Talk:Social constructionism

the intro paragraph

"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)

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)

social constructivism is an act (actions)not a theory 82.217.10.58 (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

political struggles

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)