- Understanding social structures questions
- Macrosociology vs microsociology
- Social institutions
- Social institutions - education, family, and religion
- Social institutions - government, economy, health and medicine
- Conflict theory
- Social constructionism
- Symbolic interactionism
- Rational choice-exchange theory
- Social theories overview (part 1)
- Social theories overview (part 2)
- Relating social theories to medicine
- What are social groups and social networks?
Social constructionism observes how the interactions of individuals with their society and the world around them gives meaning to otherwise worthless things and creates the reality of the society. By Sydney Brown. Created by Sydney Brown.
Want to join the conversation?
- Any good resources for more on this topic?(15 votes)
- Horrible video. Terrible explanation(10 votes)
- Is social constructionism considered micro, macro, or both?(6 votes)
- social constructionism is considered either macro or micro(1 vote)
- Strong social constructionism entails that strong social constructionism itself is a social construct. Does this undermine the theory?(3 votes)
- Perhaps not; being a social construct does not make something unreal, it just mean that the entity's reality is socially constructed. If so, even though strong social constructionism is created by humans etc. and therefore is a social construct, it does not claim to exist outside of its social context, and it does not necessarily invalidate itself.(3 votes)
- Can someone explain/provide an example of how social constructionism does not consider the effects of natural phenomena?(2 votes)
- This is how I interpreted it:
A tsunami's effect is unrelated to social ideas or concepts that we may have constructed through our lens. The entity of a tsunami doesn't seek to be explained by social concepts.
As opposed to death-- where we try to understand what it means to "die" in the context of life as we defined it. Or atoms being created by subatomic particles based on electrostatic interactions, but what if electrostatic interactions are described as such because that's the only way we can understand it?
IDK it's kind of a BS theory imo and it's just overcomplicating things for the sake of making things complicated. Arguing something for the sake of arguing it(3 votes)
- I am confused about the brute facts. Very confused. Would the theorie of why subatomic particles act the way they act be a brute fact, and then the fact that that theorie exists? Also, would the world of a deaf/blind/mute person consist purely of brute facts, as it can not interact with the outside world?(2 votes)
- Just a guess but when she said natural phenomena, it looks like she drew a tornado. So I think she is using the term in the way we are used to seeing it - it is not a new sociology term.(1 vote)
- who is the founder of social constructionism?(2 votes)
- lol why quarks as opposed to gravity or electrostatics as brute facts. I would assume a lessened familiarity with quarks so it may be confusing.(1 vote)
- Is social constructionism the same thing as social constructivism?(1 vote)
- Is this theory considered classical or contemporary?(1 vote)
I'm sure everyone has thought at some time, is this real? But the important question is what makes something real? Most of the time the things we experience in this world are just constructs. We have opinions about everything, and we experience the world through that lens. Social constructionism is a theory that knowledge and many aspects of the world around us are not real in and of themselves. They only exist because we give them reality through social agreement. Things like nations, books, even money don't exist in the absence of human society. Nations are groups of people who happen to share a language or history. Books are paper with scribbles. And money is just pieces of paper and metal that have no value other than what we have assigned them. The concept of the self can be considered a social construct, too. Our identity is created by interactions with other people and our reactions to the expectations of society. There are two threads of social constructionism, the weak and the strong. Weak social constructionism proposes that social constructs are dependent on brute facts, which are the most basic and fundamental and don't rely on any other facts. Brute facts are kind of difficult to understand because it is so strange to think about something that can't be explained by something else. So for example, take the computer screen you're looking at. Your screen works because of changing voltages and bits of metal, which can be explained by movements of subatomic particles, which are made from quarks, so on and so forth. None of those are brute facts. The brute fact is what explains quarks or what explains the explanation of quarks. Those brute facts are separate from institutional facts which are created by social conventions and do rely on other facts. So for example, money depends on the paper that we have given value. Strong social constructionism, on the other hand, states that the whole of reality is dependent on language and social habits, that all knowledge is a social construct, and that there are no brute facts. So it would say that we created the idea of quarks and everything we use to explain it. There are no facts that just exist. The main criticism to social constructionism is that it doesn't consider the effect of natural phenomenon on society. And, at least for strong social constructionism, it even has difficulty explaining those phenomena because they don't depend on human speed or action. Strong social constructionism only explains reality through the thoughts of humans, not by using fundamental brute facts.