This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Social constructionism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
constructionism because it is an action not just the abstract ideology Why should the term0 " social construct" redirect here rather than, say, Social constructivism? FatalSubjectivities ( talk) 12:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
"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)
definition of what a social construct iscan 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)
...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)
how to make social constructivism visible for all entities involved and how can we make all entities feel like they belong to a bigger group and make them feel seen and heard and felt. and show the actions 82.217.10.58 ( talk) 18:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Social constructionism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
constructionism because it is an action not just the abstract ideology Why should the term0 " social construct" redirect here rather than, say, Social constructivism? FatalSubjectivities ( talk) 12:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
"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)
definition of what a social construct iscan 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)
...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)
how to make social constructivism visible for all entities involved and how can we make all entities feel like they belong to a bigger group and make them feel seen and heard and felt. and show the actions 82.217.10.58 ( talk) 18:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)