Critical Realism and Social Constructivism: Homelessness in Australia

Name:

University:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

Abstract

This Essay looks into the contrasts between Critical Realism and Social Construction, in relation to social issues in Australia. The social issue that is being tackled in this case is the homelessness in Australia. It explains the two phenomena in terms of the sociological perspectives on their difference and deviance. The content of this essay will be illustrated through different materials on the state of the homelessness in Australia. The structure of the Essay is in the form of arguments and evidences to back up those arguments.

Introduction

Critical Realism theory has to do with the objects of science. This includes both the transitive and intransitive objects. The transitive objects are those that are constructed socially and change according to how much and how fast the theories of science do change. Intransitive objects on the other hand have nothing to do with the social issues, and do exist independent of the human’s knowledge of their existence. Social constructivism comes about when we come up with theories about them using our intellect, history and even social issues which are used to explain several phenomena. This can be seen in the explanation of gravity, which exists independent of our knowledge of it. Social construction has occurred in this subject, whereby intellect gained from areas like history and social events (Fopp, 2008).

Social Constructionism and Critical Realism: Homelessness in Australia

Their Role in Housing Theory

Social constructionism is a theory that attempts to explain how social issues are constructed in the social contexts. This utilizes the intellect gained from history and social life to explain the different phenomena. A social construct is a phenomenon that is associated with a certain group of people at a certain period of time. A socially constructed phenomenon is that which is dependent on certain variables of the society rather than that which exists as an independent fact. This exists regardless to the side of awareness the society may be in at a certain time (Jacobs, 2004).

In the recent past, slightly over a decade ago, social construction was a much talked about topic in journals and other publications. This has been accepted internationally as a methodology that was to be used in the various researches that had to do with housing. This has been used in several studies that deals with housing management, and has the advantage of having the view that practices and their policies have a connection to the ideologies of that particular time. Other issues such as discourses and attitudes also have the same connection (Fopp, 2008).

The contrast between Social constructionism and critical realism in relation to homelessness in Australia

The two schools of thought have varying approaches to dealing with social issues like the homelessness in Australia. The social constructionism methodology has enabled the policies and theories to be linked with certain interests that prevail in a certain period of time. This prevents incorporation of interests in several researches which are being taken for granted. The social constructionism has a potential of critique, whereby the policies and ideologies that are tied to a particular period exposes the underlying assumptions. This occurs when the assumptions and discourses can be identified and tied to their time and location. Their ideologies and interests are therefore based upon exposed for scrutiny, and hence criticism (Fopp, 2008).

There is a side of social constructivism that was popular with the housing researches. This was dubbed as weak social constructionism, for acknowledging that there were social realities which the practices and policies used in housing referred to. This is also because it rejected the relativistic implications of the ‘stronger’ social constructionism, which also questions the social reality, objectivity and truth among other notions (Kemeny, 2004).

Another position arose during the period of 1997-2007, which opposed social constructionism, and is known as Critical Realism in housing research. Critical Realism has been popular in its use in social sciences and in particular philosophy and theology. In social sciences like housing, the aspects of the weak social constructionism are being acknowledged, but the aspects of objectivity, truth and reality are very popular, with critical realists stating that without these notions, social science was impossible to carry out (Lawson, 2006).

Critical realism versus Social constructivism: Comparison

The critical realists can accept some aspects of the social constructivism. This is because the two theories share some common ground when it comes to the human and social knowledge basis, which includes social issues as housing and homelessness. Critical realists term this ground as the human knowledge nature, which is transitive, and therefore developing the intransitive knowledge and the social phenomena (Manzi, 2002).

This distinction also recognizes the facts that social constructionists uphold as true, which are the values, beliefs, discourses and social practices of human beings. This ideology is shared by both the critical realists and the social constructionists, whereby they are validated in powerful discourses and are deemed to be unchallengeable (Fopp, 2008).

These common grounds imply that both theories can challenge the dominant discourses, and also problematise them. Both critical realism and social constructism acknowledge the objectivity’s possibility, although their justification and place may differ in different positions. For example, some published materials have brought this out. In the book Social Constructuionism in Housing Research, the authors have stated that since the social constructivism critics have forwarded claims that it denies the objective material world’s existence. It also states that it is important to clarify that there is no attempt to forward those claims in the edited collection. This is instead stated that their access to material world is limited, and can only be mediated through discourse and language. This therefore proves that the more defensible position, philosophically, of the social constructivism acknowledge the material world’s existence embodies real and objective things (Parker, 1998).

Critical realists on the other hand recognize the existence of the material world containing physical and social things. They define ‘real’ as whatever exists, either in natural or social form, whether we understand it or not, and whether it is an empirical object for us or otherwise. The other definition is the realm of these objects including structures and power. It appreciates the presence of structures and causal powers of these objects, that cause them to behave in a certain way, and their causal liabilities or powers that work on them (Fopp, 2008).

Objectivity is also possible when it comes to both the critical realism and the social constructivism. It has been stated that a cautious social constructionist maintain that reality is as a result of social construction. This however does not mean that it rejects the understanding, which is objective as it appertains to the truth. This is important when it comes to the distinction between concepts and ideas (Fopp, 2008).

Some have also argued that social constructivism problematises the idea of the objective truth and lays more emphasis on social reality, or its contingent basis. This should however be understood to mean the same and is conceived as socially objective truth that can be challenged by the social constructionism brand. Social constructionists do not assume that the facts are given, which are obtained through the scientific investigations. It questions the underlying assumptions and their status, and also interrogates the claims making process in several aspects of social policy making. Critical realism on the other hand affirms the objectivity possibility (Travers, 2004).

Critical realism refers to how a realm can be examined the same way as any other natural and physical phenomena, i.e. the possibility of this examination on a social realm. Social constructionists on the other hand consider the social facts as contingent, and are subject to the diversity of the persons interpreting it. This can be contested on the same grounds (Manzi, 2002).

Critical realism on the other hand also maintains objectivity, and remains skeptical when it comes to the involvement of impartial view. They however recognize the transitive dimensions when it comes to cultural frameworks paradigm shifts. The difference between the critical realists and other theories like empiricism and social constructionism is the reduction of both physical and social phenomena into their present experience. It rejects the identification of the realism with the empirical, whereby our experiences and senses range just correspond with the world. It however does not reject the objectivity in knowledge in the identification of the transitive nature and the intransitive reality of the world (Sayer, 2000).

Critical realists also use the naturalism. This refers to the similarity in the examination of both the social realm and the natural/physical phenomena, whereby they can be examined by using the same methods. It holds the view that the social realms should be viewed and examined the same way as the physical and natural world realms. The critical realism also holds the view that the social world has an independent and also objective existence, hence resembling the nature; hence their examination methods should be scientific. Critical realists can explain the policies and structures that are in place in the social setting for example in the housing situation in Australia, which are hidden from the ordinary individuals in a society (Fopp, 2008).

Social constructionists on the other hand do not agree with the methods of naturalism, whereby the constructionists do not assume that the presented facts are given and can be obtained through scientific means. In the case of homelessness in Australia therefore, the social constructionists claim that the research can not be about the searching of facts and presenting them to the policy makers for decision making. The constructionists also hold the view that the research carried out and presented in such a manner is not sufficient enough to convince the readers of the presented research on the contingency of the research analysis. The social constructionists do focus on the broader sense, whereby emphasis is laid on the importance of fact finding, which should be relevant to the social, economic and political contexts (Jacobs, 2004).

Critical realism accepts these points that are upheld by the social constructionists, and do go beyond them. This can be seen when they reject the view that is held by another school of thought, the empiricists, that the reality of this world can be reduced to mere experiences. Critical realists also reject the view held by actualism that the actual events exhaust this world, leaving no room for realm powers that can be characterized by their emergence. Critical realists base their distinction of the real and actual events, whereby the real events are the features of objects, which are their structure and powers. The actual events on the other hand are as a result of the engagement of objects to cause the emergence of new objects. In the case of the homelessness in Australia, the critical realists hold the view that the market is not supplying adequate affordable housing units for the citizens with low income levels. This extends despite of the incentives that are in place that are based on the negative gearing. In order to solve this problem, a local agency should be formed to convince the relevant state housing authorities to lease housing properties in an effort of supplying the sufficient and much needed affordable housing units to its low income earning citizens (Fopp, 2008).

Conclusion

As observed, the social constructionists and the critical realists have more similarities than their differences. The case however involves social constructionists, which has been termed as ‘weak’ constructionists and its issue when it comes to the acknowledgement of the material world. This is due to their view that the material world is accessible by language, and also some aspects of reality and objectivity. Some constructionists reject the status of the objective world, but the researchers of housing that hold the same view could not be identified. The critical realists on the other hand are friendlier to science, since they do not object the scientific methods of examination. The difference between the two schools of thought should however not be overstated to cloud the reality, which is that they both are interested in explaining the several issues that have to do with the homelessness in Australia.

Reference:
Fopp, R. (2008). From Weak Social Constructionism to Critical Realism in Housing Theory-Exploring Issues. Retrieved July 7, 2012, from http://mams.rmit.edu.au/vmljyf53pi4y.pdf
Jacobs, K. &. (2004). Social Constructionism in Housing Research. Hampshire, England: Ashgate.
Kemeny, J. (2004). Extending constructionist social problems to the study of housing problems. In K. &. Jacobs, Social Constructionism in Housing Research (pp. 49-70). Hampshire, England: Ashagate.
Lawson, J. (2006). Critical Realism and Housing Research. London: Routeledge.
Manzi, T. (2002). Constructionism, Realism and Housing Theory. Housing, Theory and Society (19), 144-145.
Parker, I. (1998). Social Constructionism, Discourse and Realism. London: Sage.
Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.
Travers, M. (2004). The Philosophical assumptions of Constructionism. In K. &. Jacobs, social constructionism in housing research (pp. 14-31). Hampshire, England: Ashgate.