What is "Social Constructionism"? Explanations sought!

In gender debates, social constructionism (constructivism) often arises.

As far as I gather it means being opposed to having biologically determined traits regarding gender (and perhaps race), and that nobody is born with ingrained attributes.

As such, gender-roles change over time and they are determined by the culture of the moment.
There's no inherent "truth" or existence of gender identity across history and anthropology.
It is all the product of the current culture.

In gay debates this has been around for a long time, and here the debate was influenced by ideological feminism, although apparently radical feminism got it from Marxism and making everybody equal for the class struggle.

I guess it's the old nature/nurture debate.

How do others on ATS feel about social constructionism?

reply to post by halfoldman

The above may be some pretty strong ideas about "social constructionism".
However, there may be stronger and weaker forms of the theory.

Most students or ex-students in humanities' departments might recall it as more friendly terminology.
Actually it could be the crux of academic discourse.
But what does it actually mean?

This this in interesting subject. As for traits not being biologically determined at birth this is clearly wishful thinking on the part of those who wish to push social construction-ism. You are either born a male or female. Even with modern medicine even if you change you physical appearance, however at a biological and genetic level you are either male or female.

As for the cultural aspects of social construction-ism, yes over the course of human history certain cultures such as the Romans and Ancient Greeks for example have tolerated homo-sexuality. And depending on the Era and dominant religion at the time has determined the tolerance level of homo-sexuality.

Social construction-ism roots in Marxism can not be denied. However there are numerous studies on Marxism that Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the basic premises which Karl Marx used when coming up with his theory were base upon false assumptions and woefully inaccurate data that he used to validate his theory.

Up until the late 1960s to the early 1970s homo-sexuality was viewed by medical profession as a disorder or genetic defect. It was not science that determined that homo-sexuality was normal it was a small element in our culture that push for it to be accepted. And today this small vocal minority (less that 2% of the U.S. Population) has had a dramatic impact on our society and homo-sexuality has become more main stream and more accept.

My Personal Opinion is that what to consenting adults decide to do in private is there own business. And as long as they do not force their life style upon other or shove it in the face of others. But I do believe that there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and that line is transgender. You are born male or female. Perhaps one day you will be able to clone a opposite gender version of your self and transplant your consciousness in to a new body. But until that day arrives my tolerance has its limits.

reply to post by JBRiddle

Perhaps social constructionists might say that homosexuality as a sporadic or opportunistic behavior was always around, but the political idea or persona of "the homosexual" was constructed at a certain point in time.

I wouldn't agree with them.

But it has nowadays become constructed as the opposition to the achievement of "being straight".
Yes indeed, it seems that constructing homosexuality as "wicked" has reconstructed simply being "straight" as a moral achievement.

JBRiddle
\As for the cultural aspects of social construction-ism, yes over the course of human history certain cultures such as the Romans and Ancient Greeks for example have tolerated homo-sexuality. And depending on the Era and dominant religion at the time has determined the tolerance level of homo-sexuality.

Suppose is good example, though we have to take into mind how few written sources we have from those times.

I wouldn't say Romans tolerated homosexuality exactly, both Mark Anthony and Caesar had rumors about their sexuality used against them. I would say ... they put up with it and in some circles it was seen as 'okay' for men so long as the man stayed dominant. They didn't have words for homosexuals though and very little information exists about lesbianism.

I guess am bringing it up to highlight how different their toleration of it is from say Western toleration. In some respects, not much has changed. You're not going to get a gay American President in the next five years without something crazy happening.

I suppose this is where my fundamental issue with the idea of social constructivism as a practical theory comes up ... We're not the Greeks or the Romans. As we evolve as creatures the 'truth' of how we 'ought' to be may change over time with our biology and what we're capable of medically and scientifically. It's not a bad thing.

I feel these days the term itself along with moral relativism theory has become a little more than an insult or useful debating technique to throw off an opponent. Rather than deal with the actual discussion at hand it's much easier to say, 'so I suppose you don't believe in objective moral truth' and take the argument down that old path, or accuse your opponent of affronting science with their social constructivist arguments.

The probability of the matter is that at any given time in history there are objective facts about us and our biology even if we can't 100% prove them and, whilst objective facts and knowledge can't really be 'made' by us, our understanding of the world is certainly shared via whatever communication methods we have at any given time.