Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Social constructionism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Critique
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
==Critique== | ==Critique== | ||
Modern critique of social constructionism is primarily aimed at the more silly, extreme views that arose in the 1970 and 1980 with the rise of [[political correctness]], but also at the very roots of it, though not necessary Berger and Luckmann, but rather the Frankfurt School which are thought to have had an indirect influence at first and later a direct one. | |||
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''. | 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''. | ||