Social Constructionist Theory Analysis

Main Concepts and Principles

In psychology, social work, and philosophy, there are many ways to explain how people view themselves and their place in the world. Some take a cognitive approach to reasoning while others rely on emotions. Each have strengths and weaknesses in their perspectives yet none can be described as “wrong”. One such theory is the social constructionist theory. This theory is one of world making; where people create their own images of reality and use stereotypes to make sense of this image (Schneider and Sidney, 2009). More technically defined, the social constructionist theory is “an approach that focuses on how people learn, through their interactions with each other, to classify the world and their place in it,” (Hutchison,

2013).
Social constructionism was formed from branching out of interpretative social sciences where the primary concern was with analyzing how people account for the world they reside in (Cheung, 1997). However, in order to fully understand this concept, it is important to note factors that may influence it. Arguably, two other theories can be found within the social constructionist theory.
The first is the operant conditioning theory, which uses reinforcement to explain behavior (Hutchison, 2013). With John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner as the backbone of the operant conditioning theory, they stated that behavior can be strengthened or weakened by either receiving reinforcements or consequences (Hutchison, 2013). For example, if a child puts away their toys and recognizes they have made their parents happy, the child may continue to put away their toys in order to receive praise. Likewise, if a child throws a tantrum in the middle of a store and is spanked, they may recognize the consequence of their actions and avoid repeating them.
The second theory is the cognitive social learning theory, emphasized by work done by Albert Bandura (Hutchison, 2013). Bandura stated that behavior was something learned by “imitation, observation, beliefs, and expectations,” and that the learner can use “cognitive processes to learn behaviors,” (Hutchison, 2013). Using the previous examples, the child would begin watching their parents to see how they interact with the world. Then, they would begin to mimic these behaviors.
Knowing what these two theories are can help to understand the social constructionist theory. The theory, which emphasizes meaning-making, allows an individual’s interpretation of the world to create the reality in which they reside in (Schneider and Sidney, 2009). Using the operant conditioning theory, individuals may be watching to see which actions create positive rewards and which actions cause consequences. Violence, education, good deeds, crime, charity work; these are all examples of actions people may learn about through watching.
This leads directly into the cognitive social learning theory. Through observing the behaviors of others, individuals can then piece together how they perceive the world and what is right and wrong. Committing a violent act, for example, can create a visible negative reaction in people as well as a social consequence, such as being sentenced to jail. Violence is believed to be terrible and people are expected not to be violent. It is through this shared understanding that the social constructionist theory begins to take shape as “people give rise to rules, norms, identities, concepts, and institutions,” (Schneider and Sidney, 2009). Through repeated interactions, individuals can modify and shape social meanings as there is no “singular objective reality,” (Hutchison, 2013).

Macro, Mezzo, and Micro Levels of the Social Constructionist Theory
Throughout this theory, the idea of shared meanings is emphasized, which accounts for how individuals interact with each other and the physical world based on their shared understating (Hutchison, 2013). This can occur at the micro, mezzo, and macro level.
The macro level “addresses issues experienced in mezzo or micro…practices,” (Social Work). For example, a macro level could include how the United States has a set of laws that every citizen must follow. One strength of the social constructionist theory is how it tries to view the world at a large level. There is no “true reality” (Hutchison, 2013) that exists. There is only a reality that is created by every person’s definitions that is then produced and reproduced through interaction (Cheung, 1997). It has become a shared belief, for example, that people should not commit murder. As individuals interact with each other, this violent act became deemed as consequential and undesirable. Arguably, such an act creates instability and tension within society. Laws and policies were set in place to not only punish those who committed murder, but to also protect people from murder, such as law enforcement who serve as a precaution.
In present day, society is going through another change at a macro level. Relationships and love have been under question and states are beginning to pass laws that allow same-sex marriage. At first, this change began at a micro level, where individuals began to voice their change of social meaning. However, this idea grew as more people began to communicate. Gergen (1985) states that “knowledge is not merely something people process in their heads but something people do together.” The social constructionist theory can be seen on a macro level when “people stop accepting, believing in, or taking for granted these constructions,” thus “the constructions begin to change,” (Schneider and Sidney, 2009).
Despite all of this, though, the social constructionist theory has been criticized for how little it examines the macro realm. While able to incorporate diversity, the social constructionist theory has been criticized for “failing to pay attention to the macro world of social institutions and social structure” which could include “time and the role of history,” (Hutchison, 2013).
The mezzo level involves small-to medium groups, which could include places such as neighborhoods, schools, and communities (Social Work). In one study, researchers examined how the social constructionist theory influenced people as groups of consumers. They implemented the rules theory, which is a social constructionist approach to explaining meaning and action (Buttle, 1998). Using the social constructionist theory, Buttle was able to explain how consumers act very much like the social constructionist; “the structure and process of consumer behavior” can be understood by acknowledging that “social constructionists hold that knowledge of the world and beliefs about the nature of reality are constructed in communication,” (Buttle, 1998).
With this idea, advertising to select groups or communities can become more effective. Using a present day example, the 2016 election utilizes this idea greatly. Both parties with to appeal to smaller groups of people; genders, ethnicities, etc. Gergen and Davis (1985) state that “social constructionism is principally concerned with the processes by which people come to describe, explain, or otherwise account for4 the world in which they live.” Politicians appeal to select groups of people by figuring out how these groups share meanings and ideas about society and culture. By stating that these groups face hardships or difficult times, they may appeal to these communities.
At the core of the social constructionist theory, however, lies the micro level, which “engages the family or individual,” (Social Work).

The entire premise of the social constructionist theory is that both consciousness and a sense of self is shaped by social interaction and how individuals perceive that social interaction (Hutchison, 2013). The keyword is: individuals. The individual creates the idea and meaning behind the social interaction and then together, people create a common understanding of what this means for the world and their place within it (Hutchison, 2013). The idea of the social constructionist theory at the micro level goes even further when examining radical social constructionists views. They state that there is “no reality beyond our personal experiences,” (Hutchison, 2013). This would mean that the macro and mezzo level cannot exist without the micro level coming into place. Even the sense of self would be derived from social interactions. This concept, known as the “looking-glass” self, has three components (Hutchison, 2013). An individual must imagine how they appear to other people, imagine their judgement of them, and then develop a feeling about themselves as a result of these imaginings (Hutchison, 2013). The idea comes back to how the individual is observing and learning from the world around them in order to create their perception of the

world.
Strengths and Weaknesses as Found in Fallacies
Like all theories, the social constructionist theory has both strengths and weaknesses. The theory has been labeled, by some, as vague and unclear, due to the fact that it denies an absolute-one-truth (Hutchison, 2013). It has also been said that the social constructionist theory is “difficult to operationalize for empirical research,” (Hutchison, 2013). By looking at the criticisms of the theory, it is easy to spot the fallacies that begin to form. Gambrill and Gibbs (2009) list several fallacies found throughout daily life and many of them can be found within the social constructionist theory.
One fallacy found within the social constructionist theory is “relying on case examples.” This fallacy means that conclusions are drawn about large groups of people based on only one or a few select individuals (Gambrill and Gibbs, 2009). This means that generalizations are made about clients from knowledge gained from only one or a few people (Gambrill and Gibbs, 2009). Arguably, this could be a way of describing the social constructionist theory. The entire concept of the social constructionist theory is that reality is “socially constructed” (Cheung, 1997) from an individual’s definition. However, if only small groups or communities are examined, then their opinions may not reflect the majority. Likewise, this fallacy could work backwards. Should a large group be examined, it may not reflect the ideas and opinions of the minority.
Another fallacy contained within the social constructionist theory is vagueness.

Vagueness as a fallacy means that descriptions of progress measures, causes, concerns, and hoped-for-causes tend to be vague and lack detail (Gambrill and Gibbs, 2009). For example, as Gambrill and Gibbs (2009) state, if a patient were to make progress without any progress indicators accurately and clearly defined, then it would be impossible to reason if any progress had actually been made. This is the problem with the social constructionist theory. There is no definition of a one-truth; in fact, the notion of an absolute or one-truth is denied (Hutchison, 2013). The theory tries to take an objective approach to the reality around individuals yet argues that reality is subjective; it “criticizes grand theorizing while presenting a grand theory on human behavior,” (Hutchison, 2013). Furthermore, because of how individualized and objective the social constructionist theory tries to be, it lacks clarity in how to define aspects of life and social situations. Motyl (2009) states, "How can constructivism demonstrate that the language of agents – whether now or in the past, whether here or elsewhere in the world – actually constructs their world and not our interpretation of their world, without using the language of interpretation, construction, and the like to make the

claim?”
This demonstrates a lack of detail to definitions and clarity that make it hard to research and discuss progress made when implementing the social constructionist theory. Without any one-truth to rely on as a control measure, every detail is up for interpretation.
Differences in Individuals
While there may be fallacies, strengths, and weaknesses within the social constructionist theory, it undeniably does an effective job at treating individuals as such: individuals. It is, as Hutchinson (2013) states, not averse to including religion and spirituality when thinking about the person as a whole, as well as their cognitive process and emotions. With everything influencing how an individual sees their place in the world, the theory also takes into account the individual’s social environment (Hutchison, 2013). It is the individual’s beliefs that make up the social classes, social inventions, and way people believe they fit in as a unique part of their community (Cheung, 1997).
In the realm of counseling and social work, those working are encouraged to think of the phrase “Begin where the client is,” when considering the social constructionist theory (Hutchison, 2013). This directly relates to the diversity of the individual, from their religion, upbringing, personality, sexuality, and so forth. The theory takes into account how the individual feels and sees the situation they are in and expands it into what they would like the outcome to be (Hutchison, 2013). Furthermore, it is the social constructionist theory that encourages individuals to look at how diverse they are. Therapists, social workers, and counselors are encouraged to promote thoughts of the “social, cultural, and historical environment in which his or her version of reality was constructed,” (Hutchison, 2013).
Conclusion
The social constructionist theory is a very interesting take on how individuals view their place in the world. It takes into account their thoughts, beliefs, observations, morals, and even their learned behaviors, in order to create this unique view. From these evolving meanings come an unending and always changing set of meanings found within human interaction (Cheung, 1997). Those of different ethnic backgrounds will fight for their right to be heard after staying silent for so long. Gender differences will begin to be noticed as people insist on equality. Views of what are right and wrong shift as time and life goes on, creating new majorities and minorities. From these shared beliefs about the world, new meanings blossom.
Yet, there are moments when the social constructionist may not be appropriate. On a grand scale, the theory struggles. It captures a generalized version of how people feel about a situation. For example, some people may believe that particular religions are dangerous. However, just because this shared belief comes across loudly, does not mean that every single person believes this way.
The social constructionist theory works better in a smaller, more individualized setting. Therapists can discuss how their clients see themselves and help them to shape the world they live in. In the hospice setting, a therapist may help a dying client figure out what their place in the world was (Hutchison, 2013). It is as individual’s try to figure out their importance and beliefs within the world that the social constructionist theory shines. It allows the individual to embrace every aspect of their life and see how their “puzzle piece” fits into life.