Social construction is a concept that echoes throughout various discussions today, encompassing ideas like gender, race, and money. A pivotal text that facilitated the rise of this notion is Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s 1966 work, The Social Construction of Reality. This influential book has garnered over 90,000 citations in its English edition alone, highlighting its significant impact on sociology and beyond.
The book has an intriguing background. In their preface, Berger and Luckmann acknowledge the contributions of the late Alfred Schütz, who was part of Ludwig von Mises’s Privatseminar. Schütz’s writings exhibit a strong emphasis on action and subjectivity, imbued with an Austrian perspective. This provides a fascinating insight: social constructivism shares philosophical roots with Austrian School thinking. However, as this discourse progressed, a critical yet subtle distinction within social constructivism has become somewhat obscured.
This ambiguity likely arose because the term “socially constructed” can be misleading. When we say something is constructed, it is tempting to assume there was a constructor—an agent who planned and executed the creation intentionally. A prime example of this type of construction is found in architecture, where an architect’s blueprints are brought to life. However, the social phenomena in question complicate this understanding, rendering “constructed” an ambiguous term at best.
In their work, Berger and Luckmann illustrate that “Society is a human product.” They elucidate the process through which human actions evolve into habits and subsequently become institutionalized. These established institutions may genuinely be termed “socially constructed” if we intend to convey that they are a “human product.” This, however, introduces an unfortunate ambiguity.
To grasp this ambiguity, one must consider Adam Ferguson’s observation that “[n]ations stumble upon establishments, which are indeed the result of human action, but not the execution of any human design.” Herein lies the distinction between two classes of establishments or institutions as products of human action.
The first category consists of establishments consciously designed by a specific mind—be it a company, a building, or a government—where its organization can be traced back to an intentional decision-maker. The second category includes institutions that arise from human action without a singular guiding agent’s intention. In these instances, as F.A. Hayek describes as “spontaneous orders,” a structured system emerges from individual interactions, despite lacking an overarching design.
Referring to social phenomena as “constructed” can obscure the important distinction between these two categories. It may lead to the incorrect assumption that emergent institutions result from deliberate design.
Rather than delving into a historical discourse on what Berger and Luckmann really intended, it is essential to recognize the potential misunderstanding regarding institutions today. As Berger stated, he and Luckmann have consistently rejected the label of constructivists. What is crucial here are the problematic implications stemming from common misconceptions about the nature of institutions.
These misunderstandings manifest in two ways. First, many people view institutions as intentional constructions—objects designed by individuals with particular goals. For instance, if within these institutions some individuals are impoverished while others are wealthy, the focus often shifts to questions of justice. This situation is interpreted as a deliberate choice leading to inequality, which is frequently deemed unjust.
However, as Hayek emphasized, our understanding of justice pertains to our actions. Institutions, which emerge without a specific design, do not neatly fit this framework. No one actively chose or planned this disparity.
Second, if one assumes an institution was constructed by an individual, it implies that a new construction can also occur. If someone historically fashioned an institution, such as language, it suggests that another individual could similarly create a revised version, potentially aligning it with contemporary views of justice. All this requires is a bold designer willing to act.
Nevertheless, if no original construction took place, then the institution born from social interaction may exceed any single person’s ability to reshape it. Attempting such an endeavor could invite chaos. This argument captures Hayek’s critique not only of central planning but also of the explicit design of institutions that flourish within cultural evolution. Our economy operates without a single mastermind, just as no expert scripted the pathway towards a culture of progress, industriousness, and cooperation, which has guided at least Western civilization.
While the foundational insights of constructivism hold value, it is crucial to elucidate and clarify what “constructed” signifies—and what it does not.
