Trusted, Automoderated users
25,837
edits
Social constructionism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Scientific consensus rejects any hard-line nature vs. nuture stance, including Lockianism, strong and weak social constructionism and [[biological essentialism]] respectively. Human behaviour is largely biologically rather than socially determined, e.g. humans have cross-culturally the same facial expressions for the most part. But obviously humans are also malleable to some extent, e.g. humans become smarter attending to school, but their ''potential'' is largely predetermined. Scientific theories like mathematics are thought to be objectively true, independent of culture. | Scientific consensus rejects any hard-line nature vs. nuture stance, including Lockianism, strong and weak social constructionism and [[biological essentialism]] respectively. Human behaviour is largely biologically rather than socially determined, e.g. humans have cross-culturally the same facial expressions for the most part. But obviously humans are also malleable to some extent, e.g. humans become smarter attending to school, but their ''potential'' is largely predetermined. Scientific theories like mathematics are thought to be objectively true, independent of culture. | ||
==Example of social constructionism applied to incel forums== | |||
Social constructionism can be seen in the [[anti-incels]]/[[incels]] polarization, where firmly entrenched memes and roles create a split over time and define each others actions within forums. The social roles of modern blackpill and [[anti-incel]] forums become codified almost to the point of [[incels.co|subcultural]], [[anti-incels|not traditionally moral]], and [[blackpill|quasi-religious]] activity. These social roles all groups form then define those groups over time as well as the causes they claim to represent. | |||
The theory was formalized by the 1960s philosophers Berger and Luckmann, who both saw modernity and the liberalization of traditional institutions as causing people to have loose moral moorings and to create their own religions. Their books not dedicated exclusively to social constructionism mainly dealt with non-traditional religion. ‘’’They did not have a prescriptive stance towards human behavior or modernity’’’, but were rather attempting to be descriptive. Furthermore, they did not make many claims about the validity of non-social causes of behavior. The main proponents of social constructionism, saw liberalism as causing a | |||
==Critique== | ==Critique== | ||