There’s no “implies” about it, the definition of the blank slate model is that everything is socially constructed. So if you disagree, the issue is with definitions, and you’ll have to explain what you mean.
I’m going to say that “blank slate” implies “social construct”, but “social construct” does not imply “blank slate”.
I’m not going to play twenty questions in response to trite single sentences that convey very little. Unless you’re actually going to explain what you mean, I’m going to read a book.
^^^ yeah, this.
ETA: Riemann, read my long one that unpacks “social construct”, posted about 3 hrs ago. I promise it’s not a trite single sentence throwaway that conveys very little.
I guess I think it’s obvious. There is nothing about “social construct” that makes something totally mutable. You, me, and our therapists can’t change the society we live in. At most we can choose friends who create a slightly different society.
Also, as Miller says, the social construct determines the choices we have in how we think about ourselves.
The fact that you personally cannot change the factors is irrelevant to the question of which factors cause something.
But you’ll have to explain what DEFINITIONS for “social construct” and “blank slate” you are using that differentiate them, since I think they are the same by definition.
I believe that this idea of gender identity is not as simple as many seem to believe. Just like sexual preference I don’t think gender identity is a fixed property of a human being. One can feel as if there gender is currently male of female and at some other point choose a different identity. I also don’t see any reason to believe there would be only two genders either and not a spectrum between the extremes. If society can remove the pressure to conform to particular gender characteristics then we could end this idea that every person has to be one or the other.
I think maybe there’s a misconception about genes and environment here.
I’ve already said that gender expression, which pretty much means the “available choices” in a given society, is largely socially constructed.
But the fact that the available categories are socially constructed certainly does not imply that the category we feel we belong to is therefore also determined by social factors. The choice among available categories could be 100% innate.
Suppose that in environment 1, the available nutrients mean that eye color is only shades of blue or green. In environment 2, with different nutrients, eye color varies only among shades of brown. It may nevertheless be true that in each of those environments, variation among the available phenotypes is 100% attributable to genetics.
If we hold genetics constant, then changing society will change phenotype. That doesn’t make the phenotype a social construct. If we hold social environment constant, then changing genetics will change phenotype. That doesn’t make the phenotype 100% innate.
No, the essence of the term social construct is that this is not true. When we say “race is a social construct”, are you seriously suggesting that we mean that race is something that has arisen in society, but allowing that it may have solid anchors in biological reality? Of course not, the entire point of the term “social construct” is that we’re denying any objective biological reality.
I think we’ve been through this before earlier in the thread. It turned out that your beliefs on the nature of gender are exactly the same as mine, but you’re using a definition of “social construct” that apparently allows for innate factors.
Okay, then I think we are just arguing words, and not underlying ideas. To me, “blank slate” implies that you can change the thing, with therapy or training or whatever. Whereas features of our identities that depend on social constructs often can’t be changed.
I’m not sure what YOU mean by either of those words, but perhaps it doesn’t matter.
No, it just means that there is no innate component to human nature.
It mans that you can change the thing in principle - that in a completely different society it would be infinitely variable. It doesn’t imply anything about whether you have the means to change it in practice.
Of course race has anchors in biological reality. Some people have darker skin, or differently-shaped eyes than other people. And yes, there are lots of edge cases, but you can look at someone and objectively say, "this person has darker/lighter skin than 80% of all human beings. That’s an anchor in biological reality.
Now, we hang a lot of stuff on “race” that has nothing to do with that underlying biology. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t anything there.
Similarly, I believe that gender identity has anchors in underlying biology. But it’s still a social construct.
You’re really claiming that there is an objectively real biological concept of “race” based on skin color?
I think you’ll find that the entire point of the statement “race is a social construct” is that this is not true.
Are you claiming that there isn’t a biological basis for skin color?
That is simply a contradiction in terms.
Just like @AHunter3, you do not in fact believe that gender identity is a social construct.
No, no, and again NO. “Social construct” does NOT mean “it has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than entirely arbitrary and random social conventions”. It may be limited to those.
Language is a social construct.
But you won’t find a culture that uses flashes of light as the basis of their language. We aren’t equipped to emit light. Whereas we’re well-equipped to use sounds produced by our mouth and larynx.
No, it’s not. It clearly has a genetic basis that arose at some point in our evolution. You could argue that the superficial details of language are a social construct.
“Social construct” does not just vaguely mean “something to which social factors contribute”. Under that definition, everything is a social construct.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCT Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
a complex concept or practice shared by a society or group, not arising from any natural or innate source but built on the assumptions upheld, usually tacitly, by its members
Social Construct: Definition, Examples, and Why They Happen
A social construct is a concept that exists not in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction. It exists because humans agree that it exists.
Nothing in this definition says that the idea that has been created is always and uniformly completely adrift from any biological underpinnings. I think you are using an awkwardly restrictive (and non-standard) meaning for the term.
And that first example you gave contradicts itself:
a complex concept or practice shared by a society or group, not arising from any natural or innate source but built on the assumptions upheld, usually tacitly, by its members:
The Green Party supports the EU in viewing disability as a social construct and recognizes the well-established link between poverty and disability.
If there’s a link between poverty (which isn’t something just made up out of whole cloth) and disability, then there IS something natural underlying the social construct of disability.
And I think you cherry picked a vague definition.
English versus Finnish? Social exposure alone.
Structured vocabularies that link a subject to an object via a verb clause? Less clear — there may be something innate about how our brains process concepts that anchor languages in that way. Or there may not be. It’s the uncertainty inherent in these matters that yields a vast array of things called “social constructs” where we know that in some substantial way the specifics are not hard-wired.
The term is generally not used to mean “has no basis in anything other than culture”. Because we don’t tend to know that.
Consider gender. Is the entire array of beliefs about differences in personality and behavior between the sexes an artifact of culture alone, or are some of them, at least as tendencies, built in? We DON’T KNOW!
(We do know, however, that there’s more diversity in each sex than between the two populations in general, and we know that gender — the social construct — doesn’t take that into account).