"Social Construction"

[Meridian]

If I have understood it correctly, a social construction (or "construct"?) is a term referring not to a thing but to a 'concept', something which is socially or conventionally determined. Wikipedia uses 'marriage' as an example.

What I do not agree with, is this: In what way is not "a word" an adequate way to describe the supposed 'social constructs'? Words do not need to refer to physical objects. The idea of social constructs seem to rely on this philosophical need to have every word become an object (like a 'construct').

[Widerstand]

Depending on your definition of "word" this could work. The issue here is that "social construction" is a rather fixed term in Sociology, which is where it's everyday usage is derived from (afaik). Word, for most people, means something very different.

I wouldn't say a social construction is something that has been "determined." It's really what the name says, something that society has constructed. A construction doesn't have to be a concept, it can also be a variety of concepts. An assembly of ideas if you will. Basically everything that can't be traced back to immediate material causes is most likely a construct. For example the fact that apples symbolize lust in some cultures. If you just look at an apple there's no fucking way to arrive there. Marriage is a more clear case, because marriage deals with an abstract object which is immaterial by definition.

[Apoi_Viitor]

In The History of Sexuality Volume 1, Foucault demonstrates that even such a basic human need as sexuality is socially constructed; there is no “pre-social” sex drive.

Sexuality must not be thought of as a kind of natural given which power tries to hold in check, or as an obscure domain which knowledge tries gradually to uncover. It is the name that can be given to a historical construct: not a furtive reality that is difficult to grasp, but a great surface network in which the stimulation of bodies, the intensification of pleasures, the incitement to discourse, the formation of special knowledges, the strengthening of controls and resistances, are linked to one another, in accordance with a few major strategies of knowledge and power. [p. 106]

As I read this then, even if deep down in the human organism there is some need for food, warmth, love and sexual intercourse, psychoanalysis notwithstanding, it has been amply demonstrated that such ‘essential’ drives and needs are buried so deep beneath elastic and socially constructed interpretations, that the constructivist hypothesis is by far the more relevant as opposed to the essentialist, at least for the purposes of understanding modern society. Human beings are their own product; our essence is nothing but the need to negate and produce our own being; humanity is essentially non-essential.

If a person’s needs do not originate in an individual’s ‘inner nature’, but are socially constructed, the same is even more true of cognition, the activity of understanding the world, which is shaped by socially available discourse and objectified in books, artefacts, languages, institutions, etc., etc.

http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/foucault.htm

[Meridian]

I have yet to see a good reason why, for example, marriage is a 'construct'.

As a whole I think words and languages exist socially, quite obviously communicated through the mouth of the utterer and the hand of the writer to the ears of the listener and eyes of the reader. There are new uses of language, and old ones that lose validity. Beyond this what would be the 'domain' of language at all..?


I wouldn't say a social construction is something that has been "determined." It's really what the name says, something that society has constructed.
But saying they have been constructed is a metaphor, no? In reality, words, like "marriage" and all others, only have their meaning through convention of language use..?



As I read this then, even if deep down in the human organism there is some need for food, warmth, love and sexual intercourse, psychoanalysis notwithstanding, it has been amply demonstrated that such ‘essential’ drives and needs are buried so deep beneath elastic and socially constructed interpretations, that the constructivist hypothesis is by far the more relevant as opposed to the essentialist, at least for the purposes of understanding modern society
I agree up to this point, I agree about essentialism. But it seems to me there is an alternative to an 'essentialist' position that is not constructivism.


If a person’s needs do not originate in an individual’s ‘inner nature’, but are socially constructed, the same is even more true of cognition, the activity of understanding the world, which is shaped by socially available discourse and objectified in books, artefacts, languages, institutions, etc., etc.
I agree that needs do not originate from our 'inner nature', but I disagree that the use of words one would characterize as 'needs' are any more socially determined (and not at all 'constructed') than any of the other words. Furthermore, I do not agree that there exists an activity which is to understand the world.

[Widerstand]

I have yet to see a good reason why, for example, marriage is a 'construct'.

As a whole I think words and languages exist socially, quite obviously communicated through the mouth of the utterer and the hand of the writer to the ears of the listener and eyes of the reader. There are new uses of language, and old ones that lose validity. Beyond this what would be the 'domain' of language at all..?


But saying they have been constructed is a metaphor, no? In reality, words, like "marriage" and all others, only have their meaning through convention of language use..?

That words have their meaning through "convention of language use" doesn't disprove the theory of social constructions. The concept described and summarized by "marriage" is a social construction. That a two people form an eternal bond through the doing of some priest is a social construction. That this is called marriage is more or less irrelevant. Parts of these construction are challenged by society - for example that the two people have be of different sexes. Social constructs aren't static.
Gender is another obvious social construction. The "convention of language use" doesn't infer that a woman should be "emotional, caring, whatever". Neither do the physical qualities of a female human. The entire concept of how women or men supposedly think, behave, act, respond, feel, etc. can neither be explained by biology/physics nor by language convention (although it certainly had an influence on language convention, for example the words "manly" or "feminine"). Gender is socially constructed.

[Thirsty Crow]

I have yet to see a good reason why, for example, marriage is a 'construct'.

It is a "construct" since it is not a natural fact like hurricanes are.
Let's construct an example (pun intended:D):

"Marriage is a social construct" vs. "Marriage is a word".

The latter utterance/sentence fails to note the material aspect of marriage. Marriages exist, institutions which conduct these rituals exist, concrete consequences are detectable.
On the other hand, if we were to use "a word", we would lose the connotation of the fact that marriage exist materially in a given society and that it is socially constructed, thus historical and changeable. And it is not a metaphor to maintain that marriage is constructed socially, since it denotes a concrete phenomenon in the world, and this phenomenon is man made, socially made in fact, and it is subject to change.
The connotations of " social construct" and "word" are dissimilar, and one is not suited for fruitful use in the field of social sciences (where the term, "social construct", appears).

However if you were to say that "... 'Marriage' is a word", you would have produced a meaningful utterance (notice the second pair of inverted commas) since you would actually refer to the string of sounds which produce a particular whole which we call a "word".
You may also see how you break one of the conventions of written language - more often than not, the predicate "is a word" appears after the introduction of a word, or term, in inverted commas.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Meridian:


I have yet to see a good reason why, for example, marriage is a 'construct'.

That word wasn't invented by aliens or some 'god', but by humans. So was the practice to which this word relates.


But saying they have been constructed is a metaphor, no?

Much of our language about language is figurative.


But it seems to me there is an alternative to an 'essentialist' position that is not constructivism.

Constructivism is, of course, a theory about language, and as such it falls foul of the sort of things I have argued here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5

But in far more detail here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm

However, it is possible to trace the social history of the practices out of which our use of language has arisen, and it is here that 'social contruction' (as a metaphor) more properly applies. This would represent a looser notion of "theory" (and amount to what us Wittgensteinians calls a 'form of representation' -- or a historically-framed "perspicuous view" of our use of language), which would not fall foul of what I have argued.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I think Menocchio is adverting to the distinction between "use" and "mention":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/use&mention.htm

[Thirsty Crow]

I think Menocchio is adverting to the distinction between "use" and "mention":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/use&mention.htm
Indeed I am referring to this distinction. It is the only instance I can recall of when the predicate "is a word" may be uttered/written in a meaningful manner.
Maybe one other example would be "Love is only a word", but here we have a different connotation (not to mention the important probability of a different linguistic context).

[Meridian]

You may have a point, I am thinking more about how a word, for example "marriage", is used, as opposed to what it means. Its common use is not particularly distinctive of any other word, as far as I can see. If we consider its meaning, I understand wanting to say that there is nothing "natural", "essential" or "congenital" about marriage. This seems to me to be a political point perhaps, rather than one about language.


That word wasn't invented by aliens or some 'god', but by humans. So was the practice to which this word relates.
But are any of our words invented by anyone else? If not, and if this is the reasoning, then every word is a 'construct'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You'll find the classical discussion of this in Plato's Cratylus (which, alas, makes the age-old mistake of thinking all words are names):

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/cratylus.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-cratylus/


But are any of our words invented by anyone else?

Who else is there to invent them?


If not, and if this is the reasoning, then every word is a 'construct'.

It's better to say that every word is conventional, or is a product of social relations/practices.

[Amphictyonis]

Reality is subjective. We should all strive to live in a state of communistic anomie. Pure individualism with an emphasis on cooperation. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A:


Reality is subjective.

If so, then so is that comment. In which case, we can ignore it.

If not, it's wrong anyway.

Either way, we can ignore it...

[Amphictyonis]

A:



If so, then so is that comment. In which case, we can ignore it.

If not, it's wrong anyway.

Either way, we can ignore it...

As I would hope you do if you are trying to live in a state of pure communistic anomie :) Pave your own path. Stay off mine! Social reality is subjective. It is what we make it but there are objective facts here and there. If I shoot myself in the head I will die.

Ayn Rands ghost?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A:


Social reality is subjective. It is what we make it but there are objective facts here and there.

Ooops! Looks like you are trying to report an objective fact about social reality here...:lol:

[Meridian]

Who else is there to invent them?
No one, it was a rhetorical question.


It is what we make it but there are objective facts here and there. If I shoot myself in the head I will die.
Believe it or not, not everyone dies from self-inflicted gunshots to the head (but I wouldn't try).

[Apoi_Viitor]

It's better to say that every word is conventional, or is a product of social relations/practices.

Can you explain this further?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AV:


Can you explain this further?

Since human beings invented their own vocabularies, every word must be conventional (i.e., the product of social practices).

The only viable alternatives are: 1) They were given to us by some 'god' or other, or 2) They are the product of 'natural law'.

1) Apart from the fact that it is manifestly mythical, this is plainly no solution -- it just postpones the problem of the origin of language one more stage. This is because it clearly fails to explain where the 'gods' got their language. If they just invented it, then why can't we? If they didn't, then they must have received it from an outside source, too -- and we end up with an infinite regress.

2) I have subjected this alternative to lengthy criticism here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm

In the latter, use the 'Quick Links' to skip down to Section 6) Language: Social Or Genetic?

Also, use the 'Search' function to find my comments on Chomsky.

The basic argument is that if words are forced on us by an outside source or by 'natural law', then words themselves must tell us what they mean -- since, on both accounts, we do not.

That would transform words into agents (that is, words would have to tell us what they mean, since we do not), and thus turn human beings into passive objects. Of course, that would amount to the fetishisation of words (since it makes them the active agents here, and us the passive patients), and language would no longer be the result of the social interaction of human beings, but would be the result of the social interaction of words.

Language would thus be divorced from our history and would become an expression of the a-historical life or words themselves.

This is similar to the inversion that the 'nature' of human beings undergoes in the hands of religious belief systems -- it takes a social form, turns it upside down and attributes to words themselves what properly belongs to our social development.

Is that any clearer?

[Hit The North]

If I have understood it correctly, a social construction (or "construct"?) is a term referring not to a thing but to a 'concept', something which is socially or conventionally determined. Wikipedia uses 'marriage' as an example.

What I do not agree with, is this: In what way is not "a word" an adequate way to describe the supposed 'social constructs'? Words do not need to refer to physical objects. The idea of social constructs seem to rely on this philosophical need to have every word become an object (like a 'construct').

This is where the incessant philosophy of language approach to issues gets really pitiful and irritating. Not everything is about language! Human relations are not determined solely by language.

Social constructivism is not a theory of language it is a theory of social life, which must necessarily include language, but is not reducible to it.

The idea that marriage is socially constructed is merely to argue that it is an invention of a particular human culture in order to meet the demands of some or (rarely) all human social interests. Engels' work on marriage and private property is informally a social constructivist approach.

We can contrast this with arguments from religion that argue that marriage is ordained by God; or social biologists who argue it is the result of biological, hard-wired, or otherwise innate, tendencies within the species.

[ZeroNowhere]

But all that you're arguing is that the term 'social construct' means a certain thing in this context, ie. a linguistic point.

[Hit The North]

But all that you're arguing is that the term 'social construct' means a certain thing in this context, ie. a linguistic point.

My argument - like any argument - can only take a linguistic form (unless, of course, I also punch you in the head :lol:). But the argument is about how we understand social relations, rituals, institutions, etc. so it is not merely a linguistic argument - or, at least, its consequences are not merely linguistic.

[ZeroNowhere]

My argument - like any argument - can only take a linguistic form (unless, of course, I also punch you in the head :lol:). But the argument is about how we understand social relations, rituals, institutions, etc. so it is not merely a linguistic argument - or, at least, its consequences are not merely linguistic.
Sure, but you were mainly explaining what it meant to say that a certain institution was a social construct, and hence contradicting the claim that the term 'social construct' lacks meaning, or is equivalent to 'word'. Essentially, before debating whether something is a 'social construct', one must establish what a 'social construct' is, that is, how the phrase is to be used. I count the latter as essentially making a linguistic point, while the former may be an argument about an empirical matter. I believe Wittgenstein had compared the latter to essentially setting up the pieces in a chess game, which is not itself a move, although a prerequisite to making one. I took your post as primarily an attempt to clarify the concept of a 'social construct', rather than to argue that certain things are social constructs; the examples given of social constructs served primarily as examples of how the term is used, and what it means in these contexts.

[Hit The North]

ZN:

I count the latter as essentially making a linguistic point, while the former may be an argument about an empirical matter. I believe Wittgenstein had compared the latter to essentially setting up the pieces in a chess game, which is not itself a move, although a prerequisite to making one. I took your post as primarily an attempt to clarify the concept of a 'social construct', rather than to argue that certain things are social constructs; the examples given of social constructs served primarily as examples of how the term is used, and what it means in these contexts.
Ok, I guess that's a pretty accurate description of what I was doing.

But the real point I wanted to make was my dismay at how the OP's approach to the question completely by-passes the political and theoretical implications of the approach(es) based on social constructivism, in favour of pointless linguistic navel-gazing.

My point was that social constructivism is not, as Meridian has it, that "The idea of social constructs seem to rely on this philosophical need to have every word become an object (like a 'construct')". The idea of social constructs relies on the observation that social life is largely socially constructed (and therefore culturally and historically emergent), rather than deriving from outside society in either nature or heaven (and therefore predetermined and eternal).

[Meridian]

My point was that social constructivism is not, as Meridian has it, that "The idea of social constructs seem to rely on this philosophical need to have every word become an object (like a 'construct')". The idea of social constructs relies on the observation that social life is largely socially constructed (and therefore culturally and historically emergent), rather than deriving from outside society in either nature or heaven (and therefore predetermined and eternal).
But I do not dispute this.


You may have a point, I am thinking more about how a word, for example "marriage", is used, as opposed to what it means. Its common use is not particularly distinctive of any other word, as far as I can see. If we consider its meaning, I understand wanting to say that there is nothing "natural", "essential" or "congenital" about marriage. This seems to me to be a political point perhaps, rather than one about language.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


This is where the incessant philosophy of language approach to issues gets really pitiful and irritating. Not everything is about language! Human relations are not determined solely by language.

Nothing is 'determined by language' since language is not a human being.

It's ironic that in trying to make your point about language you find you have to misuse the word 'determine'.


Social constructivism is not a theory of language it is a theory of social life, which must necessarily include language, but is not reducible to it.

1. Who said it was?

2. Can we see your proof that it isn't?

[Amphictyonis]

A:



Ooops! Looks like you are trying to report an objective fact about social reality here...:lol:

Fixed reality is a bourgeois concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_theory

We're all living in bad faith or playing out certian roles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_%28existentialism%29

Ultimate human freedom will happen when we can transcend the social construct. Pure independent consciousness. Heaven? Not sure it's possible. I lack faith. I think we may be doomed to a certain amount of bad faith.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A:


Fixed reality is a bourgeois concept.

Stating objective facts about 'bourgeois' concepts now, I see.


We're all living in bad faith or playing out certian roles.

Is this a 'subjective' view?

If it is, we can ignore it.

If it isn't, then even you believe in objectivity.


Ultimate human freedom will happen when we can transcend the social construct.

Looks like yet another 'objective' statement to me.


Pure independent consciousness. Heaven? Not sure it's possible. I lack faith. I think we may be doomed to a certain amount of bad faith.

Well, we seem to be doomed to a certain amount of bad philosophy from you, that's for sure.

[Hit The North]

[/quote]


btb:

1. Who said it was?





constructivism is, of course, a theory about language, and as such it falls foul of the sort of things i have argued here:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:

My 'Who said it was?' was in fact related to this comment of yours:


but is not reducible to it.

As my second question suggests -- which you have yet to answer.

[Hit The North]

Where's your proof that it is?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Where's your proof that it is?

Since I have neither claimed it is, or it isn't, I do not need to prove anything.

You do.

[Hit The North]

You clearly claim that it is a theory about language. Prove it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


You clearly claim that it is a theory about language. Prove it.

I asked first.

[Hit The North]

BTB:
I asked first.

Yes, but you were the first to make your assertion and because you're a "lady" (but probably in the "Little Britain" sense), and because I'm a chivalrous old sexist, I think you should go first.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Yes, but you were the first to make your assertion and because you're a "lady" (but probably in the "Little Britain" sense), and because I'm a chivalrous old sexist, I think you should go first.

Yes, that's a really impressive 'Marxist' response.:lol:

Anyway, you will find, for example, that 'social constructivism' is, among other things, a theory of language in the following:

Bloor, D., (1983), Wittgenstein. A Social Theory of Knowledge (Macmillan).
--------, (1991), Knowledge And Social Imagery (University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed.).
--------, (1992), 'Left And Right Wittgensteinians', in Pickering (1992), pp.266-82.
--------, (1997), Wittgenstein, Rules And Institutions (Routledge).
Pickering, A., (1992) (ed.), Science As Practice And Culture (University of Chicago Press).

But, especially, Bloor (1983) and (1997).

So, have you even a superficial proof that:


Social constructivism is not a theory of language it is a theory of social life, which must necessarily include language, but is not reducible to it.?

[Hit The North]

So, have you even a superficial proof that:

Social constructivism is not a theory of language it is a theory of social life, which must necessarily include language, but is not reducible to it.
?

Yes, because social constructivism is a theory of social life, so unless you believe that all social life can be reduced to language, then as a theory of society it cannot be reducible to a theory of language.

For a superficial proof, here's a link to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructivism

But then reading even this superficial source it becomes apparent that we cannot substitute the term social contructivism for social constructionism, which is the topic of this thread and the theory I was seeking to address. So my bad for confusing the terms, I suppose.

[Amphictyonis]

A:



Stating objective facts about 'bourgeois' concepts now, I see.



Is this a 'subjective' view?

If it is, we can ignore it.

If it isn't, then even you believe in objectivity.



Looks like yet another 'objective' statement to me.



Well, we seem to be doomed to a certain amount of bad philosophy from you, that's for sure.

Just admit you're an objectivist/secret admirer of Ayn Rand and we can all go home :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Yes, because social constructivism is a theory of social life, so unless you believe that all social life can be reduced to language, then as a theory of society it cannot be reducible to a theory of language.

Was that so difficult?:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A:


Just admit you're an objectivist/secret admirer of Ayn Rand and we can all go home

Not at all. I hate the woman and her whacko ideas. In fact I am neither an objectivist nor a subjectivist.

If you had been here at RevLeft a bit longer, you'd know I am against all philosophical theories, and for reasons set out in this post:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5

I merely posed the questions I did to show that you were obviously confused about your own ideas, in that you professed a subjectivist viewpoint but found you could only do so in what looked like objectivist terms.

As is quite easy to show, all philosophical theses (and not just yours) collapse into non-sense like this.

[Amphictyonis]

A:



Not at all. I hate the woman and her whacko ideas. In fact I am neither an objectivist nor a subjectivist.

If you had been here at RevLeft a bit longer, you'd know I am against all philosophical theories, and for reasons set out in this post:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5

I merely posed the questions I did to show that you were obviously confused about your own ideas, in that you professed a subjectivist viewpoint but found you could only do so in what looked like objectivist terms.

As is quite easy to show, all philosophical theses (and not just yours) collapse into non-sense like this.

I'm not confused at all. I'm completley aware of the fact you're taking yourself very seriously. I'm not a subjectivist at all, I merely stated the obvious- social reality is not some fixed constant. As a Marxist you should know this.

What's your take on the 1968 Paris general strike?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A:


I'm completley aware of the fact you're taking yourself very seriously. I'm not a subjectivist at all, I merely stated the obvious- social reality is not some fixed constant. As a Marxist you should know this.

Well, you said this earlier:


Reality is subjective.

Hence, I think you are so confused, you do not know what you believe!


What's your take on the 1968 Paris general strike?

And the relevance of that is...?

[Amphictyonis]

A:


Well, you said this earlier:



Hence, I think you are so confused, you do not know what you believe!




And the relevance of that is...?

The driving ideological force behind the 68 strike- the SI. What does your profound deep pool of wisdom have to say about it?
EDIT- Sorry for being snarky but you're kinda goading me into it.

[ZeroNowhere]

Whether the SI did or did not exist is purely a matter of taste, evidently.

[Amphictyonis]

Whether the SI did or did not exist is purely a matter of taste, evidently.
First rule of fight club....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A:


The driving ideological force behind the 68 strike- the SI. What does your profound deep pool of wisdom have to say about it?

And what makes you think I want to share such pearls of wisdom with a confused subjectivist like you?


EDIT- Sorry for being snarky but you're kinda goading me into it.

Well, according to you, I'm free to make of this what I want. So, instead of 'goading' you, I think I'm actually praising you to the rafters.:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A:


Actual on topic conversation is to be avoided at all costs.

Again, according to you, I can make of this what I want. In which case: thanks for commending me for staying on topic! :thumbup:


Way to go!

But, it's you who has gone off topic with all that 1968 stuff.

[Amphictyonis]

A:



Again, according to you, I can make of this what I want. In which case: thanks for commending me for staying on topic! :thumbup:



But, it's you who has gone off topic with all that 1968 stuff.

Why would I bring up the situationist international in a discussion concerning the subjectivity of social reality?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A:


Why would I bring up the situationist international in a discussion concerning the subjectivity of social reality?

How should I know what drives a confused subjectivist?

[Meridian]

Why would I bring up the situationist international in a discussion concerning the subjectivity of social reality?
I have no idea what "the subjectivity of social reality" is supposed to mean but this thread was about social constructions.

[Amphictyonis]

I have no idea what "the subjectivity of social reality" is supposed to mean but this thread was about social constructions.
http://books.google.com/books?id=X7s9hvROWjoC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=subjective+social+construction&source=bl&ots=xkTaoMGMXG&sig=d9xbJ6TL1JpXt-Bs6spadXEacYo&hl=en&ei=Pd8HTZayH5C8sQPC_-XbDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&sqi=2&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=subjective%20social%20construction&f=false

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Thanks for the link, but like all such books on this, it seems to be crammed full of objective statements.

[black magick hustla]

the term "social construction" is useful when debating if a particular thing or behavior is biologically motivated or was it borne out of historical circumstances. for example, whether gender is socially constructed - i.e. women are raised to be women - or women naturally behave like women. i dont know the particular flaws of the term itself but i think its a useful term in certain situations

[Hit The North]

http://books.google.com/books?id=X7s9hvROWjoC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=subjective+social+construction&source=bl&ots=xkTaoMGMXG&sig=d9xbJ6TL1JpXt-Bs6spadXEacYo&hl=en&ei=Pd8HTZayH5C8sQPC_-XbDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&sqi=2&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=subjective%20social%20construction&f=false


The passages in that book seems to be confused about the word 'subjectivity'. If "subjective meanings" are socially constructed, they are not "subjective". They are, at least, inter-subjective.

[Meridian]

The passages in that book seems to be confused about the word 'subjectivity'. If "subjective meanings" are socially constructed, they are not "subjective". They are, at least, inter-subjective.
It also seems to confuse anthropomorphizing with "to give meaning to", and that things can have their own meaning.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Like many others, they are also operating with a very narrow sense of meaning (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1938475&postcount=3).

[Amphictyonis]

the term "social construction" is useful when debating if a particular thing or behavior is biologically motivated or was it borne out of historical circumstances. for example, whether gender is socially constructed - i.e. women are raised to be women - or women naturally behave like women. i dont know the particular flaws of the term itself but i think its a useful term in certain situations

I was going to ask Rosa's views on gender roles. If she believes biological determinism then that sucks and if she doesn't then must concede the subjectivity of the social construct.

I either event I don't think I care. Thats an objective statement :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A:


I was going to ask Rosa's views on gender roles. If she believes biological determinism then that sucks and if she doesn't then must concede the subjectivity of the social construct.

In fact, as I have told you several times, I reject all philosophical theories (as just so much hot air).

On determinism:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1575116&postcount=1

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=894937&postcount=2

On Philosophy in general:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5


In either event I don't think I care. Thats an objective statement

Nice to see a sinner repenting...:)

[Amphictyonis]

A:



In fact, as I have told you several times, I reject all philosophical theories (as just so much hot air).


I reject the objectivity of the social construct. It was once acceptable for people to eat human beings. Once socially normal for witches to be burned. Some human societies thought it OK to drop nuclear bombs on millions of people.

The social construct, by in large, is determined by the ruling class of any given society. It's subjective. The social construct is built on objective or material facts such as the relation of each person to the means of production but the tangible physical connection to social "reality" ends there.


Objective= physics. Subjective= social construction

"economies are social relations of our own creation"
B7G4WIa-HAk

[ZeroNowhere]

You seem to be acting as if you were putting forth a substantive proposition as a negation to another one, rather than a trivial linguistic point. Of course, if the negation of a proposition is nonsensical, then it's either a linguistic point (and hence not substantive, but rather effectively tautological, along the lines of 'bachelors are unmarried') or nonsensical itself. In that case, please explain what it would mean for it to be objectively right to burn witches. If nothing, then the negation, "It is not objectively right to burn witches," is not, in fact, the rejection of a certain viewpoint or proposition, because its negation makes no sense; rather, inasmuch as it is supposed to be an empirical proposition, it is nonsense itself. You are certainly not 'rejecting' the objectivity of the social construct, in that case.

[Amphictyonis]

You seem to be acting as if you were putting forth a substantive proposition as a negation to another one, rather than a trivial linguistic point. Of course, if the negation of a proposition is nonsensical, then it's either a linguistic point (and hence not substantive, but rather effectively tautological, along the lines of 'bachelors are unmarried') or nonsensical itself. In that case, please explain what it would mean for it to be objectively right to burn witches. If nothing, then the negation, "It is not objectively right to burn witches," is not, in fact, the rejection of a certain viewpoint or proposition, because its negation makes no sense; rather, inasmuch as it is supposed to be an empirical proposition, it is nonsense itself. You are certainly not 'rejecting' the objectivity of the social construct, in that case.

Good lord am I on acid or is there a giant semantics monster in the room :) Big scary claws and sharp teeth.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A:


I reject the objectivity of the social construct. It was once acceptable for people to eat human beings. Once socially normal for witches to be burned. Some human societies thought it OK to drop nuclear bombs on millions of people.

These all ook pretty objective to me. Or, are you suggesting that it is up to you to decide that people were once cannibals?


The social construct, by in large, is determined by the ruling class of any given society. It's subjective. The social construct is built on objective or material facts such as the relation of each person to the means of production but the tangible physical connection to social "reality" ends there.

But, much of what the ruling class says is objective and false -- some of it is objective and true; for example, that the Queen of England is Sovereign in Parliament.


Objective= physics. Subjective= social construction

In that case, it is subjective that:


Subjective= social construction

And we can ignore it as an idiosyncratic foible of yours.

"economies are social relations of our own creation"

Yet another objective statement!

You see why I said you were confused.

[ZeroNowhere]

Good lord am I on acid or is there a giant semantics monster in the room :) Big scary claws and sharp teeth.
I"m not the one asserting that I deny the jabberwockiness of the rathy glibstrokes.

[Hit The North]

Amphyctyonis

It would be advisable if you dropped reference to the 'subjective' as it gives the impression that the starting point for social behaviour is in the subjective interpretation of individuals. Clearly, the notion of a socially constructed reality points to the determination of behaviour existing 'out there' in our social relations, social institutions, cultural norms, etc.

It is a truism of sociology that human culture and society is variable across time and space but this is a far cry from suggesting that individuals are free to subjectively interpret their social lives. As Marx argues, we are the ensemble of our social relations, but cannot freely select the social relations which make us.

[Amphictyonis]

Amphyctyonis

It would be advisable if you dropped reference to the 'subjective' as it gives the impression that the starting point for social behaviour is in the subjective interpretation of individuals. Clearly, the notion of a socially constructed reality points to the determination of behaviour existing 'out there' in our social relations, social institutions, cultural norms, etc.

It is a truism of sociology that human culture and society is variable across time and space but this is a far cry from suggesting that individuals are free to subjectively interpret their social lives. As Marx argues, we are the ensemble of our social relations, but cannot freely select the social relations which make us.

I don't argue there isn't a objective reality based in material conditions I argue the social construct is subjective and is based in the changeable material reality. As a fan of historical materialism it would be silly of me to deny the fact the various human social constructs have been determined by our relation to the means of production. I don't think we're absolutely free no way no how my use of the term subjective means fluid- not fixed. Physics would be subjective if the laws of physics changed every 50 years yes? Have not human social systems changed? Are they fixed in one standard fact?

Have you heard of the socialization hypothesis? Even within this objective material reality various people will see the world in various ways depending on their relation to the means of production. This is my point. Drop the word subjective if it makes you feel happy :) I'm not some deconstructionist or postmodernist.

[Amphictyonis]

I hereby declare this thread a load of subjective tallywonk being dragged through muck by a giant mechanical dildo which was made in a workers coop in Argentina. This post is kinda spamish and I'll probably get an infraction. I've lost interest in the topic. Sorry :)

Have you guys seen this video?

Edited out - 12-18-10 Dean

Another worker looses it after his families access to the means of sustenance was denied. His material conditions effected the way he saw the world. He chose to die while others can choose to fight and change the world. This is the Marxist socialization hypothesis in a nut shell.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Still showing your very naughty objectivist tendencies, I see...

[Amphictyonis]

^^^Still showing your very naughty objectivist tendencies, I see...

Yes Rosa- objective material conditions exist. Oppression exists. Class society exists. Capitalists exist. These things aren't like the laws of physics- they can be changed.

Do you think a nation state is an objective object, a thing, or a subjective construct of the human mind?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A:


Yes Rosa- objective material conditions exist. Oppression exists. Class society exists. Capitalists exist. These things aren't like the laws of physics- they can be changed.

But, if you believe in 'social construction', then those comments of yours were 'socially constructed', too, and are thus subjective. [Unless, of course, you were either born on a uninhabited planet, or were raised by wolves...] But they look objective.

As I said, you are somewhat confused.


Do you think a nation state is an objective object or a subjective construct of the human mind?

I reject the (theoretical) use of 'objective' and 'subjective'. I only use them here in order to show how useless they are, and how they lead comrades like you into hopless confusion.

[Amphictyonis]

But, if you believe in 'social construction', then those comments of yours were 'socially constructed', too, and are thus subjective.

I'm sure if I were a man, lets say born into Nazi Germany, I'd have different views. Would my racist antisemitic views be objective truth?

EDIT- Dean, global moderator is stern, stern but fair.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A:


I'm sure if I were a man, lets say born into Nazi Germany, I'd have different views. Would my racist antisemitic views be objective truth?

This is a 'socially constructed' question, and, if you are right, it must be 'subjective', too.

[Hit The North]

Amphictyonis,

This is why you should drop the term 'subjective' and stop conflating it with the term 'socially constructed':


A:
This is a 'socially constructed' question, and, if you are right, it must be 'subjective', too.

:rolleyes:

[Apoi_Viitor]

I'm sure if I were a man, lets say born into Nazi Germany, I'd have different views. Would my racist antisemitic views be objective truth?

No, it would be
in bad faith

[Dean]

I hereby declare this thread a load of subjective tallywonk....

Edited - Warning for trolling. I don't care how petty you think a thread has become - this hyperbole won't be tolerated. 12-18-10

[Apoi_Viitor]

I reject the (theoretical) use of 'objective' and 'subjective'. I only use them here in order to show how useless they are, and how they lead comrades like you into hopless confusion.

Can you explain why those words are useless in relation to Amphictyonis' question?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apoi, I have just spent the last hour writing an explanation, but just as I was completing it, my computer crashed, and I lost it all!

I really do not have the heart to write it all again, but you can read a full explanation here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13%2001.htm

Use the 'Quick Links' at the top to skip to Section 5) 'Objectivity'.

Make sure you also read the footnotes, since they are integral to my argument.

[turquino]

Making a distinction between the objective and the subjective seems to be a hold over from Platonism. This is the idea that objective truths sit out there in the world of the forms to be discovered by reason, while subjective belief comes from the common-day world of appearances and perception. Deflating this ancient metaphysical doctrine isn't to adopt wholesale idealism. Things can still be said to 'exist' even if that existence comes from language rather than some quality of otherness. The socially constructed world is the only one we've got, so we can't be subjective about the existence of rocks or homo sapiens like we can about whether Harry Potter books are worth reading.

[Luís Henrique]

If she believes biological determinism then that sucks and if she doesn't then must concede the subjectivity of the social construct.

Hm, no.

Let's take for granted that gender roles are social constructs, and that there is nothing biologically determined about them (we are probably closer to truth if we do so, anyway). Gender roles are still not subjective: it is not a question of mere opinion that the majority of people in the world behaves along the lines prescribed by gender roles. This is an objective fact. So there is no incompatibility between social constructs and objectivity.

It is common to see people saying things like "it doesn't exist, it is a mere social construct". But there is nothing "mere" about social constructs; they are quite compellingly objective - as you will realise if you try to live without that "mere social construct", money.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Do you think a nation state is an objective object, a thing, or a subjective construct of the human mind?

Can I cross the border between two different nation states without a passport with no risk of being jailed for trying? If no, how are they simply subjective constructs?

Don't they go to war against each other so often, resulting in thousands of deaths, and very objective destruction of property? Or are such deaths and destruction subjective?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Let's take for granted that gender roles are social constructs, and that there is nothing biologically determined about them (we are probably closer to truth if we do so, anyway). Gender roles are still not subjective: it is not a question of mere opinion that the majority of people in the world behaves along the lines prescribed by gender roles. This is an objective fact. So there is no incompatibility between social constructs and objectivity.

Sure, but this just shows how useless the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' really are.