The notion of “social construction” is inescapable in contemporary discourse; we frequently encounter assertions that various aspects of our lives—like gender, race, or even currency—are “social constructs.” A seminal work that catalyzed this concept is Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s 1966 The Social Construction of Reality, which boasts over 90,000 citations in its English edition alone, attesting to its profound influence within sociology and beyond.
Interestingly, Berger and Luckmann provide a nod to their intellectual forerunner, Alfred Schütz, in their preface. Schütz’s participation in Ludwig von Mises’s Privatseminar reflects a strong emphasis on action and subjectivity, infused with an Austrian perspective. This connection is intriguing, as it suggests that social constructivism and Austrian economic thought share certain foundational ideas. Yet, within the realm of social constructivism, a subtle but critical distinction appears to have been obscured over time.
The ambiguity arises from the term “constructed.” When we say something is constructed, it conjures the image of an architect meticulously drafting and executing a plan. Take a building site, for instance, where an architect’s blueprint comes to life. However, when it comes to social phenomena, the term “constructed” becomes much more ambiguous.
Berger and Luckmann articulate that “Society is a human product,” and they unravel how individual actions evolve into habits, which subsequently become institutionalized. These institutions can indeed be termed “socially constructed,” but only if we aim to convey that they are products of human agency. This is where the unfortunate confusion begins.
To grasp this confusion, one must consider Adam Ferguson’s assertion that “[n]ations stumble upon establishments, which are indeed the result of human action, but not the execution of any human design.” This insight highlights two distinct categories of institutions that are products of human action.
The first category includes establishments that arise from intentional design; if there’s a company, a building, or a government, then its structure can be traced back to a deliberate mind. The second category consists of emergent institutions that develop from individual interactions, devoid of any singular guiding hand. In such cases, as F.A. Hayek described, we see “spontaneous orders” where an organized system emerges organically, not through a blueprint.
The use of the term “construction” can obscure this critical distinction, potentially leading individuals to conflate emergent institutions with those that are the result of explicit design.
I do not intend to embark on a historical analysis of Berger and Luckmann’s intentions. Rather, it is essential to recognize, as Berger himself stated, “Luckmann and I have said a number of times: we are not constructivists.” The focus should be on the perilous implications of how contemporary society often misinterprets institutions.
These misconceptions can be categorized into two main issues. First, many perceive our institutions as intentional constructions, designed by someone with a specific purpose. For instance, if inequality exists within these institutions, it is often viewed as a matter of justice—an intentional choice leading to disparities that are deemed unjust.
However, as Hayek emphasized, justice pertains to our actions. Institutions that emerge without deliberate planning awkwardly fit into this framework; no one specifically designed the inequalities we observe.
Secondly, if something is deemed constructed by an agent, it implies that another construction is feasible. For example, if one believes that our language was constructed by past individuals, it follows that someone else could similarly reconstruct it, perhaps in alignment with contemporary views of justice. All it would take is a sufficiently bold designer willing to attempt it.
Yet, if there was no initial construction, the institution that emerged from collective interactions may be beyond the capability of any single individual to design. Attempts to do so could result in chaos. This is a central argument Hayek advanced against not just central planning, but against any explicit design of institutions that should be left to cultural evolution. Our economy, for instance, isn’t orchestrated by a visionary planner; rather, it evolves from countless interactions and practices.
The foundational insights of constructivism are undoubtedly valuable. What is necessary now is to clarify and consistently articulate what we mean by “constructed” and what it does not entail.
