Whilst social constructionism is influential in broadening our understanding of social problems, it has been criticised in various ways. One criticism is that social constructionism may not liberate certain groups of people. For example, it can be seen to liberate motherhood as a social construct as it suggests there is more than one way for a woman to lead her life and be a mother. But then to suggest to adolescent girls that eating disorders are a...
Whilst social constructionism is influential in broadening our understanding of social problems, it has been criticised in various ways. One criticism is that social constructionism may not liberate certain groups of people. For example, it can be seen to liberate motherhood as a social construct as it suggests there is more than one way for a woman to lead her life and be a mother. But then to suggest to adolescent girls that eating disorders are a social construct isn’t very liberating at all. Social construction is only liberating for those, who are already on the path to liberation.
Critical theorists have argued that social constructionism fails to take into consideration other factors that might provide a useful way of understanding social problems, such as biological factors. Sokal and Bricmont, state that social constructionism argues that biological factors are not useful in understanding human behavior. However, biological factors have proved useful in the understanding of criminal behavior as a social problem. Dolan, Anderson, and Deakin conveyed that high levels of certain neurochemicals in the brain such as testosterone is linked to aggressive antisocial behavior. This suggests that the social construction approach is rigid and doesn’t consider other possible factors. Illustrating that social constructionism is not a useful way of understanding social problems. Social constructionism is seen to trivialize the reality of social problems and create a sense that these issues are merely social constructions
