Social Constructionism and Housing Studies: A Critical Reflection

摘要

本文旨在简要勾勒澳大利亚学者以社会建构论为方法所做的研究。之所以产生这样一种方法，是因为以实证主义考察所谓“社会问题”时常捉襟见肘。实证主义不假思索地接受主流的理解、定义、原因，以及“社会问题”话语。持社会建构论的学者则认为，人作为行动者和参与者创造了 自己的社会，因此，视角、定义、对因果关系的解释和话语都是由他们建构山来的。于是，振振有词的住房理念、政策和实践也都不过是一时一地、为某些特别利益而建构的产物。然而这种立场走到极端，或曰这种立场的“强式”，也并非毫无问题。本文对几种“强式”略加分析，随后考察了社会建构论的一种温和版本，或日“弱式”。这种“弱式”较为常用，并且在一定程度上解决了“强式”的某些问题。文章最后探讨了Sandra Harding认识论中的女性主义立场，指出这种观点虽然在某些方面与弱式的建构论立场有所区别，但可视为对后者的说明和 补充。%The article aims to outline briefly the Australian research that has adopted the social constructionist approach which, in turn, arose in the context of the inadequacies of the positivism used to examine so-called 'social problems'. This positivism took for granted the dominant understandings, definitions, causes and the discourse of the 'social problem'. Social constructionists maintain that humans are actors and participants who create their social world, with the consequence that perspectives, definitions, explanations of causation and discourses are constructed by them. In this way powerful housing ideas, policies and practices can be undermined as merely constructions of a time and place and for special interests. Yet in its extreme or 'strong' form this position is not without difficulties and, after briefly analysing several of them, the article examines a more moderate or 'weak' form of social constructionism which is now more generally adopted and which addresses to some extent the problems of the 'strong' position. The article concludes by exploring the possibility that the feminist standpoint epistemology of Sandra Harding, while different in some respects, has the potential to both illustrate and compliment the more moderate constructivist position.