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 | As such, social constructionism borders John Locke's view of human nature being a ''blank slate'' that is arbitrarily malleable. Hence, it falls toward the nurture end of the spectrum in the nature and nurture debate. | ||
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. | ||