On Social Construction
We believe that social construction is a concept that is vital to understanding modern politics, whether it be international relations, domestic social policy, or conducting an assessment of a road design. Unfortunately, the concept is often poorly communicated and even more poorly understood. This is a shame, because ideally it would be something taught from a young age.
So what is it?
Social construction is an epistemological standpoint - about how human knowledge works - not an ontological standpoint about material reality. It means that our knowledge of reality is mediated through our social/societal context.
Can you make it a bit simpler?
Think about this sentence. How does it make sense to you? Assuming you aren't using a translating app, it is written in English. For me to able to communicate these words to you we need a common language, and we both need to be able to have a shared understanding of what these words mean.
Let's take some fun examples from Latin American Spanish. "Bicho" is a word that means baitworm/bug. That is, except for in Puerto Rico where it is common slang for penis. The word "culo" can mean "bottom," as in "the bottom of a glass" but in Peru it more regularly refers to "bottom" as in "butt" and is borderline offensive to say. In Guatemala "concha" can mean "conch shell," but in Argentina it is the equivalent of saying "cunt."
You can see how even within the same nominal language, there are all sorts of opportunities for comedic misunderstandings due to different understandings of words.
Is that it?
So that is our starting point. First of all, lets acknowledge that no singular person or body has an objective "ownership" of a language or word. Just because a Puerto Rican might use a word differently to a Colombian doesn't mean one is "wrong." They're just different. The implications of this are fairly profound.
Let's take something like "mountain." We all know what a mountain is, right? Well, do we? Wikipedia gives a basic overview:
A mountain is an elevated portion of the Earth's crust, generally with steep sides that show significant exposed bedrock. Although definitions vary, a mountain may differ from a plateau in having a limited summit area, and is usually higher than a hill, typically rising at least 300 metres (980 ft) above the surrounding land. A few mountains are isolated summits, but most occur in mountain ranges.
When is a mountain not a plateau? When is it not a hill? Are there non-typical mountains rising less than 300m? All of this clearly depends on what definition of "mountain" we are using. Which definition should we use? There is a scientific definitions, there are dictionary definitions, there are colloquial/local definitions. This may seem like pointless pondering at first, but put yourself in the position of someone writing an atlas listing mountain peaks in it. What do you include?
If you ask, "well, which is the right definition?" you are missing the point. The claim that comes from social construction is that there isn't a "right" definition in some objective sense, bestowed upon us by the Gods or etched into the fabric of universe for us to uncover. Rather, the definition of "mountain" is formed by humans for a particular purpose and we communicate this to each other to create some sort of shared understanding. When I write "mountain" you only know what I'm talking about because you've been taught the concept by another person!
So if some towns people lives on a big hilly slope called Mount Mountainous and they all call it a mountain and consider it a mountain, it is a bit superfluous to say "well according to the British Geological Society that is actually a plateau." Especially if this town isn't in British territory.
Instead of a mountain, you might be familiar with the often fraught discussion of "what is a sandwich?"
Knowledge as socially mediated
We have concentrated on language and definitions to start with, but it is important to consider how this helps us shape our broader perceptions of the world. Let's take a more abstract concept such as "justice." People do not learn what "justice" means by simply reading a dictionary definition. Ideological or religious education (or indoctrination), personal upbringing, broad life experiences, etc may all inform someone's sense of justice.
If people have different understandings of "justice" (and we know they do) then it would follow that "justice systems" would be built to be substantially different (and we know they are). It is obvious that a Norwegian sense of justice and justice system is substantially different to an Afghan or North Korean one. The different justice systems are the results of different education systems, different religious beliefs, different media consumption, different political cultures and institutions. All of these, across society and across a person's life helps shape what they view as "justice."
But I'm a moral realist and aren't you as well?
Even if you think the Saudi sense of justice is "objectively" wrong on moral realist grounds, this doesn't run counter to social construction. Claims of moral realism are entering debates about ontology and "fact" rather than "knowledge." If anything, people being "wrong" clearly demonstrates how knowledge is distinct from reality and how knowledge is a consequence of a person's social context!
This is beginning to sound banal and self-evident
Well... yes. I think the majority of confusion around "social construction" is 1) the equating of it with a radical scepticism stance questioning an ontological, material reality, or 2) simply relegating it to the realm of "abstract things" (like justice, but not mountains). As explained above this is wrong because it is an epistemological standpoint about knowledge of a material reality.
So what's your point here?
First and foremost, we wrote this post to be able to easily link whenever we discuss social construction so people can understand what we mean.
Secondly, a key takeaway is that definitions matter a lot but there is no single "right" one. It is useful to look at the "purpose" of a definition as being creating a shared and mutually intelligible understanding to forward a particular end goal. Particularly online, we all tend to get caught up in word games and arguing passed one another because we simply have a different understanding of what is being discussed. Principles of flexibility, benefit-of-the-doubt, and general open-mindedness are necessary.