22 Tristan S.

Lim AM+DG 11- Mayer Research 11

Topic: Social Constructionism

One of the first things I was able to understand about this topic is, the concept of

constructionism as a whole. I was able to understand, and learn what social constructionism really

is. Defined as the shared perceptions of reality is what makes a “norm” or general assumption of

reality. With this new information, I was able to understand that social constructionism is pointed

towards the subjective view on reality. It is based on how we perceive reality ourselves, and not

through guidelines. In a sense, social constructionism means what it means. We construct our own

views on reality through the joint cooperation of other people. In simpler terms, society is what we

make of it. Another thing I understood was, language is a big factor of social constructionism.

Language is used to communicate to other people, that is a given, but, it is also used to convey

concepts, truths, realities, perceptions, thoughts, and etc. to other individuals in the public sphere.

Language works as a bridge-way to more ideas, concepts, however concepts cannot work as a

bridge-way to language. Another thing language brings with it is perception, how we choose to

interpret what someone is saying, which correlates to subjectivity and social constructivism as a

whole. We choose how to interpret one thing, and that may or may not help us see what something

really is for us. The last thing I understood from the reading was, why there are tensions between

realism and relativism. Realism is defined as accepting situations as they are, while relativism is

defined as believing that society is not definite. From here you can see the arguments of both

parties, one being the acceptance of a definite occurrence while the other being the non-acceptance

of society being definite. These two ideologies generally contradict each other, but both still come

up with equal amounts of problems when used for research. Using a realist approach to research

would mean generalizing that every data presented, is definite, and cannot be changed, ultimately

blocking out the possibility of different perceptions. Using a relativist approach, would allow the

possibility of unique perceptions, yet it would never have definite answers, as the belief includes
22 Tristan S. Lim AM+DG 11- Mayer Research 11

having different realities. With that in mind, these two will always have tension as the beliefs

generally contradict, and oppose each other.

While reading the document, I did not entirely understand how there is a need for a

differentiation of “Social Constructionism”, and “Social Constructivism”. True, it is stated in the

article that the focus of Constructionism is a social focus, while Constructivism focuses on

individuality, yet these two are not stray topics for one another. These two points which

differentiate Constructionism from Constructivism, are not focal points such as the discrepancies

between Realism and Relativism. The separation of these two ideologies, is what I don’t

understand. Is there a deeper meaning? Is there something else that differentiates Constructivism

and Constructionism? One more thing that I do not understand about the reading is the numerous

references to the medical field. I did not understand why only the medical field was given as

examples the most, and not others? Why was the medical field given the importance/priority in this

essay? The last point that I did not understand is, the need for numerous ideologies to explain one

concept. Simply put, social constructionism is examining a social understanding, which form

societal norms. I did not understand the need to include the 4 or more other ideologies that were

presented in the reading. Someone might point out that it is to specify or to help the readers

understand the reading a bit more, yet there are numerous other ways to help the readers.

Including numerous other ideologies can confuse other readers due to the fact that there are just to

many ideologies being talked about, instead of the main central ideology of the reading in the first

place.

A question I would like to ask about the article is “How does one identify the ‘level’ of social

constructionism?” Stated in the reading there are numerous levels or types to social

constructionism, in that sense, how does one differentiate the type, if in fact Social Constructionism
22 Tristan S. Lim AM+DG 11- Mayer Research 11

is based on each individual’s perception of their own daily lives? How would these levels be

possible in the sense that, ideally, in the realms of social constructionism, every individual is free to

make his own perception of reality. Another question I would like to ask is, does the medical field

play a big role in social constructionism? I ask this since, as previously stated, the unnecessary

over-usage of the medical field throughout an article based on social constructionism really boggles

my mind. Is there a connection of the medical field to social constructionism (aside from the

definition of social constructionism), that gives the medical field a high-example rate through out

the document? Yes, it may just be the fact that this was the example thought of at the time, yet it still

confuses me to why many examples were based on the medicinal field. The last question I would

like to ask is, does social constructionism agree more with realism or relativism? In the last few

paragraphs before the conclusion, it is stated that constructionism is used as a “coping mechanism

for rapid change.” (Andrews 2012) Previously it not stated whether Social constructionism agrees

more with realism or relativism. As Relativism is an ideology based on the idea that nothing is

permanent/definite, the latter part of the reading is essentially saying that social constructionism

has change within it, meaning, it is not definite. Does this mean that constructionism is more in lieu

with relativism than realism, or is this just something else, and not at all related to the tension

between realism and relativism.