Social Constructivism

In Sociology, the social constructivism is with the crossing various currents of thought and was presented by Peter L. Shepherd and Thomas Luckmann in their book The Social Construction off Reality (1966). He seeks to discover the way in which social reality and the social phenomena “are built” i.e. the way in which these phenomena are created, institutionalized and transformed into Tradition S. He concentrates on the description of the Institution S, of the action S… . “Socially built reality” is seen like a dynamic process: reality “is reproduced” by the people who act according to their Interprétation and of their Connaissance (that it is conscious, or unconscious) of this one. It is here about subjective reality rather than objective, such as we can perceive it rather than separate our perceptions.

In Sociology of sciences, authors like Karin Knorr Cetina or Bruno Latour fit in this current of the social constructivism. Their work aims at opening the " box noire" scientific production, to show how the scientific facts are themselves the products of the dynamics of particular institutional devices, and that they are not the reflection of any " world of Idées" from where they could be drawn. Under this prospect, the truth itself of the scientific knowledge must be paid to an institutional and historical context particular, and does not have any absolute value.

The social constructivism is often associated with the United States with the farming Postmodernisme and the studies .

It should be noted that the term Constructivisme is also used apart from sociology, in a meaning which remains close however concerning the epistemology constructivist.

The expression “social construction”

Since the publication of the book of Shepherd and Luckmann in 1966, the expression “construction social” made flora in social sciences. In Between science and reality: The social construction of what? , the philosopher and historian of sciences Ian Hacking says that this expression is sometimes used in a context where it does not have a direction. For example, the editor of Rom Harré insisted that Harré off changes the title of one of its works The Social Production Emotions into The Social Construction off the Emotions because this last title appeared more salesman. The expression “construction social” is very connoted: its partisans line up in a radical camp while its adversaries are declared reasonable.

Even if “social construction” became an expression with the mode, the book of Shepherd and Luckmann deeply influenced the social sciences, while describing how the borders and the rules of the company, invisible but powerful, are created, transformed, institutionalized and transmitted to the future generations.

Weak version of the social constructivism

The linguist Steven Pinker thinks that certain categories like the Monnaie, the Citoyenneté or the President of the United States are really social constructions whose existence holds only with one tacit agreement between people who act as if these categories existed. Hacking and Pinker agree to say that the objects of this kind can be described as belonging to what John Searle calls “social reality”. They are “subjective from an ontological point of view” ( ontologically subjective ) but “objective from an epistemological point of view” ( epistemologically objectifies ). In other words, they have needs for human practices to continue to exist but they produce universally recognized effects. The dissension relates to the question of knowing if these categories must be called “social construction”. The answer of Hacking is not. It is not obvious besides if the authors of analyzes based on “social construction” never hear this expression within the meaning of Pinker. If not, Pinker badly included/understood the interest of this concept.

Strong version of the social constructivism

“Science is a highly elaborate whole of conventions produced by a particular culture (ours) in particular historical circumstances; thus, it is not, as claims it the usual opinion, a whole of knowledge and assumptions verifiable concerning the real-world. It is a speech, conceived by and for a specialized interpretative community, in terms created by the complex mixture of social circumstances, political opinions, economic incentives and an ideological climate which constitutes the human environment of the scientist. Orthodoxe science is thus only one discursive community among the many others which exist today or which existed in the past. Consequently, its claims with the truth are irréductiblement autoreferential, because they can be only constant by calling upon the standards which define the scientific community and distinguish it from the other social organizations. ” (translation of Large and Levitt, Higher Superstition )

The scientists and the historians generally do not seek to refute the idea that the whole world is a social construction. It is rejected as being a masked form of Solipsisme. Some, like some critical of Literature, think nevertheless that it is worth the sorrow to refute it. However, according to Hacking, it is not sure that whoever ever claimed seriously that all is a social construction. In the introduction of The Social Construction off Reality , Berger and Luckmann prevent that they do not study the “reality” heard in a philosophical direction, but only what the man taken in his daily newspaper regards as reality.

What an analysis based on social construction?

This question is difficult because “social construction” can mean much things. Hacking, having studied a large variety of works and articles entitled “ social The construction off… ” or “ Constructing… ”, affirms that when one says that something (let us call it X) “is socially built”, that summarizes at least the two following assertions:

(0) In the actual position of the things, X is regarded as asset, it appears inevitable.

(1) X did not need to exist or be as it is. X, or X such as it are now, are not determined by the nature of the things, it is not inevitable.

Hacking adds that the two following assertions are also often, although always, not implied by the expression “social construction”:

(2) X is rather bad as it is currently.

(3) We would be much better if we get rid of X, or at least if we transform it radically.

Thus, the claim according to which the kind is socially built probably means that the kind, such as it is included/understood today, is not an inevitable result of the Biologie, but depends highly on social and historical processes. Moreover, according to the person who asserts, it can mean that our current comprehension of the kind is harmful and should be modified or eliminated, as far as possible.

According to Hacking, the claims which are based on the social constructivism do not say always clearly what is not inevitable or that of which us should get rid. If one considers the imaginary claim “the Quark S are socially built”. In a direction, that means that the quarks themselves inevitable or are not determined by the nature of the things. In another, that means that our idea (or conceptualization, or comprehension) of the quarks inevitable or are not determined by the nature of the things. Hacking prefers of much the second interpretation. Moreover, he affirms that if the second interpretation is chosen, there is no inevitably conflict between the idea that the quarks are socially built and that which they are real.

While passing from the physical world in the world of the human beings, the analyzes based on social construction can become more complex. Hacking briefly examines the study of Helene Moussa on the social construction of the taken refuge women. According to him, the argumentation of Foamed breaks up into several stages of which some can remain implicit:

the idea that are made the Canadian citizens of the women Réfugié be is not inevitable, but historically fixes quotas for (the idea or the category “woman taken refuge” can thus be regarded as socially built).
the women who come to Canada to seek asylum there are deeply assigned by the category “taken refuge woman”. Among other things, if a woman is not legally recognized like a “taken refuge woman”, it can be expelled and forced to take again a very difficult living condition in its country of origin.
such women can modify their behavior, and perhaps even their attitude towards themselves, with an aim of gaining the benefit to be classified like a “taken refuge woman”.

Hacking suggests that this third stage of the argumentation, the interaction between a socially built category and the individuals who are or could be included in this category, is present in many analyzes based on social construction which study categories of individuals.

See too

Article related

Ludwik Fleck, precursor of the thought in the years 1930
Alfred Schütz, founder of the phenomenologic sociology
Epistemology constructivist
Phenomenology

Random links: