"Socially constructed" does not mean "fake."
A thread.
A thread.
It's rather popular to suggest that a social construct is something without consequential referents; something that, by definition, can be changed on a whim like a child playing pretend. 
This is false. Religion is socially constructed, but I can't declare that a table is now a cathedral and have it mean anything. That last bit, meaning, is the key. We can play however we like. But most social constructs are like their physical counterparts: durable.
Social constructions--like, say, the norms of a subculture, or a socioeconomic class--are durable, distinct, and consequential. Race is a social construct, yet it determines life-chances in an overt way; it shapes police interactions, or one's healthcare or job opportunities.
Social constructs are also--brace yourselves--*social*. That means they take their meaning from social context, from people (more-or-less) agreeing on a set meaning for a certain product of social endeavour. A shrine becomes sacred because of tribal consensus, and so on.
You can't declare your couch to be the Hagia Sofia is not merely due to objective facts, but because those "facts" are determined by consensus. Human civilisation created and instantiated such a place, hashed out its meaning, and observes it. You can't change that on a whim.
The term "construct" is an apt one because it conjures the image of something that is artificial yet durable. It's not a mere wish or whim, but an idea given solid form. A social construct can be changed, yes, but it takes more than simply a snap of one's fingers.
If you think it can, try swearing at your boss and declaring yourself the new owner and see what happens to you. I mean, social constructs are fake, so this should have no consequences, right?
Of course, that doesn't mean you can't change that relationship. But it'd mean forming a union, organising with your fellow employees, and developing a collective plan of action to change (or, ahem, seize) ownership. It takes effort, practise, and the creation of *new meaning*.
It's much like the process of razing one building and erecting another in its place. It can be done, but it takes time, energy, and resources. And both buildings were, in every way that matters, "real."
At bottom, "social construction" describes a process by which human endeavours become meaningful in our social worlds. How do our ideas create durable norms and institutions that outlast us?
Our ideas can become, in the end, systems of consequential meaning. But those systems are, in every way that matters, real to the people who live within them. And it takes more than your Twitter snark to alter them.
"Social construction" describes a process by which something meaningful is created. It is not meant to imply that something is inherently *un*real. Merely that it is changeable.
So, what does the "constructing" process look like? Here's what's happening. (Courtesy of a slide by Nathan Loynes). In short, humans come up with an idea, "reify" it (i.e. act as if it were natural and immutable), and then integrate it into their schema of the world.
What's crucial to keep in mind here is that "forgetting we came up with the idea" is essential to the process. Think of it as the mortar for social constructs. It holds everything together.
This permits durability, and it's here that humans come to speak of things like "the will of God"--or "Nature" as an anthropomorphised entity that can be defied. Traditions and norms that transcend the individual and shape our behaviour, durable because they're hard to question.
Almost everything in your life that you take for granted has been, to one degree or another, socially constructed. All that means is that it's the product of human relations. That doesn't mean it's fake or without meaning. It's just a way of describing how it was *created*.
And, of course, how it's *sustained*. The sociological theory here is one that's been challenged because it's politically convenient for every status quo on the planet to pretend it's founded on immutable, timeless laws.
The one thing social construction adds, by demystifying the process of creation, is to implicitly suggest that these immutable laws are actually subject to change--as I suggested before with my workplace example. But it takes collective effort to do so, not individual sophistry.
Anyway, if you like this sort of thing, and my writing--journalism, crit, RPGs, and fiction!--feel free to help chip in and feed my cats. They will thank you. patreon.com/KatherineCross
