Is anything actually a social construct?

When people introduce the idea of social construction they almost always use the example of money, as if it's uncontroversial that money is a social construct.
Then they go on to say that basically everything is a social construct.
But how do we know social constructionism is even the correct theory of money?
And if there are no obvious examples of social constructs, how do we know they exist at all?

spooks

You seem confused.

Saying something is a social construct doesn't mean it isn't real. It means it isn't fixed.

A social construct is like software. It's real, it exists. But it's there because someone put it there, and it can be deleted and replaced with something else.

>Saying something is a social construct doesn't mean it isn't real.
Where did I say it did?

Money started off as not being a social construct as it was valuable metals, the states simply just stamped them to make their metal ratios official. Fiat currency however is only valuable because a state is backing it, it's entirely based on social contract. Without human interaction fiat currency is just paper with fancy prints on.

Language itself is a social construct. Money is an abstraction of barter, it has a layer of social construction but is not a pure example of such a thing.

Fiat is not purely abstract, it is backed by the power of the state that issues it. Money became partly socially constructed very early, with the concept of the "coin of the realm" and "legal tender", but of course gold is worth something even when it's not a coin (albeit generally less than the coin is worth), while fiat money is almost (but not totally) worthless without the state backing.

is OP retarded or just a teenager
'do we even know social constructs exist' lmao

>Language itself is a social construct.
What is this even supposed to mean?
Obviously, language is something that arises from people interacting, but if "social construct" just meant "something made by people together" then buildings and bridges and furniture and most artificial things in general would be social constructs.
Social constructionism would be a completely trivial and uninteresting claim, since calling something a social construct would basically just mean calling it "artificial" or "made by people."
Social constructionism is supposed to be a much more edgy interesting metaphysical claim.

Do you wanna try answering the question? Otherwise get out of the thread

A bridge is an analogue of a tree over a stream, the specific form it takes is influenced by social constructions of beauty and design but it is not itself a social construction. Language, by contrast, exists only as social interaction, it has no reality beyond its socially constructed one. Without any kind of social construction, a bridge would be the simplest and crudest design possible, but it would still be a bridge. Without any kind of social construction, language is just flapping your gums.
>metaphysical claim.
What? You're the only simple-minded Manichean ITT, social construction is a matter of degree, not an absolute. Not all artificial things are socially constructed to any great degree, and even "natural" things can have elements of social construction, for example Mount Fuji has a tremendous cultural impact that goes far beyond its reality as a large mountain.

lol

It's pretty much "it's only valuable or useful by interacting with other people that know and can use the construct as well."

So, trying to pay with euros or a credit card in some isolated village is useless, language, both written and oral means nothing if no one understands the words, your citizenship in a country that doesn't recognise your state makes you stateless, a gay marriage license is just a paper if the statal entity you are in believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, a property deed doesn't mean shit if the state doesn't recognise it, or if you are in a commie society, etc.

>Language, by contrast, exists only as social interaction
I get that this is in some sense true, since the meaning of a word somehow consists in its power to affect other people's minds, but how does that make it a social construct?
>Not all artificial things are socially constructed to any great degree
So you do think buildings and furniture etc are social constructs to some degree? What does their social-constructedness consist in then?

Good contribution, you really showed everyone how smart you are

I think you might have literal autism

Social constructs are about social relations. The hierarchy of the boss and the worker making the bridge is a social contract. The speed limit on the bridge is a social construct. The tolls and taxes collected are social constructs. The bridge being known as a good place to commit suicide is a social construct.

The bridge is a fucking bridge you autist.

>What does their social-constructedness consist in then?
For something like a chair, the social construction is mostly in the design and the look of the thing. Of course, the technology used to make it is also heavy in social constructions, and the fact we use chairs and don't sit on cushions like the Japs do is itself a social construct. Further, the use of the chair can also be socially constructed, for example if it is a school chair then it carries social constructs such as "students must remain in their chair until the bell goes", and "students may not move the chairs around as they wish", and if its the chair of a CEO in a boardroom then it carries such constructs as "only the boss gets to sit here" and "the person sitting here is super important".

Even the idea that an object is a chair and there is a proper way to sit on said object is a social construct. You will realize this because sitting on a chair backwards is a social signal of a wannabe tough guy and people look at you funny if you you try to sit on a chair upside down or use it as a table.

The physical object that is a chair itself is not a social construct though. Arguably neither is the form.

So the fact that not everybody everywhere wants to trade goods and services for every kind of money makes money a social construct?
And the fact that not everybody everywhere understands every word makes language a social construct?
But everybody knows those things and knew them long before social constructionism was invented--if social constructionism was that simple, it would just be trivial. Saying "X is a social construct" would just mean "You can't use X with everybody."
Also, your definition implies that all tools or machines that require more than one person to operate are social constructs. Like if I go to some tribe in the Amazon and bring a tandem bicycle, nobody there knows or is able to use it, and that renders it useless because I can't ride it on my own. But tandem bicycles are not social constructs, they're just artifacts.

>The physical object that is a chair itself is not a social construct though. Arguably neither is the form.
Not A social construct, but it is certainly shaped by such things. From the materials used to the choice of color and decoration, this is all derived from social constructs of beauty and design.

>So the fact that not everybody everywhere wants to trade goods and services for every kind of money makes money a social construct?
No, the fact that they agree to exchange goods for a proxy (money) rather than directly thru barter is teh social construct. If you found yourself in Bongo Bongo Land and met a savage who had never heard of money, you would find you could still trade with him using barter.
>And the fact that not everybody everywhere understands every word makes language a social construct?
No, the fact that only people who know and use the same social construct (in this case, a language) can get any use of it is what makes it socially constructed. Just like with money, if you're dealing with someone who doesn't share the meme with you, then you can't make any use out of it yourself.

Why didn't you bother to even skim the wikipedia page of this subject before making a thread about it.

'A social construct or construction concerns the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an object or event by a society, and adopted by the inhabitants of that society with respect to how they view or deal with the object or event. In that respect, a social construct as an idea would be widely accepted as natural by the society, but may or may not represent a reality shared by those outside the society, and would be an "invention or artifice of that society".'

So "social construct" is just a completely superfluous trivial term that simply means "social thing"? Everybody knows that contracts and shared knowledge are social things--literally by definition they involve multiple people. What the fuck does social constructionism add? How is it an interesting idea at all if it's defined as this banal theory that "Some things are social"?
You know as well as I do that this is not what's at stake in debates about social constructionism, so this definition is completely misleading.

I feel like a lot of what I just wrote above applies here as well. Of course societal trends, inventions made by multiple people working together, ideas or projects conceived collectively, etc. are all social things--trivially, obviously, and by definition. But calling something a social construct is supposed to say something more than just that it's a social thing or that it was made by people. Otherwise nobody would care about social constructionism.

Read a book, I'm bored of explaining this entry level stuff to you.

That's just a dodge. I've read plenty of social constructionist literature. What I'm pointing out is that the idea of a "social construct" is really unclear and problematic, and there's no compelling reason we should be social constructionists about any of the things that have been suggested as obvious examples of social constructs ITT (money, language, norms, ideas, rules, obligations, artifacts). There are more straightforward ways to view them that don't make use of the nebulous "social construction" metaphor. So there is really no reason to think any "social constructs" exist.
Maybe the biggest problem with social constructionists is not how indiscriminately they apply their theory to everything, but how unthinkingly they take its basic idea for granted.

No. Ideas construct societies. Societies do not construct ideas.

>So "social construct" is just a completely superfluous trivial term that simply means "social thing"?
Do you not understand what the word construct means?

Social is the same in social construct and social thing. A construct is a thing that was created. So yes, social construct is very close to the meaning of social thing, except with the implication of creation.

Are you retarded by chance? I can not believe that anyone with a 3 digit IQ thinks construct is a difficult word, or that using the word thing instead of construct makes it better and/or easier to understand.

You're basically complaining that the word construct it too hard for you and you want to call social constructs social things instead. Social construct is a label used to categorize ideas that are within the sociological sphere.

I'm guessing you're a retarded STEM worshiper and you don't complain about natural phenomenon using the word phenomenon and going hurr why don't they just call it natural thing?????

Because the value of money isn't objectively set, not even written down.
If All humans, for example, died, what would the value of an apple be?
It wouldn't be valuable at all. Value is relative to purpose and meaning.

One of the reasons why I like the imperial system, for example, is because it is proportional to humans. I don't have to count in the hundreds to describe my height or my dick size. I can just say "6 ft" "6 inches"; simple.

If humans disappeared, then the nutritional value of an apple will stay the same, but it's relative value to us would not stay the same; its relative worth is proportional to its demand. The only living beings demanding apples are bugs, small mammals, maybe big mammals, and thats it.

What you're saying was addressed in one of the first posts I made ITT:

You didn't address it at all. You're essentially claiming the word construct is too difficult for you to comprehend. Which is evident from your own post that you linked.

Do you think buildings are social constructs?

I now realize you're too stupid to know what the word social means. Social does not mean "a bunch of people"

Hoo boy OP might actually be a bonafide autist.

>Because the value of money isn't objectively set, not even written down.
But the value of money is arguably objective: it's an objective fact what people are willing to exchange for a certain amount of money
Also, there's no way to claim social constructionism is the only alternative to objectivism

> it's an objective fact what people are willing to exchange for a certain amount of money
Are you a Marxist?

>as it was valuable metals

And how do you think those metals became valuable?

You make this thread essentially asking people to explain to you what a social construct is and how money fits that definition but when multiple posters provide simple explanations you sperg out, insist they're wrong and even claim you're well read on the subject and you prove this by asking even more boneheaded questions that evince a tenuous grasp of reading comprehension.

haha are you retarded?

Not him, but I'm going to answer anyways. Scarcity, corrosion resistance, formability, having little pragmatic value, and being shiny. All of these things lend to precious metals being stable in holding "value".

Scarcity means that the value can't be changed by there suddenly being more of it. Corrosion resistance means that value won't degrade or diminish over time simply due to the elements. Formability means it can be transformed into useful units for trade or jewelry, but always be able to be reduced back into the original form. Being soft metals, they had very little pragmatic value before electricity except their malleability and shininess when made it an ideal material for ornamentation and useful for signaling wealth.

Why can't social constructionists answer simple questions about their own theory without resorting to name-calling? It makes you seem really insecure and immature.

No, but do you think the only theories of money that exist are Marxism and social constructionism?

>when multiple posters provide simple explanations you sperg out, insist they're wrong
If you can find a definition that was provided ITT that I didn't give a counterexample or counterargument to but simply "sperged out and insisted it was wrong," I'll address it.
Do you think there's something inherently wrong with arguing against some definition or explanation of a concept? The feeling I've been expressing is precisely that there's some fundamental conceptual problem about social constructionism, but I'm meeting a weird amount of resistance to even having that type of feeling in the first place.

You do realize the definition of "construct" as a noun is idea, not a physical object? Why do we have to look words up in the dictionary for you because of your double digit IQ?

>Why do we have to look words up in the dictionary for you
You don't have to do anything or even be in this thread at all, my friend.
But what you're saying is basically the reason I made this thread in the first place.
When people call things "social constructs," they're essentially saying those things are just ideas of some special kind.
But that's exactly the reason it's really doubtful there are any obvious uncontroversial examples of social constructs.
Money is not prima facie an idea. Neither is language. It's a phenomenon.

>asks if a building is a social construct because it was made by people together

If you had read the thread you would have seen that this was a relevant question to ask because the explanations that were being given were so lackluster.
You're also showing that you're unfamiliar with e.g. Sally Haslanger's work, where she distinguishes between several species of social construction, the most basic of which is the "causal" type according to which buildings and artifacts are in fact socially constructed.
Anyway, ITT there still hasn't been a real explanation of the term "social construct" or a justification for thinking anything is obviously socially constructed.

You're a special kind of retarded aren't you?
>When people call things "social constructs," they're essentially saying those things are just ideas of some special kind.
No shit sherlock. If someone says scientific theory, they're essentially saying those things are just ideas of some special kind. A+ for stating the obvious that calling certain ideas with words more descriptive than "thing" means they're saying they're special in some way.
>But that's exactly the reason it's really doubtful there are any obvious uncontroversial examples of social constructs.
That's not even a reason, there is no logical connection there.
>Money is not prima facie an idea. Neither is language. It's a phenomenon.
Use the fucking dictionary. Idea is an approximate synonym with construct not an exact one. Who gives a shit about prima facie, The entire point of prima facie is it can be wrong. Prima facie does not mean irrefutable truth. Ignoring whether or not something is a phenomenon, being a construct and being a phenomenon ware not entirely mutually exclusive. Why are you so retarded?

>having little pragmatic value
Precisely. Value of precious metals is a social construct, they had little to no value on their own.

>If you had read the thread you would have seen that this was a relevant question to ask because the explanations that were being given were so lackluster.
No, it was just showing off how retarded you are.
>You're also showing that you're unfamiliar with e.g. Sally Haslanger's work, where she distinguishes between several species of social construction, the most basic of which is the "causal" type according to which buildings and artifacts are in fact socially constructed.
Maybe because she's over reaching past what is normally understood to be the realm of social constructs. Which is why she uses the term social construction. Construct has the same root as construction. They are not the same word.
>Anyway, ITT there still hasn't been a real explanation of the term "social construct" or a justification for thinking anything is obviously socially constructed.
Maybe because it's actually obvious.

>No, it was just showing off how retarded you are.
Alright, this is just at the level of a playground "no you."
>Maybe because she's over reaching past what is normally understood to be the realm of social constructs.
Right, just like (arguably) many of the first posts ITT did with their definitions, which prompted my provocative questions and counterexamples.
>Construct has the same root as construction. They are not the same word.
Eh, sure. But the point you're reaching for is a big stretch. You can't convince me that there's no general understanding that calling something "socially constructed" and calling it "a social construct" are the same thing.
>Maybe because it's actually obvious.
So the social constructedness of money and language is supposed to be such a self-evident primitive brute fact that it can't even be put into words? Not sure that's the best way to secure credibility for your theory.

This is too much of an uncharitable distortion to even be worth addressing

>Eh, sure. But the point you're reaching for is a big stretch. You can't convince me that there's no general understanding that calling something "socially constructed" and calling it "a social construct" are the same thing.
She extends past what most people consider the realm of social constructs and says, broadly speaking there's even more shit that can be considered social constructions. Being socially constructed isn't what defines a social construct. Both a social construct and a social construction are socially constructed because they share the same root. I'm sorry you're so retarded. Just because you can build a house and build a car doesn't mean a car is a house. You picked a specific author because she specifically extends past accepted norms and then you want to generalize it.

>brainlet

>Both a social construct and a social construction are socially constructed because they share the same root
So this is really the strategy you wanna use? Some ultra-fine distinction between near-identical terms which everybody uses as synonyms?
Okay, try to explain what the difference is between calling something "a social construct" and calling it "socially constructed"

Alright good talk, see ya friend

Meta-ethnicities are social constructs

>Okay, try to explain what the difference is between calling something "a social construct" and calling it "socially constructed"
Something socially constructed can be a social construct. It could also be something other than a social construct. When used in the context of social constructs, the implication is that socially constructed relates to the usage of social construct. You picked an author that chose specifically not to do that and chose to link socially construction with any sort of social construction including objects, thus creating a context in which socially constructed no longer implies relation to social construct, but instead social constructions. In most cases socially constructed correlates to social construct. You picked an author that wanted to extend the idea to objects. In that context, socially constructed correlates to social construction.

So you're just making the point that literally speaking, something like a building is "socially constructed" but it's not a "social construct" in the sense in which "construct" is a rough synonym for "concept"?
Okay, whatever. But I didn't just "pick some author"; Haslanger is one of the biggest most influential theorists of social construction.
And in general, what I suspect is that social constructionism gets some illusory credibility from the fact that obviously a lot of things are literally constructed socially (like buildings), and a lot of things are even constructed socially in a non-literal sense (like agreements and clubs and other things that aren't physical objects and thus don't literally get "constructed").
But that obscures the fact that the social constructionist thesis is actually a much more technical metaphysical one about the ontological foundation of some thing.
It's more like some kind of modified Kantianism or subjectivism, and once you grant that, you also grant that it's a pretty specific theoretical scheme and it's not exactly obvious that it's the correct account of anything.

>But it's there because someone put it there, and it can be deleted and replaced with something else.
Except most social constructs aren't arbitrarily chosen by someone, they are useful and socially negotiated abstractions that en masse are fundamental to the makeup of a culture. In fact, they are the essence of culture. They cannot be deleted and replaced without also doing so to the culture and eventually the society they arose from.

social construct = spook
spook = social construct

Credit cards representing money.

Social constructivism is for silly frenchies that havent been blessed by peircean semiotics.
Money is not a social construct, it's a symbol. If you want a social construct look at capital which is very different from money. Capital isn't money it's a value placed on money that means privately owned power that can be invested and accumulated. In order for capital to exist it needs some sort of convention, so a state insured legal system protecting private property and trade relationships that allow for investment, as well as contractual mechanisms that allow for things like wage labor. The biggest thing that differentiates capitalism from other economies like fuedalism is investment and private property, these things were invented by the liberals like 400 years ago and money has been around alot longer than that.
So that is what makes a social construct distinct from a sign, a construct is made from signs through social interaction.
The problem with radical hermeneutics that also befalls constructivism is that ot doesn't recognize that signs arise from a pragmatic grounding. This is because frenchies only know about Saussure. And Peirce's semiotic is just recently becoming understood.
Social constructs do exist but social constructivism fails when you look at its semiotic basis.
This is why biosemiotics is needed to properly describe them, which is a devolpment happening at this moment.

All constructs are social constructs. This doesn't take any validity from them though, especially not from clear-cut concepts used in empirical and formal science

Dude, you're whole life is made out of thoughts and all thoughts are limited to a socially determined epistemology, therefore everything in your life is socially constructed. There is no reality, it's all an illusion determined by your teachers, parents, and friends.

The concept of a "social construct" IS a social construct, therefore it must also be invalid acording to their logic.

this line of thought has already been explored, look up memetics. Individual social constructs - memes in the original definition - function like genes and your mental makeup, moral views, all the social constructs you adhere to are the organism, with a culture or society being the population. The whole reason you can view them analogously to genes and organs is that they behave roughly the same way. Memes can mutate in individuals and be passed on with the new one sometimes becoming dominant because it is better suited to the times, be replaced, become vestigial and be lost, etc as the culture evolves.