Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Social constructionism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
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 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> | ||
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"''. | ||
Social constructivism borrows from Kantianism constructivism, however Kant believed that categorical organisation in the mind which was more naturally constructed rather than socially constructed.<ref>https://philosophyterms.com/constructivism/</ref> | |||
Social constructionism | In the time of their writing, Berger and Luckmann were not criticized as dismissing possible non-natural origins of thought, but rather ignoring them. | ||
Social constructionism gave rise to other constructivist philosophies like '''postmodernism''', a philosophy which is extremely skeptical of overarching narratives and sometimes even intrinsic reality. | |||
== Scientific consensus == | == Scientific consensus == | ||
Scientific consensus rejects any hard-line nature vs. nuture stance, including Lockianism, strong and weak social constructionism and [[biological essentialism]] | Scientific consensus rejects any hard-line nature vs. nuture stance, including Lockianism, strong and weak social constructionism, and [[biological essentialism]]. Human behaviour is mostly 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== | ==Example of social constructionism applied to incel forums== | ||
| Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
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 | 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== | ||
The New Left have adopted radical 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. | ||