The Perspective of Social Constructionism and Social Identity Supports - Research Paper Example

Over the last twenty years or so, students of the social sciences have witnessed the gradual emergence of a number of alternative approaches to the study of human beings as social animals. These approaches have appeared under a variety of rubrics, such as 'critical psychology', 'discursive psychology', 'discourse analysis', 'deconstruction' and 'poststructuralism'. What many of these approaches have in common, however, is what is now often referred to as 'social constructionism'. Social constructionism can be thought of as a theoretical orientation which to a greater or lesser degree underpins all of these newer approaches, which are currently offering radical and critical alternatives in psychology and social psychology, as well as in other disciplines in the social sciences and humanities. Social constructionism, as it has been taken up by psychology and social psychology, is the focus of this book, and my aim is to introduce the reader to some of its major features, while also elaborating upon the implications it holds for how we are to understand human beings, and for the discipline of psychology itself. Social constructionism is a term that is used almost exclusively by psychologists. As Meil, Phoenix and Thomas in 2002 points out, many of its basic assumptions are actually fundamental to one of its disciplinary cousins, sociology, and it is a measure of the unhelpful separation of the disciplines of sociology and psychology since the early 20th century that psychologists are only just 'discovering' social constructionist ideas. There is no single description, which would be adequate for all the different kinds of writers whom I shall refer to as social constructionist. This is because, although different writers may share some characteristics with others, there isn't really anything that they all have in common. What links them all together is a kind of 'family resemblance'. Members of the same family differ in the family characteristics that they share. There is no one characteristic borne by all members of a family, but there are enough recurrent features shared amongst different family members to identify the people as basically belonging to the same family group. This is the model that shall adopt for social constructionism. There is no one feature, which could be said to identify a social constructionist position. Instead, that might loosely think of as social constructionist any approach which has at its foundation one or more of the following key assumptions. This is something like 'things you would absolutely have to believe in order to be a social constructionist'. While according to the works of Finlay, Kynan and Thompson also in 2002 the social world, including ourselves as people, is the product of social processes, it follows that there cannot be any given, determined nature to the world or people. There are no essences inside things or people that make them what they are. Although some kinds of traditional psychology, such as behaviourism, would agree with this, others such as trait theory and psychoanalysis are based on the idea of some pre-given 'content' to the person. It is important to stress the radical nature of the proposal being put forward here. People sometimes misunderstand the social constructionist argument for cultural and historical specificity, and see it as just another way of taking the nurture side in the 'nature/ nurture' debate. Both Meil, Phoenix and Thomas (2002) and Finlay, Kynan and Thompson agrees that social constructionism is not just saying that one's cultural surroundings have an impact upon one's psychology, or even that our nature is a product of environmental, including social, rather than biological factors. These experts views are essentialist, in that they see the person as having some definable and discoverable nature, whether given by biology or by the environment, and as such cannot be called social constructionist. Social constructionism opposes the essentialism of much traditional psychology. Often this is because essentialism traps people inside personalities and identities that are limiting for them and are sometimes pathologised by psychology, which then becomes an even more oppressive practice. In the book of Finlay, Kynan and Thompson, there is an example, if someone is described as a manic-depressive and this is seen as an abiding feature of their personality, they not only face a future in which change appears unlikely but may also become subject to invasive psychiatric procedures. On the other hand, in Meil, Phoenix and Thomas study, social constructionism denies that our knowledge is a direct perception of reality. In fact it might be said that as a culture or society we construct our own versions of reality between us. Since we have to accept the historical and cultural relativism of all forms of knowledge, it follows that the notion of 'truth' becomes problematic. Within social constructionism there can be no such thing as an objective fact. All knowledge is derived from looking at the world from some perspective or other, and is in the service of some interests rather than others. For example, I may say that my dining-room table is made of excellent wood. Someone else may say that is of contemporary design, and yet another may comment that it is too small to be practical. None of these statements is the truth about the table, and each description is driven by a different concern, such as quality, style and practicality. The search for truth, the truth about people, about human nature, about society, has been at the foundation of social science from the start. Social constructionism therefore heralds a radically different model of what it could mean to do social science. The social constructionist critique of the realist philosophy of much traditional psychology focuses upon psychology's denial that its own grasp on the word must itself be partial. It is partial both in the sense of being only one way of seeing the world among many potential ways and in the sense of reflecting vested interests. Although social constructionism is generally suspicious of realist claims, some social constructionists embrace a form of realism known as critical realism In general, the perspective of social constructionism and social identity supports the argument that people describe identity relevant information from groups, but also extends the argument in three important ways. Initially, procedural fairness is powerful influence on behavior and attitudes. Second, respect (self-esteem) is the source of social identity. People care not only about the position of their important groups in larger social context but also about their position in important groups. And lastly, the works of Meil, Phoenix and Thomas and the work of Finlay, Kaye, Kynan and Thompson both presented the relational background of pride and respect offer alternative way for creating positive social identities. Seeing groups as positive and important may not require viewing other groups as less desirable but instead could be creation of social justice. Hence, positive social identities lead to favorable feelings about the willingness to act on behalf of the group. People’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior are explained by social structure of reality, the formation of and change in normative expectations, the ability to take the role of the generalized other, and the exercise of influence, esteem, and right. The role of psychology does not necessarily apply on individual but as well as to the society as a whole. We all know that society greatly influence our personal lives. Since social psychology contribute to understanding on why a person acts or behaves that way. It may help the whole group process to, probably, achieve its desirable goal. Knowing one’s personality is essential in a group because it will lessen the confusions and other irregularities that may occur in the process. In addition, when we talk about social psychology, it has been always associated by the word social identity. Thus, these two perspective works jointly to have a best outcome. References Meil, D. Phoenix, A and Thomas, K (2002)Mapping Psychology 1, The Open University Finlay, L., Kaye, H., Kynan, S. and Thompson, A. (2002) Workbbok, DSE212 Exploring Psychology, Milton Keynes, the Open University Read More