Essentialist & Social Constructivist Assumptions
We can approach the study of assumptions by examining what is taken for granted within
two different theoretical perspectives, essentialism and social constructivism. The
readings we will be doing on concepts of race, class and gender, and on the definition of
social problems, discuss both essentialism and social construction. The definitions below
are intended to help you identify assumptions that are essentialist or social constructivist
in character. Note that things rarely break down this neatly in actual arguments, and
authors often adopt positions that combine both perspectives.
Essentialism is an orientation toward reality, knowledge, truth, and the identity of things
in the world that posits that the 'reality' of these things is to be found in their 'essence', or
in their innermost nature. To know the truth about a given concept, category, or aspect of
reality, we concentrate on uncovering its essence or inner being. Its essence is an internal
property that defines its Being.
This essence is timeless, fixed, immutable, universal, trans-historical and trans-cultural.
Thus arguments that are based on a concept of 'human nature' are often essentialist. That
is, they assume (or posit) that there is an inherent, innate, fixed, innermost nature that
characterizes human beings, and that these qualities can be found in all human societies,
at all times, in all places. Thus we might posit for example that human beings are
inherently competitive, selfish, cooperative, or any of a number of other things depending
on which qualities we want to include as part of our definition of human nature. (Such
arguments can sometimes tend to be circular - we observe a certain behavior, argue that
the behavior confirms some aspect of human nature, and when asked what evidence we
have of the validity of the concept of human nature, point to the behavior under
discussion.)
Social Construction is described fairly comprehensively in the readings. However,
some salient characteristics are the following. Social construction is an orientation toward
reality, knowledge, truth, and identity that posits that these things are dependent on
social, political, discursive and economic processes, and on shifting ways of viewing and
representing the world. It is sometimes relativist in character, and tends to stress the
extent to which forms of knowledge, language and social interaction are intertwined.
Social construction emphasizes the cultural and historical specificity of knowledge, truth,
identity, and our representations and categorizations of the world. Knowledge, conceptual
frameworks and systems of representation are seen as caught up in forms of life and
language, and therefore always in process.
Essentialism: to know the truth about a given concept, category, or aspect of reality, we
concentrate on uncovering its essence or inner being. Its essence is an internal property
that defines its Being.
Social construction: to understand or analyze a given concept, category, or aspect of
reality, we concentrate on tracing out the social, historical and cultural factors that
brought it into being, along with the wider range of social phenomena to which it is
related.
Plato's theory of Forms is probably the first example of an essentialist philosophical
framework. Above the transitory, sensible, mutable world of the everyday is the realm of
Forms. The Forms are absolute, eternal, universal, fixed and immutable. They represent
true Being. True knowledge is gained through contemplation of the Forms, which in turn
are known through reason, the 'soul's pilot'.
The Handout gives a set of examples of social constructionist arguments on topics such
as race, class and gender.
Essentialist arguments are often made about abstract categories such as Truth, Beauty,
Morality, (Great) Literature & Art, History, Human Nature, Sexuality, Gender, Race, etc.
The 'reality' of these things is to be found in their 'essence', or in their innermost nature.
In the realm of literary studies, debates have emerged over whether great literature (or
even just literature as a category) has an identifiable essence, a set of fixed, timeless,
universal qualities which uniquely characterize it. Compare this to social constructionist
approaches to literature, which treat it as a category that emerges out of a particular
socio-political context, and involves a number of ways in which people relate themselves
to writing, and which is constantly in process. In this scenario literature exists not as an
essence, but as a process or function.
Essentialism has a corresponding 'Ontology' - that is, assumptions about the nature of
Being or existence. Essentialist arguments tend to assume that the world consists of
things that exist independently of our perception of them and of our representations of
them. It is generally 'realist' in orientation. Language mirrors the real. Language is to be
trusted to the extent that it accurately mirrors the 'essence' of reality (compare this with
our discussions of orality and literacy, where ways of perceiving the world are to some
extent a function of the different ways language can be organized.) Social construction
tends to stress the mediating influence of language in both knowledge production and in
our conceptual frameworks. The conceptual frameworks and categories by which we
apprehend the world are seen not as reflections of reality, but discursive constructions
that shape our action in and knowledge of the world.