Instead of talking about whether or not some contentious category regarding human biology is a "social construct," people should instead use "loose heuristic" or "tight heuristic." It would clear up what seems to be a great deal of confusion.
As it stands now, "social construct" is a bait and switch. When reasonable people use it to concede that something they study is indeed a "social construct," they are usually saying that the lines are drawn somewhat arbitrarily, but there are legitimate biological underpinnings.
But "social construct" is not such a straightforward phrase. The academics who call themselves "social constructionists" argue that all of human knowledge is socially constructed, and that we in a sense 'create' our world through symbolic interaction as it 'creates' us.
This isn't quite nominalism (conservatives often unfairly accuse things they don't like of being nominalist), nor is it outright nihilism, but it is a perspective for which nothing is at stake, since it assumes that language can only talk about language. It never pierces the Real
The damage of such a perspective comes only from when one or more of its adherents choose to shine its light upon one specific idea and keep the light unwaveringly focused. The label of 'social construction' has the effect of a magnifying glass burning a hole into an leaf.
People rarely think to say, "Yes, but what is at stake in your claim? All signifiers are socially constructed. The way we speak to one another is rooted in social construction. The lens with which we view the world is socially constructed. Mathematics is socially constructed."
Instead of "rolling through" the maneuver and letting its thrust overexert itself, conservatives engage in a pointless battle of wills. This is why I think they really need to read poststructuralism instead of whine about how hard it is to understand, in a lame appeal to populism
To make matters worse, the autozoophobic left (i.e. those who are deeply anxious about the notion that humans can be studied zoologically) don't perceive the underlying bait and switch. So if you concede that the category of contention is "a social construct," they claim victory.
Or, alternatively, they get confused and angry if you don't back down on your claims regarding reality while making the concession. (This is the situation that David Reich is going through now). The concession never exposes the underlying frivolity of the charge.
Imagine for a moment if Reich said something like: "The scientific enterprise is dedicated to perceiving reality and assumes we can accomplish that task. With human genetics, we have the category of race, which is a loose but simple heuristic...
...and we are in the process of working on a tighter but more complex heuristic." Would it solve anything? Maybe not, but it would alleviate the need to engage in so much hemming and hawing over the accusation of social construction, which is never meaningful in the first place.
The social constructionists would never accept such an explanation, since they feel that the inability for language to perfectly grasp and convey reality amounts to a futility in adequately conveying anything. It's an "all or none" approach.
But most of the people who have internalized the rhetoric could potentially find the explanation at least somewhat plausible, since they are not aware of the underlying premises of the charge, either, or the reason why such a charge is considered acceptable.
Most of the autozoophobes have unthinkingly accepted the rhetoric of the social constructionists without thinking through its implications. So they will see the accusation as far more potent that in it is in reality. That's the bait and switch.
So if you nullify the validity of the "social construct" charge altogether, right from the outset, and start talking about the relative tightness of models, theories, and heuristic devices, you *at least* save yourself some time, and weed out many pointless potential debates.
Even if you are fully apolitical and simply trying to advance science, you have no excuse to remain so blind about the meaning of the language you use. Accepting loaded rhetoric isn't dishonest, but you should realize you are letting yourself be handicapped for no reason --
-- handicapped by vague words and misleading terminology that retard your ability to convey what you intend to say in the clearest and most precise manner possible. The end.
