No social theorist I know would say "no." These ideas are not arbitrary, even if they are created by (and for!) social entities (people).
-
It reminds us that to create, convince, maintain truths requires an entire social apparatus. What we call "the scientific community."
What it does not do is say, "scientific facts are arbitrary." That is not what social construction means.
-
-
It is unfortunate that many people think it means that. I suspect most have not read the works they claim to criticize.
-
Which is ironically not very scientific! /thread
-
One last little thing: here's another way to think about it. Are nuclear weapons themselves social constructs?
-
In the sense meant by social construction, yes. They are created by society, by social practices. They certainly don't just grow on trees.
-
They are made to satisfy certain social goals, of certain societies. Over time, those goals have shifted a bit—hence the weapons have, too.
-
Their creation, deployment, and use are all dictated by social practices. And indeed, the weapons themselves may dictate some practices—
-
for example, they tend to require secrecy in the organizations that create them.
-
Does that make the weapons not real? Of course not. They're real. Society making something doesn't make it non-real.
-
Money is a social construct — but you still have to pay the bills.
-
Race is a social construct — a fact that won't help you if you're an African-American in a dodgy traffic stop.
-
Just because things are social constructs doesn't mean they can't have power or be real in the world. Social construction ≠ solipsism.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Is it possible that this is what is meant in some discussions or, at least, carelessly implied?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.