Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite
Year 2022, , 232 - 259, 30.03.2022
https://doi.org/10.20981/kaygi.1076106

Abstract

References

  • Aktok, Ö. (2012). Ontoparadigms: A De-struction of Social Constructionism in the Context of Heidegger’s Conception of Truth. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Bernal, J. D. (1943). The Social Function of Science. London: George Routledge and Sons Ltd.
  • Bloor, D. (1996). Knowledge and Social Imagery. 2nd ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism (2nd Ed). London: Routledge.
  • Bury, M. (1986). Social Constructionism and the Development of Medical
  • Sociology in Sociology of Health and Illness 8(2), pp. 137-169.
  • Carnap, R. (1928). Der Logische Aufbau der Welt. Leibzig: Felix Meiner Verlag.
  • Carnap, R. (2003). The Logical Structure of the World. Illinois: Carus Publishing Company.
  • Craib, I. (1997). Social Constructionism as a Social Psychosis in Sociology 31(1), pp. 1-15.
  • Etzkowitz, H. & Webster, A. (1995). Science as Intellectual Property in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Ed. S. Jasanoff, Chapter 21). Thousand Oaks C.A.: Sage.
  • Goodman, N. (1987). Ways of Worlmaking. Indinapolis: Hackett Press.
  • Graham, Lohen (2016). Lysenko’s Ghost: Epigenetics and Russia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
  • Hacking, I. (2003). The Social Construction of What?. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  • Haraway, D. (1991). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, technology and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. (pp.149-181). New York: Routledge.
  • Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. W. (1979). Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Los Angeles: Sage.
  • Merton, K. R. (1973). The Sociology of Knowledge. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Polanyi, M. (1974). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Russell, B. (1918). Mysticism and Logic, and Other Essays. London: Longman Green.
  • Schaffer, S. & Schapin, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air Pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Schwandt, T. A. (2003). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics and social constructionism in The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (Ed. by Denzin, N. and Lincoln Y., pp. 292-331). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
  • Sismondo, S. (1993) Some Social Constructions in Social Studies of Science 23, 515-553.
  • Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1999). Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science. New York: Picador.
  • Noretta, K. (1998). A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths about Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pinker, Steven (2016). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. London: Penguin Books.
  • Slingerland, Edward (2008). What Science Offers the Humanities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

On the Inevitable Failure of Social Constructionism: The Transcendental Self-Contradiction of an Empty Concept

Year 2022, , 232 - 259, 30.03.2022
https://doi.org/10.20981/kaygi.1076106

Abstract

The question of how sociality is related to the scientific conception of physical reality brings up a philosophical tension between the conception of science as an autonomous enterprise and the conception of science as one of the various cultural products of society. Basically, there have been two approaches in sociology of science to resolve this tension. On the one side, we encounter classical sociology of science, which defends the autonomy of science while denying any constitutive role to sociality in the formation of the content of scientific theories. On the other side, there is social constructionism, which criticizes traditional sociology of science and reduces the content of scientific theories simply to a function of social structures; to something which is caused, produced or realized directly by social phenomena. This paper aims to show that although social constructionism has a point in its critique of the classical conception of science, this point is never formulated and expressed in a sufficient conceptual rigor and clarity. It will be demonstrated that the basic concept of “social construction” as encountered in the key texts from social constructionism is actually an empty concept because it is transcendentally self-contradictory. Consequently, as the paper argues, the emptiness of the concept of construction leads to an inability in making a distinction between real cases of social construction –if there are any- and cases of politically coercive, brute social interference with science.

References

  • Aktok, Ö. (2012). Ontoparadigms: A De-struction of Social Constructionism in the Context of Heidegger’s Conception of Truth. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Bernal, J. D. (1943). The Social Function of Science. London: George Routledge and Sons Ltd.
  • Bloor, D. (1996). Knowledge and Social Imagery. 2nd ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism (2nd Ed). London: Routledge.
  • Bury, M. (1986). Social Constructionism and the Development of Medical
  • Sociology in Sociology of Health and Illness 8(2), pp. 137-169.
  • Carnap, R. (1928). Der Logische Aufbau der Welt. Leibzig: Felix Meiner Verlag.
  • Carnap, R. (2003). The Logical Structure of the World. Illinois: Carus Publishing Company.
  • Craib, I. (1997). Social Constructionism as a Social Psychosis in Sociology 31(1), pp. 1-15.
  • Etzkowitz, H. & Webster, A. (1995). Science as Intellectual Property in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Ed. S. Jasanoff, Chapter 21). Thousand Oaks C.A.: Sage.
  • Goodman, N. (1987). Ways of Worlmaking. Indinapolis: Hackett Press.
  • Graham, Lohen (2016). Lysenko’s Ghost: Epigenetics and Russia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
  • Hacking, I. (2003). The Social Construction of What?. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  • Haraway, D. (1991). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, technology and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. (pp.149-181). New York: Routledge.
  • Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. W. (1979). Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Los Angeles: Sage.
  • Merton, K. R. (1973). The Sociology of Knowledge. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Polanyi, M. (1974). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Russell, B. (1918). Mysticism and Logic, and Other Essays. London: Longman Green.
  • Schaffer, S. & Schapin, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air Pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Schwandt, T. A. (2003). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics and social constructionism in The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (Ed. by Denzin, N. and Lincoln Y., pp. 292-331). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
  • Sismondo, S. (1993) Some Social Constructions in Social Studies of Science 23, 515-553.
  • Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1999). Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science. New York: Picador.
  • Noretta, K. (1998). A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths about Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pinker, Steven (2016). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. London: Penguin Books.
  • Slingerland, Edward (2008). What Science Offers the Humanities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sosyal İnşacılığın Kaçınılmaz Başarısızlığı Üzerine: Boş Bir Kavramın Transandantal Öz-Çelişkisi

Year 2022, , 232 - 259, 30.03.2022
https://doi.org/10.20981/kaygi.1076106

Abstract

Öz: Sosyalliğin, fiziksel gerçekliğin bilimsel kavranışı ile nasıl bir ilişki içinde olduğu sorusu, felsefi bir gerilimi de kendisiyle birlikte gündeme getirir. Bu gerilim, epistemic özerkliğe sahip bir etkinlik olarak bilim kavramı ile, toplumun içindeki çeşitli kültürel ürünlerden birisi olarak bilim kavramı arasında belirir. Bilim sosyolojisinde bu gerilimi çözmek için, temel olarak, iki farklı yaklaşım ortaya çıkmıştır. Bir tarafta, sosyalliğin bilim teorilerinin içeriğinin oluşmasında herhangi bir kurucu rolü olduğu fikrini reddederek bilimin özerkliğini savunan klasik bilim sosyolojisi bulunur. Diğeri tarafta ise, klasik bilim sosyolojisini eleştiren ve bilim teorilerinin içeriğini sosyal yapıların yalnızca bir işlevine indirgeyen sosyal inşacılık akımı karşımıza çıkar. Sosyal inşacılık, teorilerin içeriğini, sosyal fenomenlerce doğrudan doğruya neden olunan, üretilen, gerçekleştirilen bir şey olarak kavrar. Böylelikle sosyal inşacılık, bilimin sosyal karakteri uğruna onun özerkliğinden vazgeçmeyi önerir. Bu makalenin amacı, sosyal inşacılığın klasik bilim anlayışını eleştirmekte haklı bir noktaya parmak basmakla birlikte, bu haklı noktanın hiç bir zaman yeterli kavramsal titizlik ve açıklık ile ortaya konmamış olduğunu göstermektir. Makalede, sosyal inşacılığa ait temel kavram olan “sosyal inşa”nın transandantal olarak kendiyle çelişik olması nedeniyle boş bir kavram olduğu ortaya konmaktadır. Makalenin savladığı üzere, “inşa” kavramının boş olması, gerçek sosyal inşa vakaları (eğer gerçekten böyle bir inşa söz konusu ise) ile bilime politik olarak baskıyla sosyal müdahale etme vakaları arasında bir ayrım yapamamasına neden olmaktadır.

References

  • Aktok, Ö. (2012). Ontoparadigms: A De-struction of Social Constructionism in the Context of Heidegger’s Conception of Truth. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Bernal, J. D. (1943). The Social Function of Science. London: George Routledge and Sons Ltd.
  • Bloor, D. (1996). Knowledge and Social Imagery. 2nd ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism (2nd Ed). London: Routledge.
  • Bury, M. (1986). Social Constructionism and the Development of Medical
  • Sociology in Sociology of Health and Illness 8(2), pp. 137-169.
  • Carnap, R. (1928). Der Logische Aufbau der Welt. Leibzig: Felix Meiner Verlag.
  • Carnap, R. (2003). The Logical Structure of the World. Illinois: Carus Publishing Company.
  • Craib, I. (1997). Social Constructionism as a Social Psychosis in Sociology 31(1), pp. 1-15.
  • Etzkowitz, H. & Webster, A. (1995). Science as Intellectual Property in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Ed. S. Jasanoff, Chapter 21). Thousand Oaks C.A.: Sage.
  • Goodman, N. (1987). Ways of Worlmaking. Indinapolis: Hackett Press.
  • Graham, Lohen (2016). Lysenko’s Ghost: Epigenetics and Russia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
  • Hacking, I. (2003). The Social Construction of What?. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  • Haraway, D. (1991). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, technology and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. (pp.149-181). New York: Routledge.
  • Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. W. (1979). Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Los Angeles: Sage.
  • Merton, K. R. (1973). The Sociology of Knowledge. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Polanyi, M. (1974). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Russell, B. (1918). Mysticism and Logic, and Other Essays. London: Longman Green.
  • Schaffer, S. & Schapin, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air Pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Schwandt, T. A. (2003). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics and social constructionism in The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (Ed. by Denzin, N. and Lincoln Y., pp. 292-331). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
  • Sismondo, S. (1993) Some Social Constructions in Social Studies of Science 23, 515-553.
  • Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1999). Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science. New York: Picador.
  • Noretta, K. (1998). A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths about Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pinker, Steven (2016). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. London: Penguin Books.
  • Slingerland, Edward (2008). What Science Offers the Humanities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
There are 25 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Philosophy
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Özgür Aktok 0000-0003-3730-334X

Publication Date March 30, 2022
Submission Date February 19, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022

Cite

APA Aktok, Ö. (2022). On the Inevitable Failure of Social Constructionism: The Transcendental Self-Contradiction of an Empty Concept. Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, 21(1), 232-259. https://doi.org/10.20981/kaygi.1076106
AMA Aktok Ö. On the Inevitable Failure of Social Constructionism: The Transcendental Self-Contradiction of an Empty Concept. Kaygı. March 2022;21(1):232-259. doi:10.20981/kaygi.1076106
Chicago Aktok, Özgür. “On the Inevitable Failure of Social Constructionism: The Transcendental Self-Contradiction of an Empty Concept”. Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi 21, no. 1 (March 2022): 232-59. https://doi.org/10.20981/kaygi.1076106.
EndNote Aktok Ö (March 1, 2022) On the Inevitable Failure of Social Constructionism: The Transcendental Self-Contradiction of an Empty Concept. Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi 21 1 232–259.
IEEE Ö. Aktok, “On the Inevitable Failure of Social Constructionism: The Transcendental Self-Contradiction of an Empty Concept”, Kaygı, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 232–259, 2022, doi: 10.20981/kaygi.1076106.
ISNAD Aktok, Özgür. “On the Inevitable Failure of Social Constructionism: The Transcendental Self-Contradiction of an Empty Concept”. Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi 21/1 (March 2022), 232-259. https://doi.org/10.20981/kaygi.1076106.
JAMA Aktok Ö. On the Inevitable Failure of Social Constructionism: The Transcendental Self-Contradiction of an Empty Concept. Kaygı. 2022;21:232–259.
MLA Aktok, Özgür. “On the Inevitable Failure of Social Constructionism: The Transcendental Self-Contradiction of an Empty Concept”. Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, vol. 21, no. 1, 2022, pp. 232-59, doi:10.20981/kaygi.1076106.
Vancouver Aktok Ö. On the Inevitable Failure of Social Constructionism: The Transcendental Self-Contradiction of an Empty Concept. Kaygı. 2022;21(1):232-59.

e-ISSN: 2645-8950