Burr (1995) explains that “the categories with which we as human beings apprehend the world do not necessarily refer to real divisions”. Burr also gives the example of gender divisions and questions the importance that we as humans donate to gender. This is a fundamental argument within the social sciences and even science itself as it can be argued that all behaviour performed by men and women is the result of social constructionism. As Lester (2002) notes, “while biology may play a part in male and female behaviour, society plays an equal or even stronger role in influencing the extent to which men and women adopt masculine or feminine characteristics”. For example, women are brought up to be caring, polite, and conscientious, and encouraged to take pride in their appearance, however males are brought up to be aggressive, loud and boisterous. This is supported by the study conducted by Victoria Holdsworth who observed and interviewed primary school children in 4 schools; the findings showed that boys saw themselves as strong, brave, intelligent-the provider and protector. Girls saw themselves as being mature, responsible, multi-skilled but physically weak and needing protection. What is important to note however, is that gender inequalities can vary in different cultures and also change over time it is not something which is static. For example, Women can now participate in the political and economic sphere. It used to be believed in Europe that women were not capable of being educated.
(Crawley et al 2008: 6).
It is inevitable that social constructionism will be doubted and underpinned by critics. For example it was critiqued by John Cromby (1999) that social constructionism produces more questions than answers. “We must begin to integrate our knowledge of the processes of social construction with that from other disciplines. We must find ways of talking and writing about the world, instead of questioning its existence” This is important because it causes question over the future for social constructionism. Although it has a substantial amount of research behind the theory and it has contributed largely to the understanding of social inequalities; is this knowledge capable of changing these inequalities? Gender is such an institutionalised and layered concept that it is possible to believe that it may never change. This view is especially supported by the theoretical stance of essentialism. Essentialism is primarily a philosophical term which refers to the view that there are necessary properties of things, that are logically prior to the existence of the individuals which instantiate them, and that their classification depends upon their satisfaction of sets of necessary conditions (Popper 1969). Thus, a person’s gender constitutes an unchangeable “essence” rather than a socially constructed characteristic. Scientific approaches to society such as positivism (Comte 1847) would disagree with the interventions of social constructionism as they view all knowledge as being scientific and that all things are measurable. Also, in the eyes of the scientific world, social constructionism fails to recognise that actually there can be divine, empirical facts within society. For example the molecular system or that we need oxygen to breathe; some aspects of social constructionism can be quite broad.
Social constructionism does however contribute to our understanding of social inequalities, despite the critics. For example, through the writings of such soc-con sociologists like Burr (1995) and Hacking we can “take a critical stance towards our taken-for granted ways of understanding the world”. It becomes clear by reading the social constructionist literature that we do unconsciously take for granted the everyday interactions and routines of our lives. So in this sense social constructionism helps us to recognise this. Burr places great emphasis on language as a key catalyst for social constructionism; “when people talk to each other, the world gets constructed.
In this essay I have attempted to draw upon the theme of gender inequalities to explain the social constructionist approach. In conclusion, it is apparent that language plays a key role in the on-going process of social constructionism. It has also come into question that the future for the possibilities in which social constructionism can expand to is unclear.
Reference List
Gender and the social construction of illness. Judith Lober, Lisa Jean Moore Altmira press
Peter Berger the social constructionism of reality
Anthony giddens sociology
Vivien burr an introduction to social constructionism
john cromby and david mightingale “social constructionist psychology: a critical analysis of theory and practice” Buckingham open university pres 1999.
– schooling beyond stereotypes author Victoria holdsworth 13 nov 2007
