Social Constructivism

Max Hocutt

This doctrine is popular for a couple of reasons. First, it is flattering. People like to be told that their opinions are as good as other people’s. Second, when taken in a certain way – as the belief that different beliefs might both be true – social constructivism is unobjectionable. Thus, “Coral snakes are beautiful” is no less true than “Coral snakes are dangerous.” What is objectionable is the claim that contrary beliefs – “Coral snakes are dangerous” and “Coral snakes are harmless” – might both be true, because they are true in the opinion of the people who believe them. That doctrine embodies a tissue of fallacies.

A common cause of these fallacies is carelessness about quotation marks. Social constructivists omit them when they should include them and include them when they should omit them. Thus, they speak of male and female truths when they should speak rather of male and female “truths” – in other words, male and female beliefs. Then they conclude that, since beliefs can contradict each other, therefore truths can contradict each other – a logical absurdity seemingly proven by logical means. Well, the means are not logical. One might as well argue that, since it has six letters, Boston is a mere word. The error here is patent. “Boston” is a word; Boston is not a word but a city.

To see how neglect (or misuse) of quotation marks can produce nonsense about truth, consider the earth. Some say it is flat; others that it is round. Given this dispute, the social constructivist will conclude that, therefore, there are contradictory truths about the shape of the earth. On one hand, there is flat earth truth – the belief that the earth is flat; on the other hand, there is round earth truth – the belief that the earth is round. Contradictory truths, each true; indeed, proven to be so by logic. Or so it is thought. But it isn't logic; it is the death of logic. Belief that the earth is flat is not a truth, it is a mere “truth.” The truth – the absolute truth, the truth without quotation marks – is that the earth is round.

It always has been. William James was mistaken when he argued that the truth about the shape of the earth has changed since the Middle Ages when everybody thought the earth was flat. If James had been right, we would have had not only a revolution in geological opinion since the Middle Ages but also the greatest geological cataclysm since the earth’s creation. But we know that no such cataclysmic event has taken place. The earth, now round, was not formerly flat. So, James was wrong.

James would have been right if the truth were a matter of group or individual belief, but it is not. You and your friends can certainly construct “truths” to suit yourselves. The social constructivists provide excellent illustrations of people who do this. Their “truths” are indeed often constructed – out of whole cloth, nothing more substantial. The trouble is that merely constructing a “truth” will not make it true. You can construct “truths,” but you cannot construct truths, to suit yourself. The world, being stubbornly what it is, will refuse to alter itself to fit your constructions.

In short, “truth” is made, but, contrary to constructivist belief, truth is not made; it is discovered.

Max Hocutt is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama. For more on social constructivism, see his article in the Spring, 1999 issue of Behavior and Philosophy, published by the Cambridge Center.

Return Home