Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Social constructionism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Social constructionism''' holds that ''all knowledge'' (including social roles, common sense) and thus reality itself is ''socially constructed'' to various degrees.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism#Berger_and_Luckmann</ref> One distinguishes strong and weak social constructionism, referring to which extent something is merely a construct rather than objective truth. | '''Social constructionism''' holds that ''all knowledge'' (including social roles, common sense) and thus reality itself is ''socially constructed'' to various degrees.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism#Berger_and_Luckmann</ref> One distinguishes strong and weak social constructionism, referring to which extent something is merely a construct rather than objective truth. | ||
Even the RationalWiki admits that the social constructionist view is silly in its extreme form.<ref>https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_constructionism</ref> | Even the RationalWiki admits that the social constructionist view is silly in its extreme form.<ref>https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_constructionism</ref> | ||
As such, social constructionism borders John Locke's view of human nature being a ''blank slate'' that can be socially constructed. Hence, it falls toward the nurture end of the spectrum in the nature and nurture debate. | |||
As such, social constructionism borders | |||
Much of the New Left and [[anti-incels]] are radical social constructionists, and hence simply dismiss arguments made by incels on grounds of evolutionary psychology or biology. | Much of the New Left and [[anti-incels]] are radical social constructionists, and hence simply dismiss arguments made by incels on grounds of evolutionary psychology or biology. | ||
Social constructionism was developed in the 1960s philosophers Berger, Luckmann, and later further developed somewhat in adjacency with the Frankfurt School for example Michel Foucault. | Social constructionism was developed in the 1960s philosophers Berger, Luckmann, and later further developed somewhat in adjacency with the Frankfurt School for example Michel Foucault. | ||
Berger saw an ongoing construction of new realities and "religions" as result of modernity and liberalization, departing from the ''traditional'' roles prescribed by religions. In Berger's words, departure from traditions was causing a "homelessness of the mind". | Berger saw an ongoing construction of new realities and "religions" as result of modernity and liberalization, departing from the ''traditional'' roles prescribed by religions. In Berger's words, departure from traditions was causing a "homelessness of the mind". | ||
Berger also lamented that lamented that parents decide reality for the next generation by institutionalizing their knowledge in shape of rules and norms, that are "opaque" to the child generation and bereaves them the participation in rule creation to some extent.<ref>p. 77. http://perflensburg.se/Berger%20social-construction-of-reality.pdf</ref> | |||
Berger also | |||
From there onward the philosophy became sillier over time, e.g. with Andrew Pickering's article on ''"Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics"''. | From there onward the philosophy became sillier over time, e.g. with Andrew Pickering's article on ''"Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics"''. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 26: | ||
In the time of their writing, Berger and Luckmann were not criticized as dismissing possible non-natural origins of thought, but rather ignoring them. | In the time of their writing, Berger and Luckmann were not criticized as dismissing possible non-natural origins of thought, but rather ignoring them. | ||
Later, the New Left have adopted more extreme social constructionist views that gender, race, [[beauty]], class, hierarchy, disability, even the scientific method, are predominantly ''socially constructed'' rather than [[biological essentialism|biological]] or objectively true, seemingly largely driven by [[political correctness]]. A famous critic of blank slatery and political correctness is [[Steven Pinker]]. Furthermore, they also argue that regardless of human origin of knowledge, most human behaviour should be individually determined, which Berger and Luckmann argued | Later, the New Left have adopted more extreme social constructionist views that gender, race, [[beauty]], class, hierarchy, disability, even the scientific method, are predominantly ''socially constructed'' rather than [[biological essentialism|biological]] or objectively true, seemingly largely driven by [[political correctness]]. A famous critic of blank slatery and political correctness is [[Steven Pinker]]. Furthermore, they also argue that regardless of human origin of knowledge, most human behaviour should be individually determined, which Berger and Luckmann argued ''is not possible''. | ||
Opponents of the New Left, such as [[Jordan Peterson]], believe social constructionism itself to be philosophically rooted in a [[Marxism|Marxist and resentful]] pessimism that aforementioned perceived "social constructions" would be the roots of most evil, invented by powerful [[men|evil people]] as a means of oppression. | Opponents of the New Left, such as [[Jordan Peterson]], believe social constructionism itself to be philosophically rooted in a [[Marxism|Marxist and resentful]] pessimism that aforementioned perceived "social constructions" would be the roots of most evil, invented by powerful [[men|evil people]] as a means of oppression. | ||