This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to
systems and
systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
social constructivism is a theory by Jean Piaget about how we learn; not about the nature of reality and how we come to know it, which is social constructionism. althought this distinction is difficult to determine because most people conflate the terms, which is evidence of the state of the academy. So a social construct is an item we know through engaing as a society with the phenomenon as such it ought to re-direct here. *a cis woman growing a philosopher's beard
MichelleGDyason08:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Disambiguation is for getting a user to the right place. Conflation and confusion are both supporting arguments for creating a DAB page, and maybe it's time to do that, now.
Mathglot (
talk)
08:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)reply
"In the fields of
sociology,
social ontology, and
communication theory, social constructionism is a framework that proposes that certain ideas about
physical reality arise from collaborative consensus, instead of the pure observation of said physical reality". Framework is a vague metaphor used here to define the doctrine or theory of social constructionism. It should be replaced with either theory or doctrine. Further, does sociology even study notions of ontology? maybe the ontology of society, but not the nature of reality. Is social ontology within sociology or philosophy? i don't know a lot about sociology, but i'd like to, so this claim that social constructionism is a framework used in sociology needs to be cited so i could learn about it, likewise communication theory.
"The theory of social constructionism proposes that people collectively develop the meanings (denotations and connotations) of social constructs". Firstly,
denotations and
connotations ought to be linked to their definitions, which i think you'll find within semiology, not social constructionism. Secondly, there is
discussion in philosophy of who is doing the constructing: an impersonal society or particular persons. So in the quoted sentence, the discussion is solved without reference to the discussion so misleading about the absolute nature of the doctrine. Further, after that quoted sentence, a definition of what a social construct is ought to be given not what is given which i quote next below.
"Social constructionism has been characterised as a
neo-Marxian theory and as a
neo-Kantian theory, proposing that social constructionism replaces the transcendental subject with a societal concept that is descriptive and
normative." Within this sentence is a contradiction. It states social constructionism is a theory, not the above-mentioned framework. Also, Marx and Kant are philosophers, not sociologists, which suggests that the topic is a philosophical topic first, or at least ought to be included as something philosophy discusses.
I would like to respond first that social constructionism is, in fact, better understood as a "framework" than either a "theory" or a "doctrine", and should also be easily referenced as a "framework". (In my own view, "theory" implies a placement of social constructionism on one side of the "falsifiable/non-falsifiable" boundary, and "doctrine" implies placement on the other side, but neither placement should be made based on the extant sourcing, especially not in wikivoice).
Also, in a disciplinary sense Sociology includes the speech community within social theory that is the primary site where social ontology is written about, which I hope answers that other question raised in the first paragraph.
To the second paragraph, I'm not sure how a definition of what a social construct is can be given in any straightforward way, since for one thing social constructionists seldom agree with their critics about what a social construct is and how such constructs can be identified and understood. On the other hand, the "has been characterized as" statements the third paragraph points to are more viable, in relation to this literature, than declarative statements in wikivoice are likely to be. At least that is my impression...
Newimpartial (
talk)
01:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
...seem to be talking about two very different things. Would
Alan Sokal and
Paul Boghossian really argue that money is not a social construct? Of course not. So clearly the idea of social construction is a valid one. The actual, intellectually serious debates are rather about where one draws the line between socially constructed realities and those studied by the "hard sciences". It's therefore unfortunate to see people like Sokal and Boghossian using the term "social constructionism" to refer only to the most extreme positions of those few who would deny the validity of hard science entirely. I'm sure there are some secondary source out there that make this clear, and when I have time to hunt them down I will be conducting a rather thorough overhaul of the article. If anyone has else has knowledge of this literature and would like to help, I would welcome collaboration!
Generalrelative (
talk)
18:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Not sure I have deep knowledge of the topic. I'd just point at medical diagnosis as quite an interesting area since you have constructs that move in and out of socially constructed and biomedical over time due to culturally change and more scientific evidence (e.g. gulf war syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome etc). Talpedia13:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Interesting stuff. Do you think
some web building might be a good starting point - as it's quite easy to to do, lets readers explore the full topic, and lays the ground work for other editors to see the connections and add material. I did this sort of stuff on questions of self (
Template:Self_sidebar) Talpedia18:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Interesting. I guess the
Social construct can be quite "interdisciplinary". One thing I'm sort of aware of is that few things are actually "social constructs" it feels more like... everything is constrained physically and socially (sometimes over constrained) and then people pick the theory and the "ontology" that best balances these various constraints... so in a sense I don't think there *are* pure social constructs. Talpedia10:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I would suggest checking out
Searle's book. It's about as middle-of-the-road mainstream as one can get and it deals squarely with what you're thinking about. Or if you're unconvinced that even my "simple" examples are in fact social constructs, see the first 10 pages of
Elder-Vass's book. Cheers,
Generalrelative (
talk)
14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Will have a look. I guess my take is that *everything* is a social construct and there are no natural kinds Talpedia15:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, look at Searle. Rereading for this has reminded me why he was the dominant voice of his generation in American philosophy. Doesn't mean I always agree either, but he's a masterful writer.
Generalrelative (
talk)
15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)reply
political struggles
how to make social constructivism visible for all entities involved and how can we make all entities feel like they belong to a bigger group and make them feel seen and heard and felt. and show the actions
82.217.10.58 (
talk)
18:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply