Debate Guide: Social constructionism - Revision history

The Admins at 20:20, 19 November 2022

2022-11-19T20:20:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:20, 19 November 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Construct.png\|thumb\|Basically worded constructionist reply.]]		[[File:Construct.png\|thumb\|Basically worded constructionist reply.]]
	__NOTOC__'''Social constructionism refers to a theory or method of sociological analysis that challenges the foundations of mainly metaphysical, imagined concepts and investigates/retraces the social processes by which they were established as "objective" truths.'''		__NOTOC__'''Social constructionism refers to a theory or method of sociological analysis that challenges the foundations of mainly metaphysical, imagined concepts and investigates/retraces the social processes by which they were established as "objective" truths. [[The History of Sexuality\|Foucault]] is an often-cited example within modern scholarship.'''

	Its lay alternative can be ~~characterised~~ as the reasoned assertion that certain phenomena exist only "in the eye of the beholder", or more accurately "according to their culture or upbringing".		Its lay alternative can be characterized as the reasoned assertion that certain phenomena exist only "in the eye of the beholder", or more accurately "according to their culture or upbringing".

	==Caution==		==Caution==
Line 16:		Line 16:
	Those, who in response to the "sexual traumas" or "delinquency" of young people, call for tougher legislation or stricter indoctrination and monitoring, are just adding fuel to the fire they started.		Those, who in response to the "sexual traumas" or "delinquency" of young people, call for tougher legislation or stricter indoctrination and monitoring, are just adding fuel to the fire they started.

	We have '''constructed''' a dogmatic and esoteric matrix of moral teachings and ~~behaviour~~-consequence dynamics by reinforcing those very values we are now turning to again. I would also add that many of these individuals are financially dependent upon the very harms they are causing, much like the [[Research: Cognitive ability\|troubled teen industry]] or [[repressed memory]] shrinks. Those who follow said moral-realist social dictates are blind to the harm they are causing, much like the parent who responds to their underachieving and volatile child by simply beating them even more. By supporting legislation against 'risky' behaviour, professionals, the public and their representatives reinforce moral preconceptions against acts that carry no burden of [[Research: Secondary Harm\|intrinsic harm]]. A better understanding of social causation and ~~criminalisation~~ may inform the passing of legislation against demonstrable harms and not "indecent" acts that are deemed ''a priori'' to be "wrong".		We have '''constructed''' a dogmatic and esoteric matrix of moral teachings and behavior-consequence dynamics by reinforcing those very values we are now turning to again. I would also add that many of these individuals are financially dependent upon the very harms they are causing, much like the [[Research: Cognitive ability\|troubled teen industry]] or [[repressed memory]] shrinks. Those who follow said moral-realist social dictates are blind to the harm they are causing, much like the parent who responds to their underachieving and volatile child by simply beating them even more. By supporting legislation against 'risky' behaviour, professionals, the public and their representatives reinforce moral preconceptions against acts that carry no burden of [[Research: Secondary Harm\|intrinsic harm]]. A better understanding of social causation and criminalization may inform the passing of legislation against demonstrable harms and not "indecent" acts that are deemed ''a priori'' to be "wrong".

			====Human adult sexuality is discursive====

			Most primate species, and some others with long life cycles and complex relationships, have a [[Research: Intergenerational Sexual Behaviors in Animals\|remarkable ability to separate the act of mating from other "sexual" behaviors]]. Throughout history, human relationships have always been diverse, fulfilling a [[Debate Guide: Evolutionary logic\|range needs of different individuals]], and therefore the ability to adapt is an advantageous trait. The bifurcation of platonic love or parental love, and eros, is therefore a modern invention of advanced civilizations - that is to say, it is a [[Wikipedia:Discourse\|discursive]] distinction. Discursive truths about "sexuality" are cultural "oughts", concerning the ordering of society by way of its individual actors and their relationships with one another.

	==See also==		==See also==

			*[[The History of Sexuality]] by [[Michel Foucault]]
	*[[Debate Guide: Abuse of language]]		*[[Debate Guide: Abuse of language]]
	*[[Debate Guide: The discursive nature of human sexuality]]
	*[[Debate Guide: Self-loathing hatred]]		*[[Debate Guide: Self-loathing hatred]]
	*[[Debate Guide: Cyclical paternalism]]		*[[Debate Guide: Cyclical paternalism]]

The Admins at 21:07, 13 April 2022

2022-04-13T21:07:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:07, 13 April 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Construct.png\|thumb\|~~Basicly~~ worded constructionist reply.]]		[[File:Construct.png\|thumb\|Basically worded constructionist reply.]]
	__NOTOC__'''Social constructionism refers to a theory or method of sociological analysis that challenges the foundations of mainly metaphysical, imagined concepts and investigates/retraces the social processes by which they were established as "objective" truths.'''		__NOTOC__'''Social constructionism refers to a theory or method of sociological analysis that challenges the foundations of mainly metaphysical, imagined concepts and investigates/retraces the social processes by which they were established as "objective" truths.'''

The Admins at 21:06, 13 April 2022

2022-04-13T21:06:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:06, 13 April 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[[File:Construct.png\|thumb\|Basicly worded constructionist reply.]]
	__NOTOC__'''Social constructionism refers to a theory or method of sociological analysis that challenges the foundations of mainly metaphysical, imagined concepts and investigates/retraces the social processes by which they were established as "objective" truths.'''		__NOTOC__'''Social constructionism refers to a theory or method of sociological analysis that challenges the foundations of mainly metaphysical, imagined concepts and investigates/retraces the social processes by which they were established as "objective" truths.'''

The Admins at 09:46, 14 October 2021

2021-10-14T09:46:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:46, 14 October 2021
Line 25:		Line 25:
	*[[Debate Guide: Turn of events]]		*[[Debate Guide: Turn of events]]
	*[[Debate Guide: It's wrong because it's illegal]]		*[[Debate Guide: It's wrong because it's illegal]]
			*[[Debate Guide: Profound and lifelong scarring]]

	==External links==		==External links==

The Admins: /* See also */

2021-10-14T09:45:48Z

The Admins at 19:43, 24 September 2021

2021-09-24T19:43:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:43, 24 September 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Social constructionism refers to a theory or method of sociological analysis that challenges the foundations of mainly metaphysical, imagined concepts and investigates/retraces the social processes by which they were established as "objective" truths.'''		__NOTOC__'''Social constructionism refers to a theory or method of sociological analysis that challenges the foundations of mainly metaphysical, imagined concepts and investigates/retraces the social processes by which they were established as "objective" truths.'''

	Its lay alternative can be characterised as the reasoned assertion that certain phenomena exist only "in the eye of the beholder", or more accurately "according to their culture or upbringing".		Its lay alternative can be characterised as the reasoned assertion that certain phenomena exist only "in the eye of the beholder", or more accurately "according to their culture or upbringing".
Line 16:		Line 16:

	We have '''constructed''' a dogmatic and esoteric matrix of moral teachings and behaviour-consequence dynamics by reinforcing those very values we are now turning to again. I would also add that many of these individuals are financially dependent upon the very harms they are causing, much like the [[Research: Cognitive ability\|troubled teen industry]] or [[repressed memory]] shrinks. Those who follow said moral-realist social dictates are blind to the harm they are causing, much like the parent who responds to their underachieving and volatile child by simply beating them even more. By supporting legislation against 'risky' behaviour, professionals, the public and their representatives reinforce moral preconceptions against acts that carry no burden of [[Research: Secondary Harm\|intrinsic harm]]. A better understanding of social causation and criminalisation may inform the passing of legislation against demonstrable harms and not "indecent" acts that are deemed ''a priori'' to be "wrong".		We have '''constructed''' a dogmatic and esoteric matrix of moral teachings and behaviour-consequence dynamics by reinforcing those very values we are now turning to again. I would also add that many of these individuals are financially dependent upon the very harms they are causing, much like the [[Research: Cognitive ability\|troubled teen industry]] or [[repressed memory]] shrinks. Those who follow said moral-realist social dictates are blind to the harm they are causing, much like the parent who responds to their underachieving and volatile child by simply beating them even more. By supporting legislation against 'risky' behaviour, professionals, the public and their representatives reinforce moral preconceptions against acts that carry no burden of [[Research: Secondary Harm\|intrinsic harm]]. A better understanding of social causation and criminalisation may inform the passing of legislation against demonstrable harms and not "indecent" acts that are deemed ''a priori'' to be "wrong".

			==See also==

			*[[Debate Guide: Abuse of language]]
			*[[Debate Guide: The discursive nature of human sexuality]]
			*[[Debate Guide: Self-loathing hatred]]
			*[[Debate Guide: Cyclical paternalism]]
			*[[Debate Guide: Turn of events]]
			*[[Debate Guide: It's wrong because it's illegal]]
			*[[Debate Guide: Intrinsic harm]]

			==External links==

			*[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism Wikipedia]

	[[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]]		[[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]]

	[[fr:Guide de débat: Constructivisme social]]		[[fr:Guide de débat: Constructivisme social]]

The Admins: /* Example */

2021-09-24T19:24:21Z

Example

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:24, 24 September 2021
Line 15:		Line 15:
	Those, who in response to the "sexual traumas" or "delinquency" of young people, call for tougher legislation or stricter indoctrination and monitoring, are just adding fuel to the fire they started.		Those, who in response to the "sexual traumas" or "delinquency" of young people, call for tougher legislation or stricter indoctrination and monitoring, are just adding fuel to the fire they started.

	We have '''constructed''' a dogmatic and esoteric matrix of moral teachings and behaviour-consequence dynamics by reinforcing those very values we are now turning to again. I would also add that many of these individuals are ~~either~~ financially dependent upon the very harms they are causing, much like the [[Research: Cognitive ability\|troubled teen industry]] or [[repressed memory]] shrinks. Those who follow said moral-realist social dictates are blind to the harm they are causing, much like the parent who responds to their underachieving and volatile child by simply beating them even more. By supporting legislation against 'risky' behaviour, professionals, the public and their representatives reinforce moral preconceptions against acts that carry no burden of [[Research: Secondary Harm\|intrinsic harm]]. A better understanding of social causation and criminalisation may inform the passing of legislation against demonstrable harms and not "indecent" acts that are deemed ''a priori'' to be "wrong".		We have '''constructed''' a dogmatic and esoteric matrix of moral teachings and behaviour-consequence dynamics by reinforcing those very values we are now turning to again. I would also add that many of these individuals are financially dependent upon the very harms they are causing, much like the [[Research: Cognitive ability\|troubled teen industry]] or [[repressed memory]] shrinks. Those who follow said moral-realist social dictates are blind to the harm they are causing, much like the parent who responds to their underachieving and volatile child by simply beating them even more. By supporting legislation against 'risky' behaviour, professionals, the public and their representatives reinforce moral preconceptions against acts that carry no burden of [[Research: Secondary Harm\|intrinsic harm]]. A better understanding of social causation and criminalisation may inform the passing of legislation against demonstrable harms and not "indecent" acts that are deemed ''a priori'' to be "wrong".

	[[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]]		[[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]]

	[[fr:Guide de débat: Constructivisme social]]		[[fr:Guide de débat: Constructivisme social]]

The Admins at 19:22, 24 September 2021

2021-09-24T19:22:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:22, 24 September 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Social constructionism refers to a theory or method of sociological analysis that challenges the foundations of mainly metaphysical, imagined concepts and investigates/retraces the social processes by which they were established as "objective" truths.'''		'''Social constructionism refers to a theory or method of sociological analysis that challenges the foundations of mainly metaphysical, imagined concepts and investigates/retraces the social processes by which they were established as "objective" truths.'''

	Its lay alternative can be characterised as the reasoned assertion that certain phenomena exist only "in the eye of the beholder", or more accurately "~~in the eye of the beholder, due~~ to ~~social processes~~".		Its lay alternative can be characterised as the reasoned assertion that certain phenomena exist only "in the eye of the beholder", or more accurately "according to their culture or upbringing".

	==Caution==		==Caution==

The Admins at 19:20, 24 September 2021

2021-09-24T19:20:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:20, 24 September 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{moreinfo}}~~		'''Social constructionism refers to a theory or method of sociological analysis that challenges the foundations of mainly metaphysical, imagined concepts and investigates/retraces the social processes by which they were established as "objective" truths.'''
	Social constructionism refers to a theory or method of sociological analysis that challenges the foundations of mainly metaphysical, imagined concepts and investigates/retraces the social processes by which they were established as "objective" truths. Its lay alternative can be characterised as the reasoned assertion that certain phenomena exist only "in the eye of the beholder", or more accurately "in the eye of the beholder, due to social processes".
			Its lay alternative can be characterised as the reasoned assertion that certain phenomena exist only "in the eye of the beholder", or more accurately "in the eye of the beholder, due to social processes".

			==Caution==

			There is plenty of research you can do on the social constructionist standpoint, both in its philosophical underpinnings and how it is received in the wider public debate. However, as a note of caution, there are merits and also, absurd extremes to which this method of analysis can be pursued. For example, there exist many observable patterns and trends in our world, which are almost entirely biologically/naturistically determined, but do rely on social processes to give them ''meaning''. This nuance can often get lost in translation, where a constructionist standpoint is invoked in a debate.

			==Application==

	The use of deconstructive techniques of "textual" or "literary" criticism, whether overtly or by proxy of folk principles such as "in the eye of the beholder" has been central to the struggles and eventual emancipation of many groups, as it should be to sexual minorities including adults and minors who seek mutual affection (see the work of [[Gayle Rubin]]).		The use of deconstructive techniques of "textual" or "literary" criticism, whether overtly or by proxy of folk principles such as "in the eye of the beholder" has been central to the struggles and eventual emancipation of many groups, as it should be to sexual minorities including adults and minors who seek mutual affection (see the work of [[Gayle Rubin]]).

	==Example==		===Example===

			Those, who in response to the "sexual traumas" or "delinquency" of young people, call for tougher legislation or stricter indoctrination and monitoring, are just adding fuel to the fire they started.

	~~Those, who in response to the "sexual traumatisation" of young people, call for tougher legislation or stricter enforcement of moral codes are putting~~ a ~~flame thrower to an inferno. It is illogical to fight the harmful effects of~~ dogmatic and ~~complicating~~ moral teachings by reinforcing those very values. ~~It is most likely~~ that ~~such people~~ are either financially dependent upon or blind to the harm they are causing, much like the parent who responds to their underachieving and volatile child by simply beating them even more. By supporting legislation against 'risky' behaviour, professionals, the public and their representatives reinforce moral preconceptions against acts that ~~may not have resulted in~~ harm~~, had they not been accompanied with extraneous factors~~. A better understanding of social causation and criminalisation may inform the passing of legislation against demonstrable ~~harm~~ and not "~~immoral~~" acts that are ~~only associated with such problems~~.		We have '''constructed''' a dogmatic and esoteric matrix of moral teachings and behaviour-consequence dynamics by reinforcing those very values we are now turning to again. I would also add that many of these individuals are either financially dependent upon the very harms they are causing, much like the [[Research: Cognitive ability\|troubled teen industry]] or [[repressed memory]] shrinks. Those who follow said moral-realist social dictates are blind to the harm they are causing, much like the parent who responds to their underachieving and volatile child by simply beating them even more. By supporting legislation against 'risky' behaviour, professionals, the public and their representatives reinforce moral preconceptions against acts that carry no burden of [[Research: Secondary Harm\|intrinsic harm]]. A better understanding of social causation and criminalisation may inform the passing of legislation against demonstrable harms and not "indecent" acts that are deemed ''a priori'' to be "wrong".

	[[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]]		[[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]]

	[[fr:Guide de débat: Constructivisme social]]		[[fr:Guide de débat: Constructivisme social]]

Jillium at 07:03, 23 June 2009

2009-06-23T07:03:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:03, 23 June 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{moreinfo}}		{{moreinfo}}
	Social constructionism refers to a theory or method of sociological analysis that challenges the foundations of mainly metaphysical, imagined concepts and investigates/retraces the social processes by which they were established as "objective" truths. ~~It's~~ lay alternative can be characterised as the reasoned assertion that certain phenomena exist only "in the eye of the beholder", or more accurately "in the eye of the beholder, due to social processes".		Social constructionism refers to a theory or method of sociological analysis that challenges the foundations of mainly metaphysical, imagined concepts and investigates/retraces the social processes by which they were established as "objective" truths. Its lay alternative can be characterised as the reasoned assertion that certain phenomena exist only "in the eye of the beholder", or more accurately "in the eye of the beholder, due to social processes".

	The use of deconstructive techniques of "textual" or "literary" criticism, whether overtly or by proxy of folk principles such as "in the eye of the beholder" has been central to the struggles and eventual emancipation of many groups, as it should be to sexual minorities including adults and minors who seek mutual affection (see the work of [[Gayle Rubin]]).		The use of deconstructive techniques of "textual" or "literary" criticism, whether overtly or by proxy of folk principles such as "in the eye of the beholder" has been central to the struggles and eventual emancipation of many groups, as it should be to sexual minorities including adults and minors who seek mutual affection (see the work of [[Gayle Rubin]]).

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:45, 14 October 2021
Line 25:		Line 25:
	*[[Debate Guide: Turn of events]]		*[[Debate Guide: Turn of events]]
	*[[Debate Guide: It's wrong because it's illegal]]		*[[Debate Guide: It's wrong because it's illegal]]
	*[[Debate Guide: Intrinsic harm]]

	==External links==		==External links==