什么的社会建构？
The social construction of what?
Ian Hacking · 初版 1999 年
2人推荐
4位读者提及
6次提及
在关于social construction有效性的激烈辩论中，人们往往忽视了一个问题：究竟什么是被建构的？是事实、性别、夸克，还是现实？是人？物体？观念？抑或理论？Ian Hacking提醒我们，每一种都意味着对social construction的不同理解。他的著作通过探讨大量实例，揭示了对现实的争议性描述背后所潜藏的深刻问题。
Hacker News 上怎么说
正在加载完整评论……
:P 我最近在读伊恩·哈金的《何为社会建构？》，这本书严肃却又极其有趣地剖析了所有那些谈论“X的社会建构”的书籍和理念。而且大概比其中任何一本都更值得一读。
:P Ive recently been reading Ian Hacking's The Social Construction of What? which is a serious yet very entertaining analysis of all those Social Construction of X books and ideas. And probably much more worth reading than any of them.
一些最令人难忘/有用/精彩的书：弗莱克 - 《一个科学事实的发生与发展》；哈金 - 《何为社会建构？》；费尔斯纳 - 《几何图与排列》；xkcd 卷0；汤米·旺德 - 《奇迹之书》；伊丽莎白·劳埃德 - 《科学、政治与进化》……而且，在这里承认这个挺不好意思的 :-) 不过……
Some of the most memorable/useful/wonderful: Fleck - Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact Hacking - The Social Construction of What? Felsner - Geometric Graphs and Arrangements xkcd volume 0 Tommy Wonder - The Books of Wonder Elisabeth Lloyd - Science, Politics and Evolution ..and, it's embarrassing to admit it on here :-) but…
虽然读完过了很久，但《何为社会建构？》真的是一本神作，在我看来是哲学最高水准的体现：它为延伸至法律、心理学、医学、伦理学以及日常生活中的各种概念带来了清晰度与严谨性。
It’s been a long time since I read it, but Social Construction of What? was a great book, philosophy at its best, in my opinion: lending clarity and rigor to concepts that reach into law, psychology, medicine, ethics, and the every day.
……自然种类，我觉得这本可以给文章增添一些清晰度。另一个本可以增加清晰度的相关思路（虽然我记不清它本身是否探讨了自然种类）是哈金的《何为社会建构？》，书中划分出了一种层级，用来衡量某个给定现象在多大程度上属于社会建构。它试图为我们关于某个判定到底是客观还是主观的直觉增加严谨性。
…natural kind, which I think would have added some clarity to the article. A related approach that could have added clarity (though I can’t recall whether it deals with natural kinds per se) is Hacking’s Social Construction of What? which lays out a sort of hierarchy for how socially constructed a given phenomenon is. It attempts to add rigor to our intuitions around how objective or subjective a given judgement is.
……毫无信息量。你根本没把自己的意思解释清楚，只是含糊其辞地提到了伯格。关于“社会建构”到底意味着什么，有一千种相互矛盾的解读方式（参见伊恩·哈金的《何为社会建构？》），但这种说法最关键的作用在于，它能让一个社会学家宣称“这属于我的专业权威范畴”。> 把整个子领域贬为毫无价值，显得……
…no information. You failed to clarify what you meant and only managed to make a vague reference to Berger. There are thousand contradictory ways to interpret what “a social construct” means (see The Social Construction of What? by Ian Hacking), but the most important thing about that statement is that it allows a sociologist to say “it’s something I am an authority on”. > Dismissing the entire subfield as vapid comes across…
……智商（IQ）的概念。我们可以从构成性、奠基、专家-新手问题等等角度来讨论它。>关于“社会建构”到底意味着什么，有一千种相互矛盾的解读方式（参见伊恩·哈金的《何为社会建构？》），但这种说法最关键的作用在于，它能让一个社会学家宣称“这属于我的专业权威范畴”。你描述的其实就是科学。科学就是“允许”人们……
…the concept of IQ. We can talk about it in terms of constitutiveness, grounding, expert-novice problems, &c. >There are thousand contradictory ways to interpret what “a social construct” means (see The Social Construction of What? by Ian Hacking), but the most important thing about that statement is that it allows a sociologist to say “it’s something I am an authority on”. You're describing science. Science "allows" people to…