Advertisement

Human Studies

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 127–146 | Cite as

On the Very Idea of Social Construction: Deconstructing Searle’s and Hacking’s Critical Reflections

  • Martin EndreßEmail author
Theoretical / Philosophical Paper

Abstract

The starting point of the following inquiry addresses John Searle’s and Ian Hacking’s most prominent critique of contemporary “constructionism” in the 1990s. It is stimulated by the astonishing fact that neither Hacking nor Searle take into account Peter Berger’s and Thomas Luckmann’s classical essay and sociological masterpiece The Social Construction of Reality in their contributions. Critically revisiting Searle’s and Hacking’s critique on the so-called constructivist approach, the article demonstrates that both authors have failed to put forth a sociologically valid understanding of the approach in question. The following analysis aims to deconstruct the conceptualizations offered by Searle and Hacking, and to reconstruct and defend the original sense of the term “social construction” as most prominently introduced by Berger and Luckmann to sociology, and social sciences in general.

Keywords

Social construction Constructionism Constructivism Social ontology Institutional facts Interactive kinds Relativism 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to Dave Poitras for his much appreciated editorial help. I have had the opportunity to discuss an earlier version of this paper intensively with Stefan Nicolae and Benjamin Rampp. A quite earlier version had been read by Hisashi Nasu. My thanks are extended to all.

References

  1. Berger, P. L. (1992). Reflections on the twenty-fifth anniversary of “The Social Construction of Reality”. Perspectives, 15(2), 1–4.Google Scholar
  2. Berger, P. L., & Kellner, H. (1964). Marriage and the construction of reality. An exercise in the microsociology of knowledge. Diogenes, 46(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  4. Boghossian, P. (2006). Fear of knowledge. Against relativism and constructivism. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (1999). The sociology of critical capacity. European Journal of Social Theory, 2(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2000). The reality of moral expectations: A sociology of situated judgement. Philosophical Explorations, 3, 208–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Endress, M. (2005). Reflexivity, reality, and relationality. The inadequacy of Bourdieu’s critique of the phenomenological tradition. In M. Endress, G. Psathas, & H. Nasu (Eds.), Explorations of the life-world: Continuing dialogues with Alfred Schutz (pp. 51–74). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Endress, M. (2011). Methodological relationism. In R. Schantz & M. Seidel (Eds.), The problem of relativism in the sociology of (scientific) knowledge (pp. 157–181). Frankfurt: Ontos.Google Scholar
  9. Endress, M. (2014). Interpretive sociologies and hermeneutic traditions. In M. Staudigl & G. Berguno (Eds.), Schutzian phenomenology and hermeneutic traditions (pp. 33–54). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gelles, R. (1975). The social construction of child abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goode, E. (1994). Moral panics: The social construction of deviance. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Hacking, I. (1986). Making up people. In Th. Heller, M. Sousa, & D. E. Wellbury (Eds.), Reconstructing individualism (pp. 161–171). Stanford: Stanford UP.Google Scholar
  13. Hacking, I. (1997). John Searle’s building blocks. History of the Human Sciences, 10, 83–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Janko, S. (1994). Vulnerable children, vulnerable families: The social construction of child abuse. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Jenkins, Ph. (1994). Using murder: The social construction of serial homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of a scientific fact. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Luckmann, Th. (1992). “Social construction” and after. Perspectives, 15(2), 4–5.Google Scholar
  19. Pickering, A. (1984). Constructing quarks: A sociological history of particle physics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Plessner, H. (1969). Zur deutschen Ausgabe. In P. L. Berger, & T. Luckmann, Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie (pp. ix–xvi). (German Translation of the 1966 Edition). Frankfurt/M.: Fischer.Google Scholar
  21. Savage, G. (1996). The social construction of expertise: The English civil service and its influence 1919–1939. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  22. Schütz, A. (1932). Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Eine Einleitung in die verstehende Soziologie (2nd Edition 1960). Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Schütz, A. (1957). The Problem of Transcendental Intersubjectivity in Husserl. In A. Schutz, Collected Papers III (pp. 51–84) (I. Schutz, Ed.). The Hague: Nijhoff 1966.Google Scholar
  24. Schütz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (trans: Schutz 1932 by George Walsh/Frederick Lehnert). Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  26. Searle, J. R. (1997a). Précis of “the construction of social reality”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 57, 427–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Searle, J. R. (1997b). Responses to critics of “the construction of social reality”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 57, 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steets, S. (2016). Taking Berger and Luckmann to the realm of materiality: Architecture as a social construction. Cultural Sociology, 10(1), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TrierGermany

Personalised recommendations