The Social Construction of What?

The tussle between hard science and cultural theorizing as plagued the social sciences for the past 30 years if not longer. For too long have we been subjected to rounds of pointless debates about whether a phenomenon is natural or an idea developed and nurtured by our culture. In other words, a "social construct." Few things vex hard scientists and common-sense types more than the implication that certain real world "truths" are just figments of our cultural imagination reified and relived over and over again by virtue of our sociail practices. Perhaps an extreme example of this debate is the nature-nurture debate common in biology and exacerbated by debates in evolutionary psychology about whether practices are part of an innate ahistorical human nature or byproducts of human culture nurtured in children. Is this label "social construct" a product of legitimate critique or is it a manifestation of the shallow "postmodernization" of the academy and human knowledge by theory-immersed tenured radicals?Canadian philosopher of science Ian Hacking finally clears away all the bushes and fog around this concept to make a sound and calm intervention into the science/culture wars. Rather than choose one side or another, Hacking shows forms of "social constructivist" thinking can be found in the claims and observations of many different thinkers and scientists in the field, as well as how both "social constructionism" and hard science may re-enforce each other in many different fields. In doing so, he proves wrong those who view anything remotely "social constructionist" as irrational and fantastic. He demonstrates how such claims are part and parcel of everyday production of knowledge and how rather than debate over a dichotomy, it would be better to approach the sciences as they are and see how both may reinforce each other to make claims whose correspondence with verifiable objective reality may vary depending on the type of claim being made. On this criteria, Hacking's adherence to either SC or HS (Hard science) fluctuates. This is an important intervention into the science/culture debates, seeking to transcend such petty dichotomies, and can also be read as a corrective to books like Pinker's The Blank Slate which seek to argue for a biologically determined nature. It can also be read as a reply to Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense, which ridiculed swathes of cultural theory for seemingly "relativizing hard scientific facts." Hacking dismisses such puerile debates, firmly placing scientific knowledge within its cultural-social context while exhibiting respect for the observations and discoveries scientific knowledge has made regarding our world, the human body and beyond. If there is any book to read on topics such as this, this book would be it.

This book is terrific. Humane, balanced, measured observations of the battle between those who see science as socially constructed and those who hew to a more naive realism (most scientists, like myself), written by a self-professed non-combatant. The views expressed are insightful, sophisticated and very informative for those not familiar with this kind of internecine warfare. Some of the chapters were written at other times and do not fit completely, but there is enough here to satisfy anyone wanting to know what the fuss is all about and how it might be understood. A really wonderful book that deserves a wide readership.

Ian Hacking's "The Social Construction of What?" is aptly titled, as it deals with the question what the ever so popular phrase 'socially constructed' actually means, if it means anything.In his typical upbeat tone, making use of short, almost staccato sentences, Hacking reviews several possible meanings of the phrase 'social construction', notes the "sticking points" that are the core of the disagreement, and takes some cases from sociology, geology, anthropology and physics to illustrate the problematic. Although Hacking is a fine and accessible writer, and anyone at all can read this book with pleasure, he does tend to be meandering; there is little overall structure to the book, which reads more as a series of musings by an intelligent observer on a difficult question than as a definitive stance on the issue, which Hacking doesn't really have. It's also not always clear what the relation is between the examples of scientific research and debate he cites and the philosophy of science question of social construction.Nonetheless, his philosophical talk is always entertaining and interesting to read, and some people will definitely find a virtue in the fact Hacking never pushes an opinion on the reader, preferring to 'teach the controversy' instead. If there's a sort of philosophical popular science, this would be it.

A very useful and interesting book, has helped crystallise my thinking about social constructionism. Clear and to the point, it represents a good reference point. Very useful

I really enjoy read Dr Hacking's work, and this book is no exception. It is thoughtful, fair and balanced to the extent that I suspect even social constructionists would (moderately) enjoy it. For me and my work, I found Dr Hacking neatly summarized how postposiitvists square constructionism with a more objective research agenda.. If you are thinking of how to reconcile aspects of constructionism with your research philosophy this book may offer assistance