Talk:Social constructionism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Social Construction Link At Top of Page

This site is an incredibly useful tool. However, if I find one more link that just redirects to the same page I am going to scream!!!!!!! Husk3rfan9287 (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Title Change Proposal

I find it somewhat confusing to have two articles with very similar names addressing very different issues related to Constructivism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructivism_(learning_theory)
which does not deal with Vygotskian issues and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_constructivism_%28learning_theory%29&direction=prev&oldid=193815804
which does deal with Vygotskian issues.
Please could I support the idea that a a disambiguation page be created which will highlight the differences to those people who,like me, are not expert sociologists. Thanks! Ptpare (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC),

I propose that we change the name of this article to "Social Constructionism (Sociology)" or "Social Constructivism (Sociology)". I am beginning a new article titled Social Constructivism (Learning Theory) that discusses a different topic than this article. Currently, when a user searches for "Social Constructivism" they are forwarded to this article. I beleive that this search should now take them to a disambiguation page where they can choose between the the sociology or learning theory social constructivism articles. I will wait to make any changes until there has been enough opportunity for discussion on this. Thanks!Cmsmith81 23:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hypertexter 03:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi I'm a newcomer, so excuse my oversights as i learn.

I suggest that we leave the name as "Social Constructionism" since it is not limited to Sociology and could be confusing if there are different versions as per the disciplines (which may be the case) but i don't see much of that yet. thank you. --Hypertexter 03:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest changes

Hi guys. I am new at this, so I dived in and made quite a few changes (improvements) to the social construction page before I sighted this discussion.

My main motivation for changing it was that neither the social construction page nor the social constructionism page outlined what social contruction really entails, according to berger and Luckmann, nor ties it to the extensions of this literature in the structure and agency debates. So I added it. I addressed this in my doctoral thesis, so I though I was as good a person as any to do it!

I think there are three items under discussion here:

1. social construction as outlined by Berger and Luckmann. i.e. the content of what they actually said in their theory, as opposed to the later work that uses their term. I covered this somewhat in the 'socail construction' page.

2. Social constructionism as a movement in (essentially postmodern) social theory, e.g. as attacked by Hacking 1999. Perhaps some of the material on the social constructionism page on this should be moved to the social construction page, and the social constrionism page be made into a social constructivism page.

3. Social constructivism as developed in psychology, and as exported to social science generally (e.g. strong constructivism, weak constructivism, radical constructivism). This could be covered in the social constructivism page (see (1), above)

Perhaps this whole bunch of content should be reorganised into these three pages on these three topics?

Anyway, in the interim, I have neatened up and strengthened the material. The page on social construction also needed reordering, so I did that. I have also cross-referenced to a greater extent with the pages on institutionalization, socialization, etc.

Unless I hear something in the next couple of weeks from you guys, I might start making the changes, as they seem sensible to me . . .

HTH

LMackinnon 03:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

By all means, make the changes. These articles have needed work for a long time. -Seth Mahoney 03:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect?

Is this really necessary to have this page, or can't it just link to "social construction"? Also I'd disagree with linking Berger/Luckmann to the Sokal-affaire, because social constructivism isn't the same as postmoderne relativism. -- till we *) 14:19 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Done a bit of rewording, now I like this page much better ;-) -- till we *) 22:43, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

I think the page should be merged with social construction, putting a redirect from the social construction page and putting all the material together.

I find it useful to keep "social construction" and "social constructionism" separate. Some people may want only basic definitions, while others may be more interested in larger issues.

Section removed

moved to the bottom

I took this out:

On the other hand, no sane social constructionist would exclude his own method from the universal processes of social construction of reality, so the idea that social constructionism is constructed, too, can also be seen as a truism.

The phrase "social construction of social contructionism" is not meant to be taken literally (that's why it's in quotes).

Why not? If that is the point the Sokal affaire people put forward against social constructionism, it should be taken literally. I'd rather prefer it if the sentence goes back in. -- till we *) 18:40, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But that's not the point they're putting forward. No one is criticizing social constructivism on the grounds that it is socially constructed--that wouldn't be much of a criticism at all now would it? The phrase "social construction of social contructivism" means less than it says, thus the quotes around it. It's a half-pun, if you will, and it makes an excellent point that would be hard to explain in other terms.

Sokal

I'm going to agree with the above comment that social constructionism is not really the object of focus in the Sokal Affair. While it may be a branch of (better said, a source for) postmodernism, social constructionism is not postmodernism. A clear example of how society is socially constructed is religion - religions, following Durkheim and Freud are clear social creations that have no basis in naturalistic science. You can find other grounds upon which to criticize social constructionism, but tying it into the Sokal Affair isn't appropriate. I'm taking out the criticism.

In Fashionable Nonsense, in the first chapter Sokal attacks "Social constructionism", using exactly those words. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I also skimmed thru some sociology text books and found numerous books that cite the Sokal affair as an attack on social constructionism. Do you have even one source that claims that the Sokal affair was not directed towards SC?

• Holstein & Gubrium Handbook of Contructionist Research: Guilford Press page 54, under subtitle ”Backlash: the Constructionism's Critics presents Sokal affair.
• Hermans, Chris Social Constructionism and Theology: Brill page 42, presents Sokal affair as critique of social constructionism.
• Alvesson & Sköldberg Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research: SAGE page 210
• Dahnke ym. Philosophy of Science for Nursing Practice: Concepts and Application 2010. Springer. page 111
• Peter Morral Sociology and Health: An Introduction 2001 Routledge page 62.

In addition there are numerous research articles claiming the same. It probably is true that Sokal's arguments don't hold against all forms and schools of SC, but in order to add that, you need good sources. I can try and look for some. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge

I'd like to propose that Social construction be merged into this article. Social construction seems to be more about social constructionism than social constructions per se. Also, social constructionism would greatly benefit from some of the material at social construction. Socially constructed reality, radical constructivism, and major consensus narrative are both stubs that would probably better serve as redirects to this page after any useful content is moved here. -Seth Mahoney 07:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea! I didn't know all these articles existed. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 11:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Merging all of these is an excellent idea. But the effort should keep in mind that a number of significantly different lines of thought relate to social constructionism. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be covered in the same article, but different sections for approaches of Berger&Luckman, Durkheim, Foucault, Latour, etc. should be included (not necessarily named for those authors, maybe better with some general names for the approach). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and did (most of) the merging. I'm going to move the contents of major consensus narrative here, because the article was pretty much content-free, except for some name-dropping. If anyone has the time and background to flesh the contents out more, please add it to social constructionism. Aside from that, there is still some copyediting and patching to be done with respect to the narrative flow (it gets a little broken and downright contradictory at places), but all that should be easier (I think) with the content all in one place. Anyway, here's the contents of major consensus narrative:

The expression major consensus narrative was coined by Bruce Sterling in his book Zeitgeist as an explanatory synonym for truth.

Some sociological background to this assumption can be found in the theory of social construction of reality.

-Seth Mahoney 18:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Dissent regarding social construction

I copied this from Talk:Social construction to make sure everybody was aware that there are arguments against:

Merging is a bad idea. It's like merging Empire into Imperialism, or Race into Racism, or Gene into Genetics. The need for an explanation of the concept of a social construct transcends any -ism, no matter what the history of the idea may have been. Peak 19:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, in principle. However, as discussed above, the content of social construction is currently about social constructionism and not social constructions or social constructs. If you are willing to develop content that is specifically about social constructs and not just a rehash of social constructionism, then by all means do it! Of all the articles merged into social constructionism today, this one I am the least sure should remain just a redirect. However, its status as a full article depends on good and useful content, which it currently does not have.

As far as there being insufficient discussion, the consensus has largely been in favor of a merge (there is more discussion on Talk:Social constructionism). I'd say at this point the most fruitful avenue of discussion is in terms of what the content of each article should be. I've already thrown out ideas of what this one should not be (which happens to be exactly what it is now). You seem to agree, at least to a point. Since you want to retain social construction as an article, what would you like to see here? -Seth Mahoney 19:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good. Merge the current content with social constructionism, but don't redirect. Then rewrite the social construction article to be specifically about social constructions. Neurodivergent 02:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. Take a look at Ian Hacking's Social Construction of What? - the book is about all of the stuff out there that's been said to be socially constructed (gender, technology, science, identity, etc.). These are, presumably, social constructs.

Me three. A concept is not the philosophy that generated it.

It would appear that each of those entities deserve a separate article. However one of the things that must be done is to make the distinction clear: the lead of each of those articles shoud state something like (This should not be confused with x, which means y). Or perhaps this can be done in a disambig for (This article is about x. For article about y, see...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

They are two totally different terms

One is a school of thought, the other is a way of understanding things like race. My vote is to keep them seperate. Noah 18:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that, having removed all the content that is actuall about social constructionism, social construction is a stub that's not particularly useful. I'm not at all sure how it can be made into a useful article separate from social constructionism, except maybe by giving examples of the ways in which race, sexuality, gender, etc. are explained (or explained away) as social constructions. If you want them to remain separate articles, it would make sense to do some work on social construction to remedy that problem, rather than just cast your vote here. But, it seems that's a problem Wikipedia is especially prone to these days. -Seth Mahoney 21:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: And the two are not "totally different" terms - they are aggressively linked terms. You can't talk about social constructions without social constructionism, and social constructionism is empty without social constructions. -Seth Mahoney 21:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yet another page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_reality

The quality of that page is so low, that it might just be deleted outright. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Rational vs. human nature

The human anatomy An editor added this sentence:

Our view of reality may not be entirely, or even mainly, "Rational" but may rather be a Human / Social Construction of Reality that is itself based on the promptings and cues provided by innate Human Nature.

Other than the Gratuitous Studly Caps, I pretty much agree with it personally. But as added, it seems like general argumentation pro-SC, rather than describing any particular thinker or position. If this is meant to describe someone specifically, please clarify that before re-adding it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Social constructionism vs. social constructivism

Comments, please, on the following... This page ought to mention that these two terms are often used interchangeably. But they can be (and are) distinguished in usage, too, and some people think the distinction is important. My sense of the difference between these two terms is this:

• Social constructionism is a general theory of human social action based on the work of Berger & Luckmann;
• Social constructivism (which redirects to Constructivist epistemology) is a theory that is mostly concerned with the social explanation of science and technology; it stems, not from B&L, but rather from the sociology of scientific knowledge.

To illustrate the nuances here, I would take issue with the following statement from this article:

"Berger and Luckman's work has been influential in the sociology of knowledge, including the sociology of science, where Karin Knorr-Cetina, Bruno Latour, Barry Barnes, Steve Woolgar and others use the ideas of social constructionism to relate supposedly objective facts to processes of social construction...." This just isn't true. Knorr-Cetina, Latour, and Barnes don't cite Berger and Luckmann in their seminal works (I don't have Woolgar handy, so I'm not sure whether he cites B & L). Perhaps they should have cited B & L, but they didn't. Bryan 14:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Though Knorr-Cetina et al do not quote B & L it is likely that they are familiar with their work since they have sociological backgrounds. Further to this they might not have felt the need to since Berger and Luckman's ideas could be seen as another flowering of phenomenology with a sociological bent just like George Herbert Mead, Alfred Schutz and Harold Garfinkel [I think it was Berger who edited a collection from the '70s(?) called Phenomenology an Sociology]. In this vein sociology of science seems to have a sociological phenomenolgy as an axiom, considering David Bloor's Strong programme, which I'm sure at least one of Knorr-Cetina et al will have cited. Robat 81.102.15.200 13:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your thoughts on the iv/ion distintion seem correct to me. Feel free to clarify this in the article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Tough call, subtle distinction if there's any at all other than the name; and depends on who you ask. The eight volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on Constructivism consistent with the use of the term "constructivist epistemology", for very good reasons that are beyond the scope of this brief reply. Social constructivism is a term built on that important philosophical slant wherein knowledge is viewed as a social construction, including the construction and use of language by which knowledge is classified and shared. Unfortunately the constructivist epistemology article is currently a mess (no offense intended to participating editors). Constructionism deals with the same basic issues, more a theory of knowledge than a theory of social action per se. While I'm not very familiar with the work of Berger and Luckman, the basic description given in the introduction on social constructionism sounds fairly correct just off the top of my head. At the moment I have no knowledge of who coined the term "constructionism"... Kenosis 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quick followup. That encyclopedia, a professional resource incidentally, has an article in the 1996 Supplement entitled "Constructivism, Conventionalism" which are said to be overlapping positions. I see no reference to the term "constructionism", but am beginning to wonder if citations should be requested for the use of the term "social constructionism". There is not a whole article on constructivist epistemology in the original 8-volume set. One thing I can say pretty much confidently without doing a lot of research right now is that the introduction to the social constructionism article has a more apt description of the basic position than does the constructivist epistemology article at present. Will attempt to follow up when I have an opportunity. Thanks for bringing the issue up. ... Kenosis 00:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This page might be helpful for you guys: http://users.california.com/~rathbone/gergen3.htm (although I wish I could read the actual paper the article is reviewing) 01:20, 14 June 2006 BrownApple

Interesting slant on a page of questionable noteworthiness, written about Kenneth Gergen by a psychologist name Lois Shawver. Gergen, a "postmodern" psychologist with a fairly obvious agenda who happens to be David Gergen's brother, appears to be making a point about constructivist epistemology, or contructivism, being used as a principle of epistemology without reference to other theories of truth such as correspondence theory, pragmatic theory or other theory of justification. He appears to be assuming constructivists necessarily maintain that knowledge is socially constructed in vacuum, so to speak (possibly some do, but I don't know for sure at the moment). Gergen appears to be arguing against those who take the constructivist position to the extreme. He also appears to be arguing for the separation of these two terms by "showing" that constructionism is a non-solipsist position. I think I'd want further evidence for his claim, though it's hard to tell just based upon what Shawer writes here. ... Kenosis 02:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... based on my experience with Gergen's other writing, I'm willing to bet his paper is a lot clearer than Shawer's summary. (And, although you could probably argue that he (along with everyone else on the planet) has an agenda of some sort, his couldn't be farther from David Gergen's.) Anyhow, I thought this article was quite helpful: http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol5/iss3/special/raskin.htm . I'd say "constructivism" = "epistemological constructivism," described here:

Epistemological constructivists are not purely idealists because they believe in the existence of an external reality that is independent of the observer. However, they also believe that it is not possible for observers to know that independent reality except through their constructions of it. Therefore, knowledge is a compilation of human‑made constructions. Such constructions are heuristic fictions useful for understanding the world. In this regard, epistemological constructivism sees knowledge schemes as being classifiable as more or less viable rather than more or less accurate. People cannot know for certain if their constructions correspond to an independent reality, but they can know if their constructions work well for them. In this regard, people are cognitively closed systems: “In fact, it is really with the idea of a closure of cognitive systems that the subject/object dichotomy is substantially overcome and traditional realistic perspectives are actually abandoned” (Chiari & Nuzzo, 1996b, p. 171). Von Glaserfeld’s radical constructivism seems to most clearly exemplify epistemological constructivism, although Kelly’s personal construct psychology also fits nicely.

and "constructionism" = "hermeneutic constructivism" described here:

Hermeneutic constructivists do not believe in the existence of an observer-independent reality. They consider knowledge a product of the linguistic activity of a community of observers. Thus, there can be as many knowledge systems as there are groups discursively negotiating them. In hermeneutic approaches to constructivism, the roles of language, discourse, and communication become central in understanding how knowledge systems are developed and maintained. There are many forms of hermeneutic constructivism, but they all share certain fundamental premises.

Although their historical backgrounds are different, all these approaches share a view of knowledge (and truth) as interpretation, an interpretation historically founded rather than timeless, contextually verifiable rather than universally valid, and linguistically generated and socially negotiated rather than cognitively and individually produced. (Chiari & Nuzzo, 1996b, p. 174)

Gergen’s social constructionism can be considered an example of hermeneutic constructivism and Maturana’s radical constructivism appears to contain hermeneutic elements. 19:03, 14 June 2006 User:BrownApple

Hi again. BrownApple, I appreciate seeing some well thought analysis of the issue. So "hermeneutic constructivism" does seem to explain what I earlier saw as Gergen's "obvious agenda" (I wasn't intending to imply an ideological or political connection between brothers, incidentally). The distinction of hermeneutic from epistemological would be much more consistent with what appeared to be Gergen's thrust, at least from what I read. And what you've quoted and said about epistemological constructivism points up the distinction as well. So the "agenda" I was reading into Shawver's brief synopsis is apparently not a misinterpretation and criticism of empistemological constructivism, but instead an argument for a distinction between hermeneutic constructivism and constructionism? Interesting. It's a position that certainly is debatable but wholly reasonable in light of the hermeneutic slant you've quoted above.

I imagine that the perspective you've brought in here, and some further research, may begin to put the editors into a position to make some reasonably well considered edits and organizational changes to both articles, and perhaps even add an article to help clarify the distinction, ... Kenosis 03:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't cite von Glasersfeld for social constructivism: On the distinction between between social constructionism and social constructivism, I would like to add that von Glasersfeld is not the correct person to cite for social constructivism. He coined the term radical constructivism to set it apart from trivial constructivism and to focus on the individual rather than the social. He doesn't deny the importance of the social but rather his focus is on the individual doing the constructing. Slowwriter 18:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

References?

What work is "Hacking, 1999"? —Ashley Y 19:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As listed in the reference section: Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What? (Harvard University Press, 1999; ISBN 0674004124). -Seth Mahoney 01:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Social Constructionism

"However, it is not clear that anyone has seriously claimed that everything is a social construct."

It is too clear. This is exactly what strong social constructionism is claiming. And trust me, there are strong social constructionists. (anon)

The recent edits to this section are definitely an improvement... But I'm still not quite happy wit this part: "This is not to say that strong social constructionists (or weak social constructionists, for that matter) necessarily see the world as ontologically unreal, that the raw stuff of reality exists only insofar as some group of people believes that it exists, but that our epistemological access to it to some degree filters and sorts the world into our set of social constructions."

It's certainly right that social constructionism isn't claiming that the world is "ontologically unreal"... but neither is it suggesting that the world is ontologically real, and we just don't have a way of knowing about it (as the article currently suggests). Social constructionism is a way of throwing out exactly these sorts of ontological questions. It's not that the world is real or unreal; social constructionism says that this notion of "real" and "unreal" is just a social construct, just a matter of convention. Do you see how it's missing the point to ask a (strong) social constructionist if the world is really real?

I tried editing the article, but I'm worried I just made it more confusing...

I agree that asking a social constructionist if the world is ontologically real or not is missing the point, but nonetheless, that's the sort of question that immediately comes up when social constructionism is discussed (in fact, I think it has come up on one or more of the social constructionism-related pages more than once). So saying something along those lines is probably worthwhile. There's something else to be addressed, though: I wrote that original bit, I think, and it had the same problems your changes have: It isn't sourced, and therefore isn't really verifiable. So if you have any sources handy, it would be great if you could throw them in. Until then, I'll go through the article and add the necessary citation needed tags. One more thing: Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end. Thanks. -Smahoney 02:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really have any sources (although I stand by the notion that social constructionism is opposed to the ontological questions of modern philosophy). The problem, I guess, is that we're trying to make claims about what *all* social constructionists say and think... which is basically impossible, since it's not even clear who is/isn't a social constructionist, much less exactly what views they hold in common. Anyway, feel free to revert.

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end. I see what you mean. Maybe picking a few positions in social constructionism and citing them to specific writers would be a better way to go? (By the way, I'm pretty happy with your change overall - I'd rather see it stay than go, unless someone can work out something better). -Smahoney 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The strong social constructionism section is just a totally unexplained quote. Nowhere does the quote mention social constructionism outright, and certainly nowhere does this Wikipedia article explain what strong social constructionism. Obviously, it's a stronger viewpoint than weak social constructionism, but there must be some kind of line drawn, and considering there is also a radical social constructionism section, the dichotomy (is trichotomy a word?) needs to be delineated more clearly than it is at present. Sean Parmelee 06:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments for Lulu

Hi Lulu.

As I see it, there are two issues on this page,

1. Berger and Luckmann's notion of social construction

e.g. on the current page

<< Socially constructed reality is seen as an ongoing, dynamic process; reality is re-produced by people acting on their interpretations and their knowledge of it. Berger and Luckmann argue that all knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted common sense knowledge of everyday reality, is derived from and maintained by social interactions. When people interact, they do so with the understanding that their respective perceptions of reality are related, and as they act upon this understanding their common knowledge of reality becomes reinforced. Since this common sense knowledge is negotiated by people, human typifications, significations and institutions come to be presented as part of an objective reality. It is in this sense that it can be said that reality is socially constructed. S >>

2. Social constructivism and constructionist approaches in contemporary social sciences

e.g. on the current page

<< Social constructionism is dialectically opposed to essentialism, the belief that there are defining transhistorical essences independent of conscious beings that determine the categorical structure of reality. >>

<< Within social constructionist thought, a social construction, or social construct, is an idea which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, but in reality is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society. The implication is that social constructs are in some sense human choices rather than laws resulting from divine will or nature. This is not usually taken to imply a radical anti-determinism, however. >>

<< The focus of social constructionism is to uncover the ways in which individuals and groups participate in the creation of their perceived reality. As an approach, it involves looking at the ways social phenomena are created, institutionalized, and made into tradition by humans. ocial constructionism is dialectically opposed to essentialism, the belief that there are defining transhistorical essences independent of conscious beings that determine the categorical structure of reality. >>

Now, the page is already quite confused and conflating these two seperate issues. The latter is, presumably, what this page should be about (given the title).

The situation is further confused by the fact that there is an account of Berger and Luckmann's social construction on both pages - social contruction, and social constructionism.

Now, my note was attached to your discussion of B&L's account of social construction, tying the two pages together. Moving the note as you did simply put the note in a place where it was not relevant.

I don't disagree with the text you are defending. I think it describes B&L's ideas fine. But so does the text on the social construction page, and my feeling is that the place to talk about B&L's ideas is on the Social construction page or The Social Construction of Reality specifically about the book.

I would appreciate it if we could discuss/talk on this talk page rather than going back and forth changing each other's text for the article. I'm sure we could find a path we both agree on, and work together on this.

LMackinnon 14:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

I have no idea what to make of this (I'll break it down, but I'm not an expert in Wikiformats, so bear with me):

"Scientists and historians generally do not attempt to refute the idea that most or all of the world is a social construction.

I understand what this means but it sounds empty to me. Why should they waste their time?

"The entire idea is widely dismissed as a disguised version of solipsism.

What idea is widely dismissed? Social constuctionism itself? Or the first statement about scientists and historians not attempting to refute? Or the idea that it <;I>should be refuted?

"Some literary critics do think it is worth refuting this position.

Ok. Who? And what position? That social constructionism is solipsism? Or that scientists don't attempt to refute...?

"A few attempts have been made to refute the idea that everything is socially constructed.

Again, who?

"However, it is not clear that anyone has seriously claimed that everything is a social construct. (Hacking 1999, pp. 24-25).

Ok. So taking the first sentence, and this sentence together, I read it as: "Scientists and historians don't attempt to refute an obviously refutable stance that was never made by anyone anyways." Is this correct?

"Consider The Social Construction of Reality. In the introduction, Berger and Luckmann clarify that they are not investigating "reality" in any deep philosophical sense, only what the common man takes as real on a day-to-day basis."

Without having read the book, I don't know what to say. And, if the wording of the book is like this article, I'm not sure that I'd want to.

Any thoughts for improvements? Thanks!!--63.138.93.195 23:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (just created an account, now: User:M_A_S.)

Just deleting that section would be my first suggestion. -Smahoney 23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Smahoney. I'm reluctant to do that, because I think that criticisms are needed. Unfortunately my meta-criticism is that it's difficult to refute or criticise a "moving target" like social constructivism. Social constructivism is this, then that, but then there's strong and weak forms that mean different things to different people in different contexts. But that's OR until someone says it better than me. Fashionable Nonsense comes to mind. Don't get me wrong, in my eyes most Wikipedia sociology articles aren't all pomobabble and I think there's value in some post-modern relativist stances. But the arguments get muddled with forks upon forks (Sociology of scientific knowledge, Science and technology studies, Science, technology, and society, Science, engineering, and public policy and abbreviations and the groupthink that comes with that. . .)--M_A_S 01:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that criticism is valid and useful, but this "criticism" doesn't even make sense, which is why I suggest removing it. Replacing it with something else (which, as you mention, shouldn't be original research) is perfectly valid. -Smahoney 02:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that some see a distinction between social construcTIONISM and social construcTIVISM--the latter what you said, and the former what this article is supposed to be about. Check out this article for more: http://users.california.com/~rathbone/gergen3.htm .

Hi Lulu- I saw that you removed my criticism as "vacant" (which I don't feel, but that's Ok for now,) and OR (which I wouldn't really argue with too much - that's why I had the templates.) But I've noticed that there was also removed another criticism earlier in reference to Sokal and the science wars removed as well. I don't think Social constructivism is unable to be criticised, even if the criticism is along the lines of "Scientists and historians have better things to do with their time than criticise." Do you have any recommended way to achieve balance? I've stated my case above why a. the first criticisms were muddled and confusing, and b. a criticism section is needed. Thanks! --M a s 12:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a real excess of "criticism" sections in academic articles (especially ones about post-whatever subjects [modern/structuralist/colonial/etc]). I've found it especially overused in bios of academics, but this subject area article is similar. It's really a forced idea of NPOV to insert these sorts of "balancing" sections, and not at all encyclopedic in most cases. It's hardly that I claim that whatever subject or thinker cannot be criticized, but that's not realy what readers of a general encyclopedia need. Reading an article like this should tell readers "what is the topic named in the article name?" Getting into the professional arguments in favor or against the positions addressed is really outside scope, almost always. Sure, publish criticisms in New Left Review or Science Studies or the like, but not here... and the fact that someone indeed already published such criticisms is interesting to professional philosohers, but again usually outside scope of WP.

If 500 philosophers a year publish criticisms of some aspect of social contructionism (or whatever topic; but that number is about right), singling out some semi-random critic—or even singling it out on the basis of book sales number—is really undue weight on a rather drastic scale. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Great point.

Thanks Lulu, thanks Seth. Lulu, I definitely agree that forcing NPOV by posting criticisms to achieve balance isn't a valid encyclopedic thing to do. But I also think that, if a concept is pretty controversial, then it is also encyclopedic to mention that. I guess maybe there can be a disagreement about the threshold for what's deemed "controversial." I think it would be a disservice to have an article on intelligent design, and yes even evolution, without mentioning the controversies involved. Sokal mentions Pickering's quark examples... Nonetheless because of my limited knowledge of the structures of criticisms about social constructionism I consider this closed or tabled; anything that I add would be OR unless and until I'm able to reference. Thanks, --M a s 21:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________

Abandon all hope ye who enter here... It is absolutely amazing that while this proposed discipline cites Berger and Luckmann as the central source for it's theoretical origins, it fails to take note, or seriously, the source of "Berger and Luckmann's theory" [sic]. Namely, the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl, and the phenomenological sociology of Alfred Schutz. "The Social Construction of Reality" is nothing more than a popularization and Americanization of the German phenomenological tradition as applied to issues within American sociology. It was very readable and popular at the time, and served a valuable social function for American sociology, making it relevant to students of the sixties, but it was not based on original ideas by Berger and Luckmann.

Luckmann was Schutz's literary executor, and "co-author" [actually his editor and nothing more] of his final works in phenomenological sociology [see Alfred Schutz, "The Structures of the Life-World, 2 Vols., Northwestern UP]. There are very few ideas appearing in B&L that are not taken directly from the work of Husserl and Schutz. To represent B&L as an "origins" text, and not note the source of their ideas, even when they are footnoted [more or less] within the text, is a wonderful example of the yet another misreading, exploitation, and dumbing down of an European intellectual tradition. Remember what Parsons did for Durkheim, Weber and Marx? This reading of B&L serves the same function for Husserl and Schutz. Making phenomenology safe for Ameriacn sociology and mystifying its origins and importance for social theory and methodology.

Wouldn't it be more interesting to take phenomenology as an intellectual tradition seriously and read the original texts? They are now - some 40 years later - widely available and are accompanied by a substantial secondary literature. Such a move would avoid much of the semantic nonsense which appears on this page, and help unify these phenomena into a coherent perspective.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.93 (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Freud is not an example of social constructionism

From the article:

"An illustrative example of social constructionist thought at work is, following the work of Sigmund Freud and Émile Durkheim, religion. According to this line of thought, the basis for religion is rooted in our psyche, in a need to see some purpose in life. A given religion, then, does not show us some hidden aspect of objective reality, but has rather been constructed according to social and historical processes according to human needs. Peter L. Berger wrote an entire book exploring the social construction of religion, The Sacred Canopy."

Any theory that places the "psyche" at the ultimate level of reality (such as Freud's) is decidedly not an example of social constructionism. For a social constructionist, the psyche (Freud's or otherwise) is every bit as socially constructed as religion. Maybe we should just cut this section?

I would agree with this suggestion. Although one could find support in Freud's work (e.g. Civilization and its Discontents) for a social constructivist point of view, it would be reading s.c. back into Freud's work. This is not really appropriate for a definitional article. Further, one would have to make the case that it was an appropriate reading. As commented further along, Freud did not dispute the fact (reality) of the brain and perception; rather, he sought the source of our cognitions and developmental being-in-mind. From this, he suggested that as we construct ourselves, our relations, our worlds/emotions, and our future imaginings, so we also construct our social reality. This latter step is, in my mind, more controversial, as he extrapolates from the individual/psychological to the sociological/collective. This is a step in scale which is always subject to the critique that the social/collective operates by different rules beyond the individual/psychological; it is not merely an additive process. I am simplifying Freud's contribution to make the point. However, in reference to social constructionism, first, Freud is less concerned with the social sources of mental imaginings; in fact, he seems to suggest that certain tropes arise from internal processes which are governed by biological realities. Thus, for example, the oedipal impulse is a natural, given, fact of our developmental being, and would be be in evidence across cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinook41 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

References question

Does anybody know what the Pinker, Steven 2002 reference is? I guessed that its to The Blank Slate : The Modern Denial of Human Nature, but if someone could confirm that would be great. It appears in the section "Weak social constructionism". Actually, likewise the reference to Stanley Fish, 1996. That one I can't find any promising titles on. Also, Ian Hacking 1997. -Smahoney 02:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus reality merge suggestion

Consensus reality has WP:OR issues, despite surviving a VfD. Perhaps the non-cruft could go here. Leibniz 13:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

no, it cannot. it is different and does not map into this concept. after a failed vfd, you should not be talking merge unless merge was the consensus. you should be giving the article the proper time to develop into its own. if it does not do that within a year or 18 months, then you can vfd it again or merge it. --Buridan 16:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Duh. VFD was in 2005. Leibniz 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - article is legitimate and should stay autonomous Headphonos 11:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge - Consensus reality describes a particular concept at length whose relations are to concepts and articles much different from this one, primarily philosophical. Skomorokh ^incite 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Question on article head

The article current states:

Social constructionism is opposed, more or less, to essentialism, the belief that there are defining transhistorical essences independent of conscious beings that determine the categorical structure of reality.

This statement is surely false (or very reputable thinkers are making beginner's mistakes). Who has ever offered to prove that there are no "defining transhistorical essences"? Proving a negative is just a little difficult, no? And why bother to try to convince others of something that they will think of many reasons to reject when all that it is necessary to do is to say that until these "defining transhistorical essences" reveal themselves to ordinary mortals all that one can do is to accept in our practical lives the conditions that ignorance of these "essences" impose on us.

In all that I have ever seen, the people who do not accept the existance of a god or a revealed first cause and eternal law giver have merely said that what they understand people to be doing is to impose the products of human creativity on the data and hope that their "useful fictions" work out well in the long run, allowing humans to make space ships and other intricate modern contrivances, etc.

So wouldn't it be better to say, "Social constructionism does not accept or make use of..."? P0M 05:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So you think people who make this opposition are making beginner's mistakes. Alas, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Whether you agree or disagree with them, many people who argue for social construction are indeed consciously arguing against essentialism. This is not an article on what POM thinks, it is an article on how different people use the term, and the quoted statement is surely true. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Relation to postmodernism

I think that the statement about social constructionism being the source of the postmodern movement is a huge exaggeration.I can't find any reference backing this up and during my studies of sociology and philosophy this hasn't ever come up. I think postmodernism is something quite different and has its roots completely elsewhere.(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/). Jokinen | Talk 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also agree here. Perhaps if needed this could be discussed under a separate heading "Post-Modernism and social constructionism" chinook41 sept. 23rd, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinook41 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

International Relations theory

I have a bit of an issue with this page. It doesn't appear to give any discussion on the political aspect of Social Constructivism (in particular with regard to its use in International Relations Theory). If people are happy for me to add something regarding this then I would be more than willing to do so. Comments please. Stefanjcarney 16:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd strongly support adding a section on the IR theory. I found this page by looking for the IR theory, and was disappointed to find the article had little to do with it. I'd suggest either making it a section of the article that really clearly states it's a mostly unrelated idea, though, or make it a separate page with a disambiguation page (or at least one of those italicized links of "For the international relations theory, please see..." at the top). I don't know enough of the lit to write a page on it (thus my looking to read the page now), but I'd really strongly encourage you to do something. Jordan

NPOV in 2 section

I have flagged the section on strong social constructivism and environmental leftist critique. They appear to only discuss a critical viewpoint. The sole quote in the strong social constructivism section is taken from a book critical of social constructivism rather than a social constructivist source. The environmental section again presents a negative view. Of course, these views are welcome but perhaps should be balanced by other views in both of these areas. Especially the section on strong social constructivism should discuss primary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asharper (talk • contribs) 07:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• This doesn't appear to be a neutrality issue, can't a note for expanding it just be left?JJJ999 (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios

I removed a copyvio here; could someone please systematically Google-check this article for other copyvios? -- Lea (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vygotskyan constructivism

In my understanding it is radically distinct from social constructionism. Vygotsky and followers are interested in how learners develop concepts. They do not make any particular proposals about the relationship between the concepts and external reality. In my reading there is always an assumption that there is an external reality independent of learners' mental constructs and thus Vygotskyan psychology is fully compatible with realism in a way that social constructionism is not. Moreover the two traditions emerged entirely independent of each other. Does anyone have any objections if I start to put together a separate article on constructivist psychology? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It already exists in the form of Constructivism (learning theory), but Social constructivism (learning theory) redirects here. I propose to take away the second redirect and to add a sentence to this article clarifying that social constructionism is not the same as the (social) constructivism of learning theory. Opinions? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. At one point, there was a separate article on social constructivism (learning theory), but due to significant copyright violations it was deleted and merged here. It would be nice if there was a separate article to make the difference clearer, but if you can summarize the biggest point in a sentence or two that would be a great start. I don't feel like I understand the theory and history well enough to do a new article myself. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of meaningless line from top of page

I have removed the following from the top of the page:

Pargeter1 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

--AlotToLearn (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Question for the more knowledgeable...

Why is the social constructivism page redirected to social constructionism now? Constructionism should be a sub-title within social constructivism (Learning Theory). It will confuse too many (especially people who haven't read Piaget, Vygotsky, Papert, etc.). There are important distinctions between contructivism and construction and it should be evident through the links.

CA Madeira January 21st 2009

See the discussion about Vygotskyan Constructivism above. I'd love to see it as a separate article, like it used to be, but I don't think I'm strong enough to get it started on my own. It sounds like you're more familiar with the content though, so if you want to start a new article, go for it! WeisheitSuchen (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent complete removal of defence of social constructionism

Someone who gives as his pseudonym 'Buridan' has removed the entire section I carefully inserted defending social constructionism. He gives as the single reason 'This sounds like a college essay'. I should point out that I am the editor of the current volume published by the MIT Press entitled The Case for Qualia, the editor and author of several other books, as well as over sixty philosophical articles (see my website http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/ ). It took me a considerable time to write this improvement to what I take to be a be a very slanted and out-of-date article. I took great care to provide the latest references. Therefore I do not regard it as either polite or philosophically detached for 'Buridan' to delete the whole of it without contacting me to discuss the matter. At least Buridan's ass sat between two bundles of hay and gave them equal value: this Buridan dismisses the opposition without a moment's thought. I shall certainly take this up with a third party as Wikipedia allows unless I get the assurance that the return of my adjustment will not be deleted again. Edmond Wright (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's nifty. Authorship and claimed expertise, you might note, doesn't matter here, wikipedia does not support claims of 'ownership' that would follow from those ideas. Granted many wikipedia authors are experts in their areas, or some area, but we are humble folk. I am very happy that you have accomplished so much in your career. However, the piece you wrote was like a college essay. It was not like well verified wikipedia contribution. I didn't dismiss your contribution without a moment's thought, I actually read it line by line and said, 'that lacks support, that is just an assertion, that lacks argument, finally a citation, etc. etc. I found nothing that was encyclopedic or verifiable. What i found was an essay, which while likely significant in its own right, as you note above, and worthy of publication, was not as i noted now, encyclopedic, nor was it verifiable or well cited. This is not to dismiss your contributions, just to say that, all contributions have to meet the bar of verifiability which is based in citation. Your expertise alone, which while you can assert, i have no way to verify that you are, who you say you are, nor in the end do I think it is important that you are who you say you are. All I want is verifiable, well cited content, that is encyclopedic. I don't have to check with you before I remove content, nor does anyone else, nor do we have to discuss the merits of the content, especially when it is not verifiable. I encourage you to rewrite your contribution with citations, without vitriol, and neutrally, as one might find in an encyclopedia, for I agree the article needs to be more neutral. You can certainly take it up with whatever third party you wish, but... if the contribution doesn't meet the policy standards of verifiability, neutrality, then.. likely they will delete it too. --Buridan (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edmond, Buridan's right; nobody has to ask a particular editor before removing content. Nobody owns an article or any contributions; they are "owned" by the community as soon as you post. If you don't want your content edited, Wikipedia's not a good place to contribute. Buridan also removed a significant section of criticism of social constructionism recently added by another editor that had even fewer citations than your contributions. As a third party, I thought the "college essay" criticism was directed as much as the other editor as at you. Your personal expertise is irrelevant; that's not how Wikipedia works. However, since you have that expertise, I'm sure you're familiar with the authors in the field enough to cite every argument you made. If you'd like to replace the section, why don't you look in the history at the version I'd marked up for improvement. Everything marked as "citation needed," "fact," "weasel word," or "original research?" should be cleaned up. If you put a citation with a reliable source every place I indicated, plus taking out the weasel words, then you'll likely meet Wikipedia's standards and your contributions should last a little longer. If you'd prefer, you could also post a draft to this talk page for discussion before posting. If you're going to cite your own publications, that is the way to get around the conflict of interest.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I take WeisheitSuchen's points, and regard his improvements as welcome. I shall certainly strengthen the citations. However, it is patent that this entry as it stands at the moment is, not only out of date, but far from neutral. How can one write on social constructionism and not refer to at least one or two of Jean Piaget, Ernst von Glasersfeld, Paul Watzlawick, Heinz von Foerster, Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela, Gerhard Roth, Siegfried Schmidt, or Colin Grant? has Buridan heard of any of them? All we have here are Ian Hacking and John Searle, both of whom oppose social constructionism, and, in my view take no account of the latest arguments. Edmond Wright (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To Buridan: I do not see why I should be exposed to unpleasant innuendo ('We are humble folk' -- ergo, I am not; 'I am happy that you have accomplished so much in your career' -- such a sneer is out of place when all I wished to do was to show that my contribution was far from being 'a college essay'). Nor is there is whisper of apology for such wholesale deletion without philosophical explanation. On the one hand, WeisheitSuchen enjoins me to bring my work into the 'History' area so that there can be negotiation about it, which seems to me excellent advice: on the other, you wield the 'Delete' key with authoritarian assurance -- hardly a demonstration of calm detachment -- more like Jovian indifference. There is plenty of vitriol in your reply, but I can detect none in my contribution. It is interesting that you have already deleted another attempt at a defence -- some evidence there then that you are not neutral. WeisheitSuchen seems to me altogether more suitable as an encyclopedist; his rearrangement of the argument shows that he understands it. You say you have read it word for word, but I find no clue to a response in anything you say, and yet it provides a serious and plausible counter to Hacking's and Searle's main criticism. Edmond Wright (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion and social constructionism

I would be interesting if a note or section about social constructionism and religion could be left in the article. The Church is an institution which is socially constructed and that tends to view itself as divinely constructed. This paradox allows for an almost mystical interpretation of what social construction is really about, for instance in the encyclicals Ecclesiam Suam and Mystici Corporis Christi. In effect, the Church has its own rules, conventions, traditions, scriptures, clergymen, history, etc, which allows it to live almost separated from most non-religious secular social constructs. It would be therefore be appropriate to argue that many human systems do not necessarily view social construction as a bad thing, but also see its beneficial aspects as well. ADM (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have sources that talk about the connection between the two, I don't see why it couldn't be included. I say go for it.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong constructionism is nonsense

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. This leads to the view that all reality is a social construction, which is close to the view of many post-modernist philosophers like Jean-François Lyotard, who claim that our view of reality is really a narrative, a discourse rooted in consensus.

LOL! It's amazing that there are people who take such crap seriously. Here is a simple proof it is all nonsense: If you were born in the jungle and were left there right after birth but somehow managed to survive you would know a multitude of facts even though you would have no language and no contact which any society. For example if you one day got bitten by some animal you would now for a fact that this animal can inflict pain on you and you would know to leave it alone or at least expect that you may be bitten again. So "brute facts" do exist and the "strong social constructionism" is hereby refuted. This article is in desperate need of a criticism section.Sergiacid (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you've got the sources, rather than just your original research and opinions, please add it. The Constructivism (learning theory) article has a significant criticism section; I don't see why this article couldn't have some as well. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Social Contructivism v. Constructionism

When searching for the term constructionist, I find Wikipedia addressing social constructionism. This should not be allowed. A "Constructionist" is one who construes a legal document (especially the Constitution of the United States) in a strict and specific way. A constructionist notes the 18 specific and numerated powers of the Congrss (House & Senate)under Article I, Section 8 of the United States constitution. "Constructionist" and "Social Constructionist" are two seperate subjects with a great distintion between the two.

Harry Callahan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Callahan (talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent 'criticism' section, Sokal again

I reverted the recent edits which included discussion of 'the Sokal Affair'. The Sokal Affair is not clearly linked to social constructionism; it's certainly not a criticism of 'social constructionism' tout court. This has already been discussed, see above on this talk page. Furthermore, the justification provided for including Sokal Affair information was "Added information relating to critiques of this area. Particularly important because as of now the article comes across as extremely biased and strong-minded." If the article is 'extremely biased and strong-minded' then it should be re-written appropriately, not complemented with a poor criticism section. EastCoast1111 (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What is this rant?

This page is absurd; the vast majority of it is a poorly written and utterly one-sided rant, mostly drawing from Hacking's criticisms of the theory. What does any of this have to do with describing the theory, much less presenting an NPOV? This is shameful, and reads like a term paper from a frustrated undergrad who accidentally stumbled into a cultural studies classroom and tried to meet minimum length requirements while getting the professor's skin by drawing a paper from a single critical source!

Concrete suggestions for improvement:

• Edit down the lead.
• Cut out huge chunks that deal with specific, localized arguments; refocus on the theory generally.
• If it even needs to stay, bring the "degrees" section down to no more than two brief (1-2 paragraph) sections: one for "weak", one for "strong" with source material coming from a more neutral and reliable source (see next point).
• Stuff the Hacking crap into a criticism section where it belongs, and don't treat it as neutral.
• Reference a source or two that are sympathetic to the theory. 218.160.183.224 (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

you could actually create a user name and contribute. --John Bessa (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Section Degrees of social constructionism changed

I renamed the section from "Degrees of Social Constructivism" because the strong and weak of "isms" are not a matter of degree.

I used the lead part of this section to explore the the concepts of weak and strong, in general, and by comparing these terms to their philosophical cousins (in computing), hope to prepare the reader for their use in social constructivism in particular (which is seen to be related to computer programming, from the "strong" perspective). I moved the previous statements about strong and weak social constructivism to their respective subsections.

The last paragraph I added submits a correspondence between a society and a computer. I try to avoid WP:NOR by stitching closely to the other articles in Wikipedia, and asserting the homophones for programming and language.

I added some paragraphs to the one in the subsection "strong social constructivism" Then I changed the name of that section to "Strong teleology" because headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article.

— CpiralCpiral 22:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Making the intro a bit more understandable

The phrase "contingent variables of our social selves" could stand to be worded a bit better. I'm somewhat familiar with social constructivism and I'm not even sure what this language means. I know that an example is given, but you have two high level vocabulary terms (contingent variable" "social selves") and only one example trying to explain them both. Perhaps someone could make a stub article for contingent variable in the context of SC that it could link to.

User:timothyjwood who is too busy to find his password right now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.26.119 (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Good and evil socially constructed?

Hi, a bit new at this... The statement that good and evil don't exist (in the introduction) probably shouldn't be stated as fact, but rather should be stated as something social constructivists might believe to be true. In addition, the reference cited for that sentence never mentions good and evil, and I believe to be an improper citation. So I'm going to edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.92.26 (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I follow Jon the Scot for that as well as the Scott David Hume who influenced educator John Dewey and the famous Carl Rogers.

Evil is an absence of good for "the Scot", so socially constructed evil is poorly constructed social construct, probably because the forum has been removed (see diagram below).--John Bessa (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusing

It would be nice if the intro included an example or two to clarify exactly what a "social construct" is. --JaGa^talk 16:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That is actually a difficult question because social construction is a framework. The individual components (examples you want to see) come from constructivism. Here is a diagram of Prof. Peschl's triple-loop constructivism extended (best as I can) to the social construct. My own prof loved it, so here it is:

File:Triple-loop constructivism (from peschl) extended for social construction.svg --John Bessa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

On Weak teleology

I'd say the sentence "Kant similarly argues there are realities we cannot ever know, and therefore cannot ever tell of. ..." is misleading, because Kant's talk of noumena and unknowable things-in-themselves belongs to his transcendental idealism, and refers, therefore, only to pure reason, not things of reality. The function of Kant's transcendental idealism is to justify empirical realism: that knowledge about reality is possible, and Kant is very optimistic about it. So, unless the author of the sentence is of a different opinion I'll check back shortly to change or remove it... Cheers :)

Kopare (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Done.

Kopare (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

weak criticism section

postmodernism/social constructionism are characteristic of an era in which everything is questioned, doubted and refuted. This sort of pervasive skepticism brings forth relativism preventing it from grasping itself or the world and the conditions that gave rise to it. how can the social constructionist's critique sustain itself when we have descended into a new constructed world in which no standards exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.132.145 (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No doubt these arguments have been raised by other philosophers working in this area. Do you have any sources we can readily cite? I'd be happy to do some of the legwork to put that stuff in. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul Boghossian's book Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism is one good source. John Searle is another writer on the subject. One good argument against social constructivism is that some things are discovered rather than constructed. Constructivists may then claim that the discovery is relative to some constructed background, but that merely pushes the argument into an infinite regress, or changes the subject. Another good argument is that although our words or pictures may be socially constructed it doesn't follow that what they describe or depict is also socially constructed. Hence social constructivists like relativists tend to deny the existence of anything beyond language.

Kopare (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course they don't deny the existence of anything beyond language that would be solipsism or nihilism, or extreme idealist empiricism. They deny that we can have absolute knowledge about anything beyond language which is another matter all together.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If "everything is questioned, doubted and refuted", then they are not merely denying absolute knowledge but everything beyond linguistic constructions. One could argue it is linguistic idealism, which implies solipsism.

Kopare (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• This page is not for discussion of the topic, but for planning improvements to the page. If you have a reliable source that makes those criticisms feel free to provide it. I don't think you do because it doesn't seem that you are very familiar with the topic of the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my friend, but it is already there, open for anyone to read  :)

Kopare (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

Social concept

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)

So that's no. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Environmental leftist social constructionism

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)

External links modified

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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

Copyright Material

To make this article better, the information under the section called "Social constructionist analysis" should be rewritten/ summarized. A majority of the section matches the source word-for-word. Caboudiwan (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Claudia

I will try to fix the copyrighted content. I will also try to add more to the lead and explanation of social constructionism. I may also try to fix the organization of the article, as well as the article's neutrality. Here are some of the sources I am looking at to use: "The anatomy of a social constructionist analysis | Social constructionism 2011". 2015-04-15. Retrieved 2018-05-11. "Social constructionism facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Social constructionism". www.encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 2018-05-11. Coulter, Jeff (2001). Hacking, Ian, ed. "Ian Hacking on Constructionism". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 26 (1): 82–86. Caboudiwan (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Claudia

After removing the copied text from that section, there were two paragraphs remaining that I was not sure if they are copied from another source. Anyways, there is not enough information left in the section and those two paragraphs do not make sense anymore in the context. I removed them and will paste them below in case it is paraphrased material we can add back in when we rewrite the section: Social constructionist analysis Hacking is less advocating a serious, particular metaphysics than he is suggesting a useful way to analyse claims about "social construction".:21–24 ″Social construction-ism accepts that there is an objective reality. It is concerned with how knowledge is constructed and understood. It has therefore an epistemological not an ontological perspective. Criticisms and misunderstanding arise when this central fact is misinterpreted. This is most evident in debates and criticisms surrounding realism and relativism. The words of Kirk and Miller are relevant when they suggest that the search for a final, absolute truth be left to philosophers and theologians. Social construction-ism places great emphasis on everyday interactions between people and how they use language to construct their reality. It regards the social practices people engage in as the focus of enquiry″. Caboudiwan (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Claudia

Teleology (again?)

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)

The teleology section really should be removed entirely; it heavily relies on two authors, neither of which are influential within the sociological literature. Likewise, the authors cited in this section are extremely biased towards evolutionary psychology which is presented as a widely accepted consensus, rather than a contentious field. --24.136.4.211 (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Definition

Excuse me, are you sure the definition given is correct?

Are not according to it 'humans are mortal', 'Earth rotates', 'c' social contructions?

Is not according to it literally everything a social construct?Kuiet (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

role of the media in the social construction of crime

@Crossroads: Your mention of WP:Synthesis combined with the reference to Vincent F. Sacco (2005), When Crime Waves, SAGE Publishing, Wikidata Q96344789 should make it clear that the citation to Sacco and the accompanying figure should be retained. This example provides, I believe, one of the most powerful illustration in the existing research literature of the power of the concept of "social constructionism".

Accordingly, I'm reverting your deletion of those additions to this article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, you should discuss before restoring. Your beliefs about how powerful this illustrates the concept to be are not relevant unless reliable sources connect it to the topic of social constructionism. Same goes for the picture. You saying this stuff is relevant to the topic is original research and cannot be in the article. Also, one of your citation notes references another Wikipedia article, which is bad. You cannot cite Wikipedia as a source; see WP:RSP. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Examples

Crossroads, I think that the body of this article needs illustrative examples, so that readers can see that different societies assign different meanings to the same thing.

I disagree that teenage pregnancy is inherently a "salient social issue" or that saying that other cultures think it just fine for a healthy teenager to get pregnant is makes it "seem like they might be no big deal." I don't think this is cultural-moral relativism; I think it's an example of pre-industrial societies assigning different meanings to "the same" events: when economic security comes from having a large family of future workers, then starting to have kids before the age of 20 provides measurable benefits to the family. When economic security comes from your own education, then starting to have kids before the age of 20 provides measurable harms to the individual. The meaning that society assigns is different: The natural-to-them social response sounded like "How nice to have such a strong, healthy mother; I bet she'll give her husband lots of strong, healthy boys". Our own culture's natural-to-us social response sounds a lot more like judgmentalism about the mother's moral fitness.

I don't think that chattel slavery makes a good example precisely because it is an issue about which moral people cannot disagree. Things like murder, rape, and slavery do not show "Social constructs can be different based on the society". Those examples primarily show that some people are willing to justify evil. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to debate this example. The fact is that it was unsourced. You need a sourced example, per WP:BURDEN. Readers aren't going to see or think about, generally, the different economic structures now or then, and I'd argue that the patriarchal structures of that time were also evil, just as murder and slavery are. Lest we have a debate on social constructionism, I'm sure a better and sourced example can be found. Isn't money a social construct? Marriage? I'd shoot for one of those nice, uncontroversial examples to ease readers in. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The heath effects of teenage pregnancy suggest that opposition to it is not just a social construct, unless I've misunderstood the point. I agree that a source is needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the health effects of a 19-year-old woman giving birth are basically the same as the health effects of a 20-year-old woman giving birth, and most teenage pregnancies involve adult women, not young teens. In my experience, most non-Wikipedians are surprised to learn that teenage pregnancies include 18- and 19-year-old women. (Most commonly, they assumed that it refers to getting pregnant before becoming a legal adult. The actual meaning is ending a pregnancy before the woman's 20th birthday.)

Support or opposition to anything may not "just" be a social construct, but the meaning any given society assigns to that event is. That's literally what it means for something to be a social construct. A social construct == society assigns a particular meaning to the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Berger and Luckmann Section

I’m thinking about removing the whole Berger and Luckmann entirely. Because it is unreferenced and has been tagged with citation needed since January of 2020.CycoMa (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of drive-by tagging hundreds of topics that we are unfamiliar with, and mass deleting verifiable content that happens to be unreferenced, we might like to reflect on whether the material in question is challenged or likely to be challenged. Are you challenging any of the information in that section? Why not do the citations yourself instead of deleting? Tewdar (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: somebody challenge the section. I honestly don’t know why to be honest. But, if it’s challenged it shouldn’t be here.CycoMa (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: But, that's what I'm saying: nobody challenged any of that content, did they? Like, "Constructionism became prominent in the U.S. with Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann's 1966 book, The Social Construction of Reality." - nobody is ever going to challenge that statement, the book is cited by 70,364 on Google Scholar!!! Tewdar (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, what's the barnstar for? Finding citations for the stuff you deleted today? 😁 Tewdar (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'll add it to the collection even with no reason... Tewdar (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar:, what drive-by tagging? Afaict from the recent edits, CycoMa didn't add any tags, they removed tags, as well as accompanying content that hadn't been referenced. And as far as "do[ing] the citations yourself instead of deleting" I can't speak for CycoMa, but it's hard to mind-read what the original editors may have been thinking when they added their material to that section years ago.

Checking the #Berger and Luckmann section, I find that the content is entirely unsourced (so I tagged it) and appears to consist of individual opinions about B & L primarily from four users apparently interpreting primary material on their own:

• 195.93.21.40 (talk · contribs) in 2005 (about half the section); last edited in 2006 (1 stray in 2014)
• 128.146.251.132 (talk · contribs) in 2010 (~ 1/4); that change was their last edit on Wikipedia
• Reswik (talk · contribs) in 2007 (a sentence); last edited in 20007
• Pargeter1 (talk · contribs) in 2009 (most of a sentence); last edited in 2011

But one shouldn't have to go to that level of analysis in order to challenge and remove material (and I won't again anytime soon). The WP:ONUS is on the original editors to source it, and if they didn't do it, then it's fair game for removal, and policy specifically supports that per WP:Verifiability. Clearly the subtopic in that section is highly notable in the context of the article topic, so it would be a shame to remove it. I've tagged the section, and added targeted "{{find sources}}" links to aid anyone who wishes to source the material; here they are again, for convenience:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

You challenged CycoMa to add refs instead of tagging it, but that goes both ways: I'll wait any reasonable interval that is needed before blanking the section, but will you add references to it now to keep that from happening? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, the day I wrote this, I followed some of CycoMa's edits, where he was adding "citation needed" tags to tons of articles, or removing content already with the tag, which was very very easy to find sources for, and which I did locate sources for in a number of cases. I'm not sure I care enough about Berger and Luckmann to find sources, so go ahead and delete it if you think the section should not be there. All the best. Tewdar (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar:, thanks. It should totally be there, as I said above; it's central to the whole topic. Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There, I added a reference. Tewdar (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It could do with a few more references, obviously... Tewdar (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Revised Intro

The starting phrase, and a good deal of the core presentation, was a mess. I revised it and added secondary readings. Hope others will keep improving the article.--86.6.148.125 (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I reverted part of it that rewrote the definition. Does that match the source better? It didn't look like it. Please be sure to add only ideas verifiable to WP:Reliable sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

First and foremost, the intro of an article must be clear. Whoever phrased it before, had no clarity of mind, neither was he/she interested in communicating anything beyond gibberish. I only rephrased in a better and clearer form what the intro says in an obscure manner. The first reference can tehrefore stay. I will add more reference to the other parts later today. Please, do not revert.--86.6.148.125 (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

They seem the same to me in terms of clarity. And the meaning differs significantly. Material has to follow WP:Verifiability. If you have sources to show the term is usually defined differently, then we of course can change it. Same goes for if this somehow represents the existing source better. Minor wording changes that definitely do not change the meaning are also okay. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I added new references to sources that reflect the revised version. Claiming that the previous version was clear in terms of content seems almost a joke to me. --86.6.148.125 (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Please revert your last change of 8:46 2 October. It's difficult to know how to come up with new or improved wording when you comment in generalities, such as saying there's "no clarity of mind" or that everything was "gibberish" or "a joke". I found it fine that way it was before, in fact, better; if you have issues with the previous version, please discuss here what you found to be wanting and suggest specific wording to improve it, so it can be discussed among interested editors.

In addition to requiring WP:Verifiability of content as Crossroads mentioned, another principle is that the lead is a summary of the body of the article, it does not contain unique or new information that is not covered in the body. That's why in the change I made following your initial edit, I restored the pervious version of the lead, but kept your changes to the lead including the new references and content but moved them to the Overview section instead. That was intended to leave you an opening to work on the body content, perhaps to expand the Overview section, perhaps to refactor it to more appropriate sections of the body, following which changes to the lead could be envisaged. But you didn't take advantage of that; instead, you simply reverted back to your version.

That's not acceptable. Content that has been in the article for a long time, such as the previous version of the lead are considered to have consensus until a new consensus is developed, and that happens by discussion here. Making a WP:BOLD change as you did originally is encouraged, but if there are objections from other editors, then you can't simply insist on your preferred content, you have to talk it out here, first. Please undo your last change while this discussion is going on, until we come to some agreement on what changes to the body are required to support changes to the lead, and how the lead should look. If you have specific changes to the lead that you would like to propose, please propose them here, first. A good way to do that is to use the "change X to Y" format (with BEFORE and AFTER snippets) but any way you want is fine, as long as it's clear what you are proposing. You can use templates like {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{blockquote}} to help set off material, and you can use {{cot}} and {{cob}} to collapse long sections of text if you wish. Additionally, please see WP:THREAD about the use of indentation in talk page discussions. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I cannot understand most of the discussion above. From a logical viewpoint, the definition of "constructionism" cannot contain "construction" as an identifier of it (" that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality.") because this is circular (also known in Greek as "diallele"). Therefore saying that the previous version was unclear is not commenting on generalities, it is making this article accessible to the reader. I do not understand what is really controversial about the intro and why you are making this revision, which is both light and conservative, so difficult!--86.6.148.125 (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)--86.6.148.125 (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

We could change "jointly constructed" to "jointly created". More substantial changes should be based on sources though. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)