버거와 가핑켈은 구성주의자인가?: 버거와 가핑켈의 ‘구성’, 그리고 구성주의자들의 ‘구성’

초록

Berger and Garfinkel have long been recognized as foundational figures in the development of constructivism. However, recent scholarship has made it increasingly clear that both Berger and Garfinkel find the label of “constructivism”-as it is commonly applied to their work-unsettling. Far from merely disliking the term, they have actively sought to distance themselves from the formalized constructivism that is often regarded as the standard interpretation of their ideas, which has been recklessy and prematurely assumed. This paper seeks to address this very tension. Are Berger and Garfinkel truly constructivists? Regardless of whether this association arises from a misunderstanding or the legacy of their work, it is evident that their sociological approaches diverge significantly from the formally developed constructivism that emerged after their contributions. The central inquiry of this paper, then, is to explore the nature of the concept of “construction” within the context of Berger and Garfinkel’s sociology, and to examine the manner in which their views align with or differ from the formally articulated constructivism. This investigation will also consider both the similarities and the distinctions between the two sociologists. In conclusion, while Berger and Garfinkel can, within a broad framework, be classified as belonging to the category of pan-constructivists, a closer examination reveals distinct differences from formalized constructivism. Their positions are notably distant from the extreme relativism often associated with radical constructivism, which posits that all phenomena are constructed without inherent substance or rules. This paper will highlight their rejection of extreme relativism, while also analyzing the differing methodologies they employ to navigate and avoid such a stance.

키워드