Social work theory · Volume E: Strengths, Agency & Meaning

Social constructionism

Social constructionism is a theoretical perspective that holds that much of what people take to be real, natural or self-evident is produced through social interaction, language and shared practices.

Type: sociological and philosophical theory of knowledge and social reality (a meta-theory that informs many practice approaches). D5 covers its use in analysing power and institutions, and G3 its relevance to professional knowledge and discourse; this entry focuses on meaning and agency.

1. What it is

Social constructionism is a theoretical perspective that holds that much of what people take to be real, natural or self-evident is produced through social interaction, language and shared practices. Categories such as childhood, madness, family or disability are understood as products of particular histories and cultures (Burr, 2015). Social constructionists ask how shared meanings come into being, how they are maintained and how they change. They emphasise that people are active participants in producing social reality, as well as being shaped by it (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Gergen, 2015). For social work, this means that the meanings attached to problems and identities are open to negotiation, which creates space for agency and change (Parton & O’Byrne, 2000).

Shared meanings. Shared meanings are the understandings that members of a group hold in common and that allow them to coordinate action. They are created and sustained through language and everyday interaction. Gergen (1985) argued that the terms people use to understand the world are social artefacts, products of historically situated exchanges among people. A meaning becomes stable when it is widely shared and repeatedly used.

Social realities. Social realities are the institutions, roles and categories that people experience as objective and external, such as marriage, money, diagnoses or welfare eligibility. The Thomas theorem expresses their force: if people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences (Thomas & Thomas, 1928). Most social constructionists accept that the material world exists. Their claim concerns what things mean, and how they are categorised and responded to, which depends on social processes (Hacking, 1999).

Berger and Luckmann. In The Social Construction of Reality, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann (1966) developed a sociology of knowledge focused on everyday life. Drawing on Schutz’s phenomenology, they described a dialectic of three moments. Externalisation is the process by which people produce social order through their activity. Objectivation is the process by which these products come to be experienced as an objective reality. Internalisation is the process by which people take this reality into their consciousness through socialisation. Habitualised actions become institutions; institutions are then justified through legitimation, such as tradition, theory or myth. Primary socialisation in childhood establishes a basic world, and secondary socialisation introduces people to specialised sub-worlds, such as professions.

Kenneth Gergen. Gergen (1985) introduced social constructionism to psychology. He argued that knowledge is produced in relationships, that its persistence depends on social processes more than on empirical validity, and that descriptions of the world are bound up with forms of social life. In later work Gergen (2009, 2015) developed a relational view of the self, in which identity, reason and emotion arise within relationships. This view emphasises dialogue and the possibility of creating new meanings together.

Meaning and agency. Social constructionism opens a particular account of agency. If meanings are produced socially, then people can take part in revising them. Labels such as “problem family” or “non-compliant” can be questioned, and people can contribute to new descriptions of themselves (Witkin, 2012). Collaborative practice approaches, including narrative (E6), solution-focused and dialogical practice, build on this idea (Anderson & Goolishian, 1988).

2. Historical development

Social constructionism drew on several traditions. Phenomenology, especially Schutz (1932/1967), studied how people experience the everyday world as taken for granted. Symbolic interactionism, associated with Mead (1934), described the self as formed through interaction. The sociology of knowledge examined how social position shapes what people believe. Berger and Luckmann (1966) combined these strands into a general theory of how social reality is made and maintained. Later, poststructuralist thinkers, especially Foucault, added attention to discourse and power.

Social constructionism became an independent perspective because it offered a general account of how meaning and reality are produced, applicable across psychology, sociology and the professions. Spector and Kitsuse (1977) showed that social problems are defined through claims-making by groups. Gergen (1985) brought these ideas into psychology. In social work, constructionist ideas shaped family therapy, narrative and solution-focused practice, and critical analyses of how professionals define clients (Parton & O’Byrne, 2000; Healy, 2014).

3. Practical guidance

Social constructionism encourages workers to treat meanings as open to exploration and change.

• Explore the person’s meanings. Ask what a situation, label or diagnosis means to the person and their family. Meanings vary across cultures and communities (Burr, 2015).
• Question taken-for-granted categories. Consider how terms such as “at risk”, “difficult” or “dysfunctional” frame people and shape responses to them (Witkin, 2012).
• Co-construct descriptions. Develop assessments in dialogue with the person, so that their understanding shapes how the situation is described (Parton & O’Byrne, 2000).
• Use language deliberately. Choose words that open possibilities, for example by describing a person as someone “experiencing” a difficulty.
• Make room for multiple perspectives. In family and group work, invite different accounts and look for meanings that participants can share (Anderson & Goolishian, 1988).
• Recognise cultural knowledge. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander understandings of family, health and wellbeing are distinct systems of meaning. Practitioners should respect them on their own terms.
• Keep material conditions in view. Changing meanings matters, and so does addressing housing, income and safety.

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. Social constructionism helps practitioners see that categories and labels are not neutral, which supports critical reflection and anti-oppressive practice. It positions clients as active contributors to meaning and supports collaborative, dialogical approaches. It explains how identities can change through new descriptions and relationships, and it encourages sensitivity to cultural difference (Gergen, 2015).

Limitations. Critics argue that strong forms of constructionism slide into relativism, making it difficult to make claims about harm, injustice or evidence (Houston, 2001). Social workers must often establish facts, assess risk and act decisively, which requires some commitment to a reality beyond interpretation. Houston (2001) proposed critical realism as an alternative that accepts social construction while recognising real structures and causal mechanisms. The approach can also neglect embodied experience and material inequality.

Overall importance. Social constructionism is one of the main theoretical foundations for meaning-centred social work. It underpins narrative and solution-focused practice, informs critical analysis of professional language and supports collaborative work with clients. Used with a commitment to justice and attention to material conditions, it opens space for agency and change.

5. References

• Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. A. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems: Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27(4), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1988.00371.x
• Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday.
• Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism (3rd ed.). Routledge.
• Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.3.266
• Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. Oxford University Press.
• Gergen, K. J. (2015). An invitation to social construction (3rd ed.). Sage.
• Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Harvard University Press.
• Healy, K. (2014). Social work theories in context: Creating frameworks for practice (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Houston, S. (2001). Beyond social constructionism: Critical realism and social work. British Journal of Social Work, 31(6), 845–861. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/31.6.845
• Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. University of Chicago Press.
• Parton, N., & O’Byrne, P. (2000). Constructive social work: Towards a new practice. Macmillan.
• Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh & F. Lehnert, Trans.). Northwestern University Press. (Original work published 1932)
• Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1977). Constructing social problems. Cummings.
• Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. Knopf.
• Witkin, S. L. (Ed.). (2012). Social construction and social work practice: Interpretations and innovations. Columbia University Press.