Questioning The Redirect to this page. 'social construct' --> constructivism or constructionism?[edit]

Why should the term0 "social construct" redirect here rather than, say, Social constructivism? FatalSubjectivities (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the page social constructs. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might be possible to create a WP:DABPAGE instead of a redirect. Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
noted FatalSubjectivities (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
social constructivism is a theory by Jean Piaget about how we learn; not about the nature of reality and how we come to know it, which is social constructionism. althought this distinction is difficult to determine because most people conflate the terms, which is evidence of the state of the academy. So a social construct is an item we know through engaing as a society with the phenomenon as such it ought to re-direct here. *a cis woman growing a philosopher's beard MichelleGDyason 08:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disambiguation is for getting a user to the right place. Conflation and confusion are both supporting arguments for creating a DAB page, and maybe it's time to do that, now. Mathglot (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Heartfield[edit]

Is this really the best source available for the opening paragraph? Heartfield is an obscure figure in academia associated with the rather cranky RCP/spiked online set. 2A00:23C6:8A17:4201:68C0:6CAB:FD1D:7B6B (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the intro paragraph[edit]

"In the fields of sociology, social ontology, and communication theory, social constructionism is a framework that proposes that certain ideas about physical reality arise from collaborative consensus, instead of the pure observation of said physical reality". Framework is a vague metaphor used here to define the doctrine or theory of social constructionism. It should be replaced with either theory or doctrine. Further, does sociology even study notions of ontology? maybe the ontology of society, but not the nature of reality. Is social ontology within sociology or philosophy? i don't know a lot about sociology, but i'd like to, so this claim that social constructionism is a framework used in sociology needs to be cited so i could learn about it, likewise communication theory.


"The theory of social constructionism proposes that people collectively develop the meanings (denotations and connotations) of social constructs". Firstly, denotations and connotations ought to be linked to their definitions, which i think you'll find within semiology, not social constructionism. Secondly, there is discussion in philosophy of who is doing the constructing: an impersonal society or particular persons. So in the quoted sentence, the discussion is solved without reference to the discussion so misleading about the absolute nature of the doctrine. Further, after that quoted sentence, a definition of what a social construct is ought to be given not what is given which i quote next below.


"Social constructionism has been characterised as a neo-Marxian theory and as a neo-Kantian theory, proposing that social constructionism replaces the transcendental subject with a societal concept that is descriptive and normative." Within this sentence is a contradiction. It states social constructionism is a theory, not the above-mentioned framework. Also, Marx and Kant are philosophers, not sociologists, which suggests that the topic is a philosophical topic first, or at least ought to be included as something philosophy discusses.

that's all i have time for presently *a cis woman growing a philosopher's beard MichelleGDyason 09:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to respond first that social constructionism is, in fact, better understood as a "framework" than either a "theory" or a "doctrine", and should also be easily referenced as a "framework". (In my own view, "theory" implies a placement of social constructionism on one side of the "falsifiable/non-falsifiable" boundary, and "doctrine" implies placement on the other side, but neither placement should be made based on the extant sourcing, especially not in wikivoice).
Also, in a disciplinary sense Sociology includes the speech community within social theory that is the primary site where social ontology is written about, which I hope answers that other question raised in the first paragraph.
To the second paragraph, I'm not sure how a definition of what a social construct is can be given in any straightforward way, since for one thing social constructionists seldom agree with their critics about what a social construct is and how such constructs can be identified and understood. On the other hand, the "has been characterized as" statements the third paragraph points to are more viable, in relation to this literature, than declarative statements in wikivoice are likely to be. At least that is my impression... Newimpartial (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lead and the Criticism section[edit]

...seem to be talking about two very different things. Would Alan Sokal and Paul Boghossian really argue that money is not a social construct? Of course not. So clearly the idea of social construction is a valid one. The actual, intellectually serious debates are rather about where one draws the line between socially constructed realities and those studied by the "hard sciences". It's therefore unfortunate to see people like Sokal and Boghossian using the term "social constructionism" to refer only to the most extreme positions of those few who would deny the validity of hard science entirely. I'm sure there are some secondary source out there that make this clear, and when I have time to hunt them down I will be conducting a rather thorough overhaul of the article. If anyone has else has knowledge of this literature and would like to help, I would welcome collaboration! Generalrelative (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure I have deep knowledge of the topic. I'd just point at medical diagnosis as quite an interesting area since you have constructs that move in and out of socially constructed and biomedical over time due to culturally change and more scientific evidence (e.g. gulf war syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome etc). Talpedia 13:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, there is really so much to say about this topic (and the related topic of Conventionalism, which is another article that is in a sorry state). It is, for instance, one of the central issues that occupied Einstein his entire life. Suffice it to say, the relationship between socially constructed conventions and objective reality is a far, far more intellectually serious question than one might suspect looking at the present state of the article. Generalrelative (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting stuff. Do you think some web building might be a good starting point - as it's quite easy to to do, lets readers explore the full topic, and lays the ground work for other editors to see the connections and add material. I did this sort of stuff on questions of self (Template:Self_sidebar) Talpedia 18:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, I'll look into it. Meanwhile, I see that the SEP has a completely adequate article on the topic: "Naturalistic Approaches to Social Construction". That's just the kind of WP:TERTIARY source we should be referencing when determining what is DUE here. Generalrelative (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like a good addition :thumbsup: Talpedia 09:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather than attacking this article head-on (which I may yet do at a later date), I went ahead an BOLDly created a stub on the less controversial topic Social construct. Generalrelative (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. I guess the Social construct can be quite "interdisciplinary". One thing I'm sort of aware of is that few things are actually "social constructs" it feels more like... everything is constrained physically and socially (sometimes over constrained) and then people pick the theory and the "ontology" that best balances these various constraints... so in a sense I don't think there *are* pure social constructs. Talpedia 10:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would suggest checking out Searle's book. It's about as middle-of-the-road mainstream as one can get and it deals squarely with what you're thinking about. Or if you're unconvinced that even my "simple" examples are in fact social constructs, see the first 10 pages of Elder-Vass's book. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will have a look. I guess my take is that *everything* is a social construct and there are no natural kinds Talpedia 15:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, look at Searle. Rereading for this has reminded me why he was the dominant voice of his generation in American philosophy. Doesn't mean I always agree either, but he's a masterful writer. Generalrelative (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories