Many people hate to hear that ideas they hold dear are not, in fact, objective truths but mere “social constructs,” and many others love to brazenly break this news. Perhaps the most popular example of this lies in the concept of gender and its implications for the division of a variety of things in society ranging from children’s toys to military service. Both a lack of understanding about the definition of a social construct and a knee jerk reaction to any dissolution of something seen as objective typically shroud conversations about whether society has constructed a certain idea and prevent much, if not all, progress. Most people enjoy feeling like they have the universe figured out and find security in thinking things “just are” as they have always thought them to be. These people regard subjectivity and relativity as a threat to their worldview and consequently to the aspects of their society that rest upon that same worldview. Others recognize certain notions as social constructs and push the public to reach the same conclusion without realizing the difficult philosophical problems that accompany this project.
The question one should ask in determining whether society has constructed any particular thing is “Where would this thing be if one was alone in the world?” For example, where would the concept of gender be if only one person existed? It simply would not. There would not be anyone to extrapolate any notions of “how things should be” for people of a particular sex; the lone person certainly would not decide to arbitrarily set these guidelines for himself (sex would exist in the same way arms and legs would for these words describe purely physical attributes).
This exercise gets to the root of the issue: Either abstract ideas exist entirely independent of the conscious beings capable of entertaining them or they are socially constructed. Either gender is somehow a thing that exists in a lifeless vacuum or it is an idea human beings created and developed over time. Even if one claims that gender does indeed exist barring the existence of conscious creatures, he could not even begin to prove its existence much less the existence of his version of it.
To push this point further, say the sole living person read books on gender. His newfound knowledge would fail to impact how he lived or thought about himself for there would be no one to judge him. After his reading, he would not think to himself, “I should really be living according to this gender stereotype” for there would be no one to impress by doing so and he would only be limiting himself without reason. Even if the concept of gender existed apart from this lone person, there would be no reason to abide by it or feel any obligation to it unless he lived in a society with other people.
Here’s where the problems arise though. Where would civil rights be if one was alone in the world? Where would democracy be? What about law, culture, and morality? What about health? Equality?
All of these also simply would not be which reveals both the significance that something has been socially constructed (or lack thereof) and the problems that arise when talking about social construction. Many good ideas originate from social consciousness like, for instance, equality. Just because something is a social construct does not mean it provides no benefit to society and the fact that something is a social construct should mean very little. What matters is whether that particular construct is useful for one’s society and whether it actually aligns with one’s (constructed) values. At this point, deep contemplation and argumentation for why society should keep particular constructs and throw out others should occur. Recognizing social constructs as such is only the beginning of the process.