Historicizing Constructionism
Introduction
“Historicizing constructionism” refers to the process of locating constructionist ideas—especially in gender studies—within their historical, cultural, intellectual, and political contexts. It means not taking “constructionism” as a static theory but tracing how, when, and why it emerged; how it has been shaped by earlier thought; and how it has changed over time.
In this post, we’ll explore:
- the intellectual roots of constructionism
- major milestones and transformations in its development
- how feminist theory has contributed to historicizing constructionism
- key debates, critiques, and implications
What Is Constructionism & What Does Historicizing Mean
- Constructionism (or social constructionism) is the approach that many aspects of our social reality—identities, norms, categories (like gender, race, sexuality)—are not simply natural or given, but produced through social interaction, discourse, institutions, and power relations.
- Historicizing means analysing these ideas as historically situated: when they emerged, what intellectual, cultural, and social forces shaped them, how notions evolved, what debates influenced shifts, etc.
Historicizing helps us understand both the strengths and limitations of constructionist theories. It reveals that what seems “natural” at one historical moment might be contested or redefined later.
Intellectual Roots and Early Development
Here are major sources and moments in the historic development of constructionism:
1. Precursors: Symbolic Interactionism and Phenomenology
- George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) in Mind, Self, and Society (posthumously published in 1934) proposed that the self and social reality are constructed through social interaction—with the “generalized other” shaping how individuals see themselves.
- Phenomenologists like Alfred Schutz also contributed: their focus on subjective experience and how people make sense of their lifeworld paved the way for thinking about how everyday knowledge is constructed.
2. Berger & Luckmann (1966) – The Social Construction of Reality
- Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Reality (1966) is often considered a foundational text for modern social constructionism.
- They argue that knowledge and “reality” are built through social processes: people externalize meaning, these meanings become institutionalized, and future generations internalize them so that they seem natural.
3. Mid-20th Century Expansions: Discourse, Power, and Post-Structuralism
- Thinkers such as Michel Foucault deepened constructionist approaches by showing how discourses (within institutions) constitute truths, norms, and subjectivities. Discourse, power, and knowledge are intertwined.
- Ethnomethodology (Harold Garfinkel) also contributes by examining how everyday interactions produce and sustain the “taken-for-granted” social order.
4. Feminist Constructivism & Historicizing Practices
- Feminist scholars have emphasised that constructionist claims especially must be historicized—looking at how gender, sexuality, race etc. have been differently constructed in different eras and cultural settings.
- For instance, Judith Butler’s work on performativity is deeply historical: she often traces how gender norms are tied to specific histories, legal regimes, and power relations. Feminist philosophers like Katriina Honkanen have examined “historicity” in Butler’s constructivist arguments.
- Historicizing also means exploring feminist critiques of constructionism: that some constructionist views risk assuming a universal subject or ignoring colonial, racial, economic differences over time.
Transformations & Key Moments in the History of Constructionism
Tracing how constructionism changed over time helps seeing how its theoretical edges sharpened.
Period / Decade | Major Developments | Shifts & New Challenges |
---|---|---|
1930s-1950s | Symbolic interactionism (Mead), phenomenology; early sociology of knowledge ideas. | Focus still heavy on individual interactions; less attention to structural power, race, colonialism. |
1960s | Berger & Luckmann publish The Social Construction of Reality. Rise of sociology of knowledge; awareness of institutionalization of norms. | Emergence of critiques: how stable is “reality” if constructed? What is the role of power? |
1970s-1980s | Feminist theory, post-structuralism, critical theory expand constructionism. Discourse analysis becomes central. | Debates emerge: is everything constructed? How to avoid relativism? What about materiality? |
1990s-2000s | Judith Butler, intersectionality, queer theory. More focus on historicity and temporal dimensions. Histories of sexuality, bodies; non-Western conceptualizations. | More nuanced attention to how constructions vary over culture/time; focus on voice, agency, resistance. |
2010s-present | Global perspectives, decolonial critiques, digital media/discourse shifts. Historicizing across global north/south; contested public discourse. | Challenges: how to historicize when records are sparse; balancing universal and particular; integrating material and discursive; power and voice. |
Examples & Quotations that Highlight Historicizing Constructionism
- From Berger & Luckmann: Their concept of institutionalization shows how practices over time become entrenched as “natural” or “given.” For example, rules in family life, religious norms, gender roles. Over generations, what was negotiated becomes taken for granted.
- Judith Butler on historicity: Feminist practice “[…] to historicize is to take history not merely as backdrop but as constitutive of what gender means in that moment.” (paraphrased from feminist writings) Honkanen’s studies show feminist constructivism depends on connecting “how gender has been shaped in history” (its legal, moral, discursive regimes) to present norms.
- Mead: identity formation via the “generalized other” shows how social roles (past, contemporaries, future expectations) shape identity as much as individual awareness. The historical dimension is implicit—what prior norms exist in the social group.
Critiques & Debates around Historicizing Constructionism
Historicizing constructionism brings its own set of debates. Some core criticisms:
- Relativism vs Universalism: If all identities and categories are historically contingent, is there anything stable enough for universal claims (e.g., human rights, equality)?
- Power, Colonialism, and Eurocentrism: Early constructionist theories were often produced in Western academia. Historicizing must attend to non-Western histories and colonial legacies.
- Materiality & Biology: Critics argue some constructionist views underplay the material / biological / economic conditions (bodies, health, environment). Historicizing can help integrate those but also shows tensions.
- Historicity as Methodological Demand: There is a tension: historicizing requires historical evidence, archives, etc., but many marginalized groups or regions have less preserved documentation, which can create bias in knowledge production.
- Over-historicizing / Determinism: One risk is making history seem deterministic—assuming past norms fully condition present ones without room for agency, resistance, transformation.
Implications for Understanding Gender & Other Social Categories
- Historicizing makes visible how concepts like gender, race, sexuality, disability have been differently constructed in different times and places. For example, “women’s roles” in medieval societies differ from Victorian ideals, which differ again in post-colonial contexts.
- It allows critique of present norms: by showing how norms are historically contingent, one can imagine change, resist oppressive constructions.
- It enriches intersectional analysis: gender does not evolve in isolation, but along with race, class, colonialism, religion, law. Historicization helps see these intersections over time.
- Helps in evaluating policies, discourse: laws or norms seem “natural” until historicizing shows their invention and maintenance.
Conclusion & Key Takeaways
- Historicizing constructionism means seeing social constructionist theories not as timeless truths but as ideas embedded in history, shaped by intellectual history (e.g. phenomenology, symbolic interactionism), social movements (feminism, post-colonialism), and power relations.
- Tracing the history of constructionism helps us understand its potentials (critique, transformation) and its limitations (relativism, Eurocentric bias, marginalization of materiality).
- Applying historicizing means always asking: When was this norm or category made? By whom? For what purposes? Under what power relations?
Related Posts:
Historicizing Constructionism Read More »