|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Social constructionism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise). Some terms used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
Duplicate citations of The Construction of Social Reality
I've normalised what were duplicated references to this book. For expediency I've used Template:Rp for page numbers although long term I think shortened footnotes would look better. Earcanal (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it isn't
"The section is specifically about nature/environment/ecology. postmodern is much too general and there's already a section for it." Mentioning "the nonhuman" does not make it environmental. VeryRarelyStable (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- For context, this is referring to my revert of this edit changing the heading for the "Environmental leftist social constructionism" section to "Postmodern social constructionism" with edit summary "more appropriate section heading (the source cited may talk about the environment and the Left, but the section itself mentions neither)."
- Mentioning of "the nonhuman" does not make it environmental, no; the mention nature, ecopolitics, sustainability, and environmentalism make it environmental. I'm not sure what's controversial. Also, changing it to "Postmodern social constructionism" is problematic because it suggests this particular area is postmodern social constructionism when in fact the very idea of social constructionism as a whole is often associated with postmodernism. That being said, the section needs serious work, but the heading change just doesn't make sense [to me anyway]. --— Rhododendrites talk | 06:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Social constructivism
- There are important salient differences between constructiVISM and constructionISM. I recommend not merging the two, but making the differences more pronounced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree that these should NOT be merged. Constructivism is part of cognitivism and sees reality as existing in an individual's mind which develops through social interactions with the world around them. Constructionism sees reality as literally created and existing in the relationships between people through their use of language and shared communion. Nathank2 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The article switches back and forth between the two, without any indication that the subject has changed. The section "Teleology of social construction" (which reads like an embedded essay in need of an editor) uses both, in some places within the same sentence.
Someone with in-depth knowledge should probably go through the article, and make sure it makes sense. My suggestion would be not to mention social constructivism except to point out how it contrasts with the article topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Entire section below unsourced, moved here to TALK page for later editing. • Arch♦Reader 00:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Strong social constructionism sees everything as a social construction, everything as metaphysical. This is not to say that it sees the outer world as having beings in a non-reality, as unreal. Rather, it proposes that the notions of "real" and "unreal" are themselves social constructs, so that the question of whether anything is "real" is just a matter of social convention. The conservative proponent of institutions the way they are progressing, would, in Rudolf Carnap's words "pretend to teach knowledge which is of a higher level than that of empirical science." Everyone else has their own reality, and take the stance that "if you have to ask, you would not understand."
Strong social constructionists oppose the existence of "brute" facts. That a mountain is a mountain (as opposed to just another undifferentiated clump of earth) is socially engendered, and not a brute fact. That the concept of mountain is universally admitted in all human languages reflects near-universal human consensus, but does not make it an objective reality; similarly for all apparently real objects and events: trees, cars, snow, collisions. It reasons that all reality is thought, all thought is in a language, all language is a convention, and that all convention is socially acceptable, hence, it uses language to socially program. ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
A Strong social constructionism entity convenes and forms the conventions of consensus reality, a real, human operated set of social programs, whose subjects participate in operating on the "real" to the extent they conform democratically and politely. If its ontology is accused, the pragmatic answer is "read the minutes of the meeting", both because the strong social constructionism is busy creating programs, and because sharing a reality accurately and completely is futile.
Also, in regards to Broadcast History, 'social construction' refers to the way in which the media form has been created. This relates both to its structure and regulation. It's the way that the social media outlet is constructed by our society. [End section] section moved by:• Arch♦Reader 00:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The section "Environmental leftist social constructionism" reads like a website promoting that cause. It assumes a number of positions as facts, not claims or presuppositions. Is this perceived by others as neutral? Or, am I the only one who sees bias here?Pete unseth (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Pete unseth: It was added several years ago by one editor, and seems to be original research. I've removed it and it shouldn't be restored without sources explicitly discussing this so-called "environmental leftist social constructionism". Doug Weller (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The Race (human classification) page starts with "Race, as a social concept, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics." I think this is good evidence that's true and meaningful. But I can't find a good source that explains why or at least I can't distill it down into a short comprehensible encyclopedic statement. "Race is a social construct" is a very notable idea, so we should include this. Can anyone help? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Captain JT Verity MBA: there are scientific sources for that in Swedish. Look at this article. I have more papers and so on regarding this issue. Dnm (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why we have a section Teleology of social construction in the article. Who ordered that? Why not sections on Paleontology and Psychopathology of social construction, to mention just a few random further possibilities? --Lambiam 20:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- We also have a section on "systemic therapy". The article is a mess and needs to be rewritten from scratch.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Social constructionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150415014708/http://socialconstructionism.blog.com:80/2011/01/14/the-anatomy-of-a-social-constructionist-analysis/ to http://socialconstructionism.blog.com/2011/01/14/the-anatomy-of-a-social-constructionist-analysis/
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070614091347/http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/resources/publications_resources/DSW05.pdf to http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/resources/publications_resources/DSW05.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Multiple issues template
What is the current consensus with this template? From my view, there are only two issues that may have some validity: requiring a cleanup, and rewriting lead. Even so, they are not as bad as the template seem to say. If there is not a strong support for it, I will remove it and leave only these two issues. Let me know, please. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 21:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)