Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 9:55 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Social construct.
#1
Social construct.
I've seen some examples of what a social construct is using Google.

It seems fairly simple but I've come to a conclusion I can't think of much that isn't a social construct.

For example with a tree, I don't think there's an exact precise definition of when a dead tree stops being a tree or when a tree becomes a tree and stops being a seed.

Pretty much all definitions are based on one person communicating to another person vaguely what something is. Even if it's a precise explanation by normal social standards.

Am I missing the point of what a social construct is or has anyone got an obvious example of a non social construct.


Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.

Impersonation is treason.





Reply
#2
RE: Social construct.
(December 19, 2022 at 10:18 pm)paulpablo Wrote: For example with a tree, I don't think there's an exact precise definition of when a dead tree stops being a tree or when a tree becomes a tree and stops being a seed.

As with all life, trees have a unique DNA sequence, as individuals, as particular tree species and as trees and plants overall. Living trees have metabolic activity; dead trees do not, except for the decomposers who are feeding upon their remains.
Reply
#3
RE: Social construct.
(December 19, 2022 at 10:18 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I've seen some examples of what a social construct is using Google.

It seems fairly simple but I've come to  a conclusion I can't think of much that isn't a social construct.

For example with a tree, I don't think there's an exact precise definition of when a dead tree stops being a tree or when a tree becomes a tree and stops being a seed.

Pretty much all definitions are based on one person communicating to another person vaguely what something is.  Even if it's a precise explanation by normal social standards.

Am I missing the point of what a social construct is or has anyone got an obvious example of a non social construct.

I'd say that there are obvious empirical facts which are not socially constructed. For example, the fact that the earth is round.

"This rock is heavier than that rock," is not socially constructed. On the other hand "this rock (a diamond) is more valuable than that rock (limestone)," is socially constructed, because value, price, etc., depend on a general measure of what people in a society are willing to pay. Money itself is socially constructed -- which is not to say that it's not real.

Tentatively, I wonder if a test for this would be to ask: "could it be different, if society were different?" Economics could be different, but water being H₂O couldn't.

Marxists have written about what they call "second nature," which for them refers to social constructs which seem so inevitable and so deeply embedded that they appear to us as non-socially-constructed as physical things. Capitalists, for example, will argue that capitalism is completely natural, given the basic character of the human animal. If in fact capitalism is a social construct, then there are alternatives. 

Some of the controversies we hear about these days boil down to whether something is socially constructed or not. People who opposed gay marriage, for example, thought that marriage is determined by biology. Others, who thought marriage laws could be changed, see it as social construction. Current debates about gender break down along the same boundaries.
Reply
#4
RE: Social construct.
(December 19, 2022 at 10:18 pm)paulpablo Wrote: For example with a tree, I don't think there's an exact precise definition of when a dead tree stops being a tree or when a tree becomes a tree and stops being a seed.

It's a bit science-fictionish, but I can imagine a society which defines trees differently than we do.

We all know that a tree can't exist in isolation. There are no trees without soil, water, light, air, etc. A very ecologically-minded society might draw the boundaries differently than we do, and refuse to refer to a tree separate from its full panoply of necessary interactions. It doesn't work very well in English, but not every society uses the same terms we do.
Reply
#5
RE: Social construct.
(December 19, 2022 at 10:31 pm)Jehanne Wrote:
(December 19, 2022 at 10:18 pm)paulpablo Wrote: For example with a tree, I don't think there's an exact precise definition of when a dead tree stops being a tree or when a tree becomes a tree and stops being a seed.

As with all life, trees have a unique DNA sequence, as individuals, as particular tree species and as trees and plants overall.  Living trees have metabolic activity; dead trees do not, except for the decomposers who are feeding upon their remains.

I think you've given a reasonable boundary for calling a tree dead or alive.

But there's still the question of whether a dead tree is still a tree.

"What's that you were carrying?" "A tree." "Was it alive?" "No, it was dead." 

Treeness, and whether it requires the thing to be alive, is probably socially constructed. As well as the Sorites paradox of when it goes from seed to tree, or whether a particular plant is a bush or a tree, etc. 

Philosophers of language talk about different ways of classifying animals and plants. So some plants are distinguished by their DNA, but the category "weed" is defined by society. Likewise you can tell the difference between animal species scientifically, but the category "pet" is a social construction.
Reply
#6
RE: Social construct.
(December 19, 2022 at 11:04 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
(December 19, 2022 at 10:31 pm)Jehanne Wrote: As with all life, trees have a unique DNA sequence, as individuals, as particular tree species and as trees and plants overall.  Living trees have metabolic activity; dead trees do not, except for the decomposers who are feeding upon their remains.

Likewise you can tell the difference between animal species scientifically, but the category "pet" is a social construction.

Biologists have excellent answers to these questions. A pet is a nonhuman animal that lives with or at least among humans, in a dependent (or, in the case of cats, a feigned dependent) relationship such that the animal in question would likely die of natural causes if the humans did not continue to provide for them.
Reply
#7
RE: Social construct.
Social constructs are largely determined by language, which is itself a social construct.

Reply
#8
RE: Social construct.
(December 20, 2022 at 12:51 am)Jehanne Wrote: A pet is a nonhuman animal that lives with or at least among humans, in a dependent (or, in the case of cats, a feigned dependent) relationship such that the animal in question would likely die of natural causes if the humans did not continue to provide for them.

Is this some kind of official definition? Is there a scientist's glossary? 

Because some pets do quite well on their own if they happen to escape.
Reply
#9
RE: Social construct.
(December 19, 2022 at 10:18 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I've seen some examples of what a social construct is using Google.

It seems fairly simple but I've come to  a conclusion I can't think of much that isn't a social construct.

For example with a tree, I don't think there's an exact precise definition of when a dead tree stops being a tree or when a tree becomes a tree and stops being a seed.

Pretty much all definitions are based on one person communicating to another person vaguely what something is.  Even if it's a precise explanation by normal social standards.

Am I missing the point of what a social construct is or has anyone got an obvious example of a non social construct.

in so far as “things” and “sets” are cognitive constructs,  regardless of whether it seems to us such construct is “natural”, and human cognition is largely informed through social interaction, it is true all “things” and “set” as we think of the them are largely socially informed cognitive constructs.

in natural certain subset of animals are capable of freely interbreeding even though the boundary of most such subsets are in reality more fuzzy than we think.    but that such a population constitute a “species” is a social construct
Reply
#10
RE: Social construct.
(December 19, 2022 at 10:18 pm)paulpablo Wrote: It seems fairly simple but I've come to  a conclusion I can't think of much that isn't a social construct.

Probably Nietzsche is the one who takes the idea of the social construct about as far as it can go. For him, what we perceive has always already been analyzed and categorized according to societal norms more or less as soon as we're aware of it.

So for example, you don't step outside your door and think, "hmm, here is a smooth flat gray surface that goes pretty far in two directions. This will be useful for me as I walk to where I want to go." That's how we would think if we had no predetermined social categorization in our minds. But as it is, you step out of your house, you're vaguely aware that the sidewalk is still there, and you start walking. No original thought or analysis is required, and you certainly don't stop to consider the concreteness of the path.  

You can do a test with your students. Once they're settled into the classroom, have them look up at the ceiling. Then ask them what color are the chairs they're sitting in. Surprisingly often, they don't know. They looked just enough to sit down without falling on the floor, but no more. What they perceived was not really the chair in its materiality but the intended social use. To a surprisingly large degree we operate in a world of social constructs and uses -- not a world of objects which we perceive through their physicality.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ugliness as a Tool of Social Control Leonardo17 20 1574 April 1, 2023 at 5:33 am
Last Post: Goosebump
  Is developing a strong habit of philosophizing bad for your social skills? Edwardo Piet 31 4015 May 25, 2016 at 8:22 am
Last Post: Gemini
  THE SELF-REINFORCING NATURE OF SOCIAL HIERARCHY: ORIGINS AND CONSEQUENCES OF POWER .. nihilistcat 9 3818 June 29, 2015 at 7:06 pm
Last Post: nihilistcat
  Social Approval or Principles? Koolay 26 6932 August 6, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Social Problems Loading Please Wait 10 2786 September 3, 2011 at 12:20 am
Last Post: MilesTailsPrower



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)