rather, it constitutes it."

A broad definition of social constructionism has its supporters and critics in the organizational sciences. A constructionist approach to various organizational and managerial phenomena appear to be more commonplace and on the rise.

Andy Lock and Tom Strong trace some of the fundamental tenets of social constructionism back to the work of the 18th-century Italian political philosopher, rhetorician, historian, and jurist Giambattista Vico.

Berger and Luckmann give credit to Max Scheler as a large influence as he created the idea of sociology of knowledge which influenced social construction theory.

According to Lock and Strong, other influential thinkers whose work has affected the development of social constructionism are: Edmund Husserl, Alfred Schutz, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, Jürgen Habermas, Emmanuel Levinas, Mikhail Bakhtin, Valentin Volosinov, Lev Vygotsky, George Herbert Mead, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Gregory Bateson, Harold Garfinkel, Erving Goffman, Anthony Giddens, Michel Foucault, Ken Gergen, Mary Gergen, Rom Harre, and John Shotter.

Applications

Personal construct psychology

Since its appearance in the 1950s, personal construct psychology (PCP) has mainly developed as a constructivist theory of personality and a system of transforming individual meaning-making processes, largely in therapeutic contexts. It was based around the notion of persons as scientists who form and test theories about their worlds. Therefore, it represented one of the first attempts to appreciate the constructive nature of experience and the meaning persons give to their experience. Social constructionism (SC), on the other hand, mainly developed as a form of a critique, aimed to transform the oppressing effects of the social meaning-making processes. Over the years, it has grown into a cluster of different approaches, with no single SC position. However, different approaches under the generic term of SC are loosely linked by some shared assumptions about language, knowledge, and reality.

A usual way of thinking about the relationship between PCP and SC is treating them as two separate entities that are similar in some aspects, but also very different in others. This way of conceptualizing this relationship is a logical result of the circumstantial differences of their emergence. In subsequent analyses these differences between PCP and SC were framed around several points of tension, formulated as binary oppositions: personal/social; individualist/relational; agency/structure; constructivist/constructionist. Although some of the most important issues in contemporary psychology are elaborated in these contributions, the polarized positioning also sustained the idea of a separation between PCP and SC, paving the way for only limited opportunities for dialogue between them.

Reframing the relationship between PCP and SC may be of use in both the PCP and the SC communities. On one hand, it extends and enriches SC theory and points to benefits of applying the PCP "toolkit" in constructionist therapy and research. On the other hand, the reframing contributes to PCP theory and points to new ways of addressing social construction in therapeutic conversations.

Educational psychology

Like social constructionism, social constructivism states that people work together to construct artifacts. While social constructionism focuses on the artifacts that are created through the social interactions of a group, social constructivism focuses on an individual's learning that takes place because of his or her interactions in a group.

Social constructivism has been studied by many educational psychologists, who are concerned with its implications for teaching and learning. For more on the psychological dimensions of social constructivism, see the work of Lev Vygotsky, Ernst von Glasersfeld and A. Sullivan Palincsar.

Systemic therapy

Some of the systemic models that use social constructionism include narrative therapy and solution-focused therapy.

Poverty

Max Rose and Frank R. Baumgartner (2013), in Framing the Poor: Media Coverage and U.S. Poverty Policy, 1960-2008, examine how media has framed the poor in the U.S. and how negative framing has caused a shift in government spending. Since 1960, the government has decreasingly spent money on social services such as welfare. Evidence shows the media framing the poor more negatively since 1960, with more usage of words such as lazy and fraud.

Crime

Potter and Kappeler (1996), in their introduction to Constructing Crime: Perspective on Making News And Social Problems wrote, "Public opinion and crime facts demonstrate no congruence. The reality of crime in the United States has been subverted to a constructed reality as ephemeral as swamp gas."

Criminology has long focussed on why and how society defines criminal behavior and crime in general. While looking at crime through a social constructionism lens, there is evidence to support that criminal acts are a social construct where abnormal or deviant acts become a crime based on the views of society. Another explanation of crime as it relates to social constructionism are individual identity constructs that result in deviant behavior. If someone has constructed the identity of a "madman" or "criminal" for themselves based on a society's definition, it may force them to follow that label, resulting in criminal behavior.

History and development

Berger and Luckmann

This section needs additional citations for verification. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "social construction" Berger and Luckmann – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Constructionism became prominent in the U.S. with Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann's 1966 book, The Social Construction of Reality. Berger and Luckmann argue that all knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted common-sense knowledge of everyday reality, is derived from and maintained by social interactions. In their model, people interact on the understanding that their perceptions of everyday life are shared with others, and this common knowledge of reality is in turn reinforced by these interactions. Since this common-sense knowledge is negotiated by people, human typifications, significations and institutions come to be presented as part of an objective reality, particularly for future generations who were not involved in the original process of negotiation. For example, as parents negotiate rules for their children to follow, those rules confront the children as externally produced "givens" that they cannot change. Berger and Luckmann's social constructionism has its roots in phenomenology. It links to Heidegger and Edmund Husserl through the teaching of Alfred Schutz, who was also Berger's PhD adviser.

Narrative turn

During the 1970s and 1980s, social constructionist theory underwent a transformation as constructionist sociologists engaged with the work of Michel Foucault and others as a narrative turn in the social sciences was worked out in practice. This particularly affected the emergent sociology of science and the growing field of science and technology studies. In particular, Karin Knorr-Cetina, Bruno Latour, Barry Barnes, Steve Woolgar, and others used social constructionism to relate what science has typically characterized as objective facts to the processes of social construction. Their goal was to show that human subjectivity imposes itself on the facts taken as objective, not solely the other way around. A particularly provocative title in this line of thought is Andrew Pickering's Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. At the same time, social constructionism shaped studies of technology – the Sofield, especially on the social construction of technology, or SCOT, and authors as Wiebe Bijker, Trevor Pinch, Maarten van Wesel, etc. Despite its common perception as objective, mathematics is not immune to social constructionist accounts. Sociologists such as Sal Restivo and Randall Collins, mathematicians including Reuben Hersh and Philip J. Davis, and philosophers including Paul Ernest have published social constructionist treatments of mathematics.

Postmodernism

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Social constructionism" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Within the social constructionist strand of postmodernism, the concept of socially constructed reality stresses the ongoing mass-building of worldviews by individuals in dialectical interaction with society at a time. The numerous realities so formed comprise, according to this view, the imagined worlds of human social existence and activity. These worldviews are gradually crystallized by habit into institutions propped up by language conventions; given ongoing legitimacy by mythology, religion and philosophy; maintained by therapies and socialization; and subjectively internalized by upbringing and education. Together, these become part of the identity of social citizens.

In the book The Reality of Social Construction, the British sociologist Dave Elder-Vass places the development of social constructionism as one outcome of the legacy of postmodernism. He writes "Perhaps the most widespread and influential product of this process is social constructionism, which has been booming since the 1980s."

Criticisms

Further information: Science wars
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (January 2024)

Critics argue that social constructionism rejects the influences of biology on behaviour and culture, or suggests that they are unimportant to achieve an understanding of human behaviour. Scientific estimates of nature versus nurture and gene–environment interactions have shown almost always substantial influences of both genetics and social, often in an inseparable manner. Claims that genetics does not affect humans are seen as outdated by most contemporary scholars of human development.

Social constructionism has also been criticized for having an overly narrow focus on society and culture as a causal factor in human behavior, excluding the influence of innate biological tendencies. This criticism has been explored by psychologists such as Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate as well as by Asian studies scholar Edward Slingerland in What Science Offers the Humanities. John Tooby and Leda Cosmides used the term standard social science model to refer to social theories that they believe fail to take into account the evolved properties of the brain.

In 1996, to illustrate what he believed to be the intellectual weaknesses of social constructionism and postmodernism, physics professor Alan Sokal submitted an article to the academic journal Social Text deliberately written to be incomprehensible but including phrases and jargon typical of the articles published by the journal. The submission, which was published, was an experiment to see if the journal would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions." In 1999, Sokal, with coauthor Jean Bricmont published the book Fashionable Nonsense, which criticized postmodernism and social constructionism.

Philosopher Paul Boghossian has also written against social constructionism. He follows Ian Hacking's argument that many adopt social constructionism because of its potentially liberating stance: if things are the way that they are only because of human social conventions, as opposed to being so naturally, then it should be possible to change them into how people would rather have them be. He then states that social constructionists argue that people should refrain from making absolute judgements about what is true and instead state that something is true in the light of this or that theory. Countering this, he states:

But it is hard to see how we might coherently follow this advice. Given that the propositions which make up epistemic systems are just very general propositions about what absolutely justifies what, it makes no sense to insist that we abandon making absolute particular judgements about what justifies what while allowing us to accept absolute general judgements about what justifies what. But in effect this is what the epistemic relativist is recommending.

Woolgar and Pawluch argue that constructionists tend to "ontologically gerrymander" social conditions in and out of their analysis.

Alan Sokal also criticizes social constructionism for contradicting itself on the knowability of the existence of societies. The argument is that if there was no knowable objective reality, there would be no way of knowing whether or not societies exist and if so, what their rules and other characteristics are. One example of the contradiction is that the claim that "phenomena must be measured by what is considered average in their respective cultures, not by an objective standard." Since there are languages that have no word for average and therefore the whole application of the concept of "average" to such cultures contradict social constructionism's own claim that cultures can only be measured by their own standards. Social constructionism is a diverse field with varying stances on these matters. Some social constructionists do acknowledge the existence of an objective reality but argue that human understanding and interpretation of that reality are socially constructed. Others might contend that while the term average may not exist in all languages, equivalent or analogous concepts might still be applied within those cultures, thereby not completely invalidating the principle of cultural relativity in measuring phenomena.

See also

References

  1. Berger, Peter L.; Luckmann, Thomas (2011). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Open Road Media. ISBN 978-1-4532-1546-3.
  2. Boghossian, Paul. "What Is Social Construction?" Philpapers, NYU Arts & Science, 2001.
  3. Brown, Sydney (17 September 2013), "Social constructionism | Society and Culture | MCAT", Khan Academy, YouTube, retrieved 12 May 2018
  4. Jorgensen, Marianne; Phillips, Louise J. (2002). "Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method" (PDF). SAGE Publications. ISBN 0761971114. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 May 2020.
  5. Onwuachi-Willig, Angela (6 September 2016). "Race and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  6. Gergen, K. Social Construction and the Transformation of Identity Politics, Swarthmore College.
  7. "Social constructionism". Study Journal. 4 December 2017. Retrieved 12 May 2018.
  8. "Social Constructionism | Encyclopedia.com". encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 23 December 2018.
  9. Schneider, Anne; Ingram, Helen (June 1993). "Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy". American Political Science Review. 87 (2): 334–347. doi:10.2307/2939044. ISSN 0003-0554. JSTOR 2939044. S2CID 59431797.
  10. Berger, Peter L.; Luckmann, Thomas (2011). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Open Road Media. ISBN 978-1-4532-1546-3.
  11. ^ Mallon, Ron (2019), "Naturalistic Approaches to Social Construction", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2 October 2021
  12. St. Clair, Robert N. (1 October 1982). "Language and the social construction of reality". Language Sciences. 4 (2): 221–236. doi:10.1016/S0388-0001(82)80006-5. ISSN 0388-0001.
  13. Walter Lippmann (1922), Public Opinion, Wikidata Q1768450, pp. 16, 20.
  14. Woodruff Smith, David (2018). "Phenomenology". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, California: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. ISSN 1095-5054 – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  15. ^ Fairhurst, Gail T.; Grant, David (1 May 2010). "The Social Construction of Leadership: A Sailing Guide". Management Communication Quarterly. 24 (2). Thouisand Oaks, California: Sage: 171–210. doi:10.1177/0893318909359697. ISSN 0893-3189. S2CID 145363598.
  16. Janet Tibaldo (19 September 2013). "Discourse Theory".
  17. ^ Lock, Andy; Strong, Tom (2010). Social Constructionism: Sources and Stirrings in Theory and Practice. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 12–29. ISBN 978-0521708357.
  18. Bannister, Donald; Mair, John Miller (1968). The Evaluation of Personal Constructs. London: Academic Press. p. 164. ISBN 978-0120779505.
  19. Kelly, George (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: W.W. Norton. p. 32. ISBN 978-0415037976.
  20. Mair, John Miller (1977). "The Community of Self". In Bannister, Donald (ed.). New Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory. London: Academic Press. pp. 125–149. ISBN 978-0120779406.
  21. Neimeyer, Robert A.; Levitt, Heidi (January 2000). "What's narrative got to do with it? Construction and coherence in accounts of loss". Journal of Loss and Trauma. Philadelphia: Brunner Routledge: 401–412.
  22. Procter, Harry G. (2015). "Family Construct Psychology". In Walrond-Skinner, Sue (ed.). Developments in Family Therapy: Theories and Applications Since 1948. London: Routledge & Kega. pp. 350–367. ISBN 978-0415742603.
  23. Stojnov, Dusan; Butt, Trevor (2002). "The relational basis of personal construct psychology". In Neimeyer, Robert A.; Neimeyer, Greg J. (eds.). Advances of personal construct theory: New directions and perspectives. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishing. pp. 81–113. ISBN 978-0275972943.
  24. Harré, R., & Gillett, D. (1994). The discursive mind. London: Sage
  25. Shotter, J.; Lannamann, J. (2002). "The situation of social constructionism: Its imprisonment within the ritual of theory-criticism-and-debate". Theory & Psychology. 12 (5): 577–609. doi:10.1177/0959354302012005894. S2CID 144758116.
  26. Harré, R (2002). "Public sources of the personal mind: Social constructionism in context". Theory & Psychology. 12 (5): 611–623. doi:10.1177/0959354302012005895. S2CID 144966843.
  27. Stam, H.J. (2001). "Introduction: Social constructionism and its critiques". Theory & Psychology. 11 (3): 291–296. doi:10.1177/0959354301113001. S2CID 5917277.
  28. Burr, V. (1995), An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge
  29. Botella, L. (1995). Personal construct psychology, constructivism and postmodern thought. In R.A. Neimeyer & G.J. Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances in personal construct psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 3–35). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  30. Burkitt, I (1996). "Social and personal constructs: A division left unresolved". Theory & Psychology. 6: 71–77. doi:10.1177/0959354396061005. S2CID 144774925.
  31. Burr, V. (1992). Construing relationships: Some thoughts on PCP and discourse. In A. Thompson & P. Cummins (Eds.), European perspectives in personal construct psychology: Selected papers from the inaugural conference of the EPCA (pp. 22–35). Lincoln, UK: EPCA.
  32. Butt, T.W. (2001). "Social action and personal constructs". Theory & Psychology. 11: 75–95. doi:10.1177/0959354301111007. S2CID 145707722.
  33. Mancuso, J (1998). "Can an avowed adherent of personal-construct psychology be counted as a social constructions?". Journal of Constructivist Psychology. 11 (3): 205–219. doi:10.1080/10720539808405221.
  34. Raskin, J.D. (2002). "Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism". American Communication Journal. 5 (3): 1–25.
  35. ^ Pavlović, Jelena (11 May 2011). "Personal construct psychology and social constructionism are not incompatible: Implications of a reframing". Theory & Psychology. 21 (3). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage: 396–411. doi:10.1177/0959354310380302. S2CID 146942268.
  36. Vera Idaresit Akpan, Udodirim Angela Igwe, Ikechukwu Blessing, Ijeoma Mpamah, Charity Onyinyechi Okoro, "Social constructivism: Implications on Teaching and Learning", in: British Journal of Education Vol.8, Issue 8, pp. 49-56, September 2020 (https://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Social-Constructivism.pdf); Saul McLeod, "Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory of Cognitive Development", in: Simply Psychology, Updated August 18, 2022 (https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html)
  37. von Glasersfeld, Ernst (1995). Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. London: Routledge.; Palincsar, A.S. (1998). "Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning". Annual Review of Psychology. 49: 345–375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345. PMID 15012472. S2CID 40335935.
  38. "APA PsycNet". psycnet.apa.org. Retrieved 10 May 2021.
  39. Rose, Max; Baumgartner, Frank R. (February 2013). "Framing the Poor: Media Coverage and <scp>U.S.</scp> Poverty Policy, 1960–2008". Policy Studies Journal. 41 (1): 22–53. doi:10.1111/psj.12001. ISSN 0190-292X.
  40. Gary W. Potter; Victor E. Kappeler, eds. (1998). Constructing Crime: Perspectives on Making News and Social Problems. Waveland Press. ISBN 0-88133-984-9. OL 8173163M. Wikidata Q96343487., p. 2.
  41. ^ Lindgren, Sven-Åke (June 2005). "Social Constructionism and Criminology: Traditions, Problems and Possibilities". Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention. 6 (1): 4–22. doi:10.1080/14043850510035119. S2CID 144925991.
  42. Knoblauch, Hubert; Wilke, René (2016). "The Common Denominator: The Reception and Impact of Berger and Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality". Human Studies. 39 (1): 51–69. doi:10.1007/s10746-016-9387-3. ISSN 0163-8548. S2CID 146905539. Although the phrase "social construction" had been used by Ward as early as 1905, we will try to show here that the concept only took off after the publication of Berger and Luckmann's book, particularly after the publication of an inexpensive paperback edition in 1967
  43. Knoblauch 2016 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKnoblauch2016 (help): "Berger and Luckmann stressed the role of typification and other constitutional processes like meaning and knowledge only, as they state explicitly – a difference which has hardly been addressed in the literature – because it is "knowledge that guides conduct in everyday life" (1966: 33). The social construction, Berger and Luckmann stress, is accomplished not by meaning, typification, or consciousness; social reality is, rather, constructed by processes which are specifically social, such as social actions, social interactions, and institutions."
  44. Czepczynski, Mariusz (2016). Cultural Landscapes of Post-Socialist Cities : Representation of Powers and Needs. London: Taylor and Francis. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-317-15640-6. OCLC 1018167337.
  45. Pinch, T. J. (1996). "The Social Construction of Technology: a Review". In Fox, Robert (ed.). Technological Change: Methods and Themes in the History of Technology. Psychology Press. pp. 17–35. ISBN 978-3-7186-5792-6.
  46. van Wesel, Maarten (2006). Why we do not always get what we want: The power imbalance in the Social Shaping of Technology (Thesis). S2CID 152555823.
  47. Dave Elder-Vass. 2012.The Reality of Social Construction. Cambridge University Press, 4
  48. Brickell, Chris (1 February 2006). "The Sociological Construction of Gender and Sexuality". The Sociological Review. 54 (1): 87–113. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00603.x. ISSN 0038-0261. S2CID 23558016.
  49. ^ Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1999). Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science. New York: Picador. ISBN 978-0-312-20407-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  50. Ridley, M. 2003. Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, & What Makes Us Human. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-00-200663-4.
  51. Esposito, E. A., E. L. Grigorenko, and Robert J. Sternberg. 2011. "The Nature–Nurture Issue (an Illustration Using Behaviour-Genetic Research on Cognitive Development)." In An Introduction to Developmental Psychology (2nd ed.), edited by A. Slater and G. Bremner. British Psychological Society Blackwell. p. 85.
  52. Pinker, Steven (2016). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Penguin Books. p. 40. ISBN 978-1101200322.
  53. Slingerland, Edward (2008). What Science Offers the Humanities. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1139470360.
  54. Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. 1992. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  55. Sokal, Alan D. (May 1996). "A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies". Lingua Franca. Retrieved 3 April 2007.
  56. Paul Boghossian, Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism, Oxford University Press, 2006, 152pp, ISBN 0-19-928718-X.
  57. Woolgar, Steve; Pawluch, Dorothy (February 1985). "Ontological Gerrymandering: The Anatomy of Social Problems Explanations". Social Problems. 32 (3): 214–227. doi:10.1525/sp.1985.32.3.03a00020.
  58. Sokal, Alan D. (March 2008) "Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy, and Culture"

Further reading

Books

  • Boghossian, P. Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford University Press, 2006. Online review: Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism
  • Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T., The Social Construction of Reality : A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Anchor, 1967; ISBN 0-385-05898-5).
  • Best, J. Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems, New York: Gruyter, 1989
  • Burr, V. Social Constructionism, 2nd ed. Routledge 2003.
  • Ellul, J. Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes. Trans. Konrad Kellen & Jean Lerner. New York: Knopf, 1965. New York: Random House/ Vintage 1973
  • Ernst, P., (1998), Social Constructivism as a Philosophy of Mathematics; Albany, New York: State University of New York Press
  • Gergen, K., An Invitation to Social Construction. Los Angeles: Sage, 2015 (3d edition, first 1999).
  • Glasersfeld, E. von, Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer, 1995.
  • Hacking, I., The Social Construction of What? Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999; ISBN 0-674-81200-X
  • Hibberd, F. J., Unfolding Social Constructionism. New York: Springer, 2005. ISBN 0-387-22974-4
  • Kukla, A., Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science, London: Routledge, 2000. ISBN 978-0-415-23419-1
  • Lawrence, T. B. and Phillips, N. Constructing Organizational Life: How Social-Symbolic Work Shapes Selves, Organizations, and Institutions. Oxford University Press, 2019. ISBN 978-0-19-884002-2
  • Lowenthal, P., & Muth, R. Constructivism. In E. F. Provenzo, Jr. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the social and cultural foundations of education (pp. 177–179). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008.
  • McNamee, S. and Gergen, K. (Eds.). Therapy as Social Construction. London: Sage, 1992 ISBN 0-8039-8303-4.
  • McNamee, S. and Gergen, K. Relational Responsibility: Resources for Sustainable Dialogue. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 2005. ISBN 0-7619-1094-8.
  • Penman, R. Reconstructing communicating. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000.
  • Poerksen, B. The Certainty of Uncertainty: Dialogues Introducing Constructivism. Exeter: Imprint-Academic, 2004.
  • Restivo, S. and Croissant, J., "Social Constructionism in Science and Technology Studies" (Handbook of Constructionist Research, ed. J.A. Holstein & J.F. Gubrium) Guilford, NY 2008, 213–229; ISBN 978-1-59385-305-1
  • Schmidt, S. J., Histories and Discourses: Rewriting Constructivism. Exeter: Imprint-Academic, 2007.
  • Searle, J., The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press, 1995; ISBN 0-02-928045-1.
  • Shotter, J. Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1993.
  • Stewart, J., Zediker, K. E., & Witteborn, S. Together: Communicating interpersonally – A social construction approach (6th ed). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury, 2005.
  • Weinberg, D. Contemporary Social Constructionism: Key Themes. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2014.
  • Willard, C. A., Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996; ISBN 0-226-89845-8.
  • Wilson, D. S. (2005), "Evolutionary Social Constructivism". In J. Gottshcall and D. S. Wilson, (Eds.), The Literary Animal: Evolution and the Nature of Narrative. Evanston, IL, Northwestern University Press; ISBN 0-8101-2286-3. Full text

Articles

  • Drost, Alexander. "Borders. A Narrative Turn – Reflections on Concepts, Practices and their Communication", in: Olivier Mentz and Tracey McKay (eds.), Unity in Diversity. European Perspectives on Borders and Memories, Berlin 2017, pp. 14–33.
  • Kitsuse, John I.; Spector, Malcolm (April 1973). "Toward a Sociology of Social Problems: Social Conditions, Value-Judgments, and Social Problems". Social Problems. 20 (4): 407–419. doi:10.2307/799704. JSTOR 799704.
  • Mallon, R, "Naturalistic Approaches to Social Construction", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
  • Metzner-Szigeth, Andreas (2015). "Constructions of Environmental Issues in Scientific and Public Discourse". Figshare. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.1317394. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Shotter, J., & Gergen, K. J., Social construction: Knowledge, self, others, and continuing the conversation. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 17 (pp. 3–33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.

External links

Library resources about
Social constructionism
Social philosophy
Concepts
Schools
Philosophers
Ancient
Medieval
Early modern
18th and 19th
centuries
20th and 21st
centuries
Works
See also
Philosophy of science
Concepts
Theories
Philosophy of...
Related topics
Philosophers of science
Precursors
  • Category
  • Philosophy portal
  • icon Science portal
    • Evolutionary psychology
    Evolutionary
    processes
    Areas
    Cognition /
    Emotion
    Culture
    Development
    Human factors /
    Mental health
    Sex
    Sex differences
    Related subjects
    Academic disciplines
    Research topics
    Theoretical positions
    Categories: