|
Post by tmiric on Dec 9, 2017 1:32:12 GMT
Butt explains that social constructionism is NOT reductionist because it looks at individual behaviour in terms of the bigger picture. It looks at how we can make sense of an individual through studying the society from which they come, not through reducing ones behaviour to the smallest biological particle. For example an aggressive person may be studied in terms of the family and social and cultural environment in which they grew up/live. Does this culture value aggressiveness and anger? or is it frowned upon and is this person just rebelling?
social constructionism is NOT individualistic or humanistic because "social structures limit what we can do". In the example of language, we can see that sometimes the discourse does not even exist to explain our feelings. This explains the idea that homosexuality and sexual abuse are only modern ideas in our vocabulary.
and lastly, social constructionism is also not necessarily in line with causal science because behaviour is seen as contextual and is considered to differ from situation to situation whereas a causal science perspective would say that there is a cause and effect for everything, and that these causes are generally consistent. Social constructionism is more in line with normative science because it looks at how people are constructed by normalities in society.
|
|