Sociology Plus
Social Construction of Science Definition
The claim that science is socially constructed posits that there is no direct, inherent link between objective nature and our conceptual ideas about it; consequently, scientific products are not self-evident or naturally existing in isolation. This concept can be interpreted in different ways, often distinguished between strong and weak interpretations: a stronger view denies any independent reality outside of human perception, whereas a weaker social constructivism focuses epistemologically, arguing that knowledge is shaped by the cultural contexts in which it is created, drawing upon available cultural material rather than preexisting facts.
Origins and Core Theory
The foundational ideas regarding the social construction of reality were introduced into the social sciences by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann in their work, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (1966). This theory synthesised ideas from Durkheim and Weber with perspectives from George Herbert Mead to explore how human societies construct shared realities, addressing questions such as why concepts like gender are perceived as ‘natural’ across cultures while being performed differently. The sociologist’s role is thus to analyse the processes through which reality is constructed and knowledge becomes institutionally established as real.
Interpretations of Social Constructivism
Different scholars have explored various facets of this concept, leading to varying interpretations:
* Hacking’s Meanings: Ian Hacking analysed the varied uses of the term, identifying three main types of social constructivism: contingency (things could have been different), nominalism (classifications are human impositions rather than natural kinds), and external reasons for stability.
* Social Shaping of Science: This perspective highlights how external social factors, such as funding structures or political influences, shape scientific development. Furthermore, gender bias is evident in the pursuit of knowledge; for instance, historical biases led to under-researching certain areas (like male contraception) and influenced experimental methodologies (e.g., using young men in medical trials).
* Epistemological Critique: Theorists like Sandra Harding argued that social positions (gender, race, class) determine epistemological perspectives, suggesting that knowledge produced by dominant groups reflects their interests. Conversely, thinkers such as Donna Haraway view knowledge as fragmented and physically anchored, rejecting the notion of a single objective viewpoint.
The Status of Scientific Truth
Social constructivism challenges the traditional notion that scientific knowledge possesses absolute truth independent of social context. While scientists insist on the ‘scientific method’ to guarantee veracity, social constructivists argue that scientific knowledge is as ‘social’ as other forms of knowledge. The process of ‘truthmaking’ in science involves continuous negotiation and re-negotiation of data meaning.
Objectivity and Scientific Practice
The concept of objectivity itself is seen as socially mediated. Rather than being a reflection of absolute truth, objectivity is understood as the effort to exclude subjectivity—a struggle against judgment. This trust is institutionalised through procedures rather than personal contact. Scientists operate within frameworks where success is measured against assumed notions of ‘nature’. Furthermore, the process of scientific fact-making involves mobilizing various elements (facts, scientists, artifacts) in a way that leads to accepted conclusions, which some theorists, such as Latour and Woolgar, have critiqued as an asymmetry rooted in dualistic thinking. They advocate for theories like Actor Network Theory (ANT), which places social and natural entities on equal footing, suggesting that ‘society’ is constructed but not solely socially constructed, extending the scope to include nonhuman elements.