Trusted, Automoderated users
25,837
edits
Social constructionism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Social constructionists''' believe that human characteristics (like gender, race, class, and disability) have always been determined by socialization. They take a hard-line nurture stance in the nurture vs. nature argument of human behaviour. They claim that humans have always been '''blank-slates'''. This is typically accompanied by a notion that once we accept this, we can achieve a more harmonious society, even utopia. | '''Social constructionists''' believe that human characteristics (like gender, race, class, and disability) have always been determined by socialization. They take a hard-line nurture stance in the nurture vs. nature argument of human behaviour. They claim that humans have always been '''blank-slates'''. This is typically accompanied by a notion that once we accept this, we can achieve a more harmonious society, even utopia. | ||
Some people who propose social solutions to biologically driven problems are incorrectly labeled social constructionists. E.g. someone who acknowledges biological differences in breeds of dogs is not a dog constructionist if he believes dogs can be socially domesticated. Same with humans. | Some people who propose social solutions to biologically driven problems are incorrectly labeled social constructionists. E.g. someone who acknowledges biological differences in breeds of dogs is not a dog social constructionist if he believes dogs can be socially domesticated by more civilized beings. Same with those who argue that feral humans (who may have similar biological traits) can be socially engineered to behave differently by less feral humans. | ||
==Social construction vs biological essentialism== | ==Social construction vs biological essentialism== | ||