Skip to main content

Dodgey Brothers' Constructions 

Alcoholic cocktail comprised of one shot of Bacardi rum, one shot of Malibu coconut rum, and topped up with sparkling lemonade.

History: Devised in June 1999 by a group of volunteer labourers working on building wooden containers for transporting Polish folkloric dance costumes for the Ashfield, Sydney, Australia based ensemble "Syrenka". After a long day at work where they nicknamed their opearation "dodgey brothers' constructions", the DBC boys scrounged around for what refreshment they could find. All there was left was a bottle of Bacardi, a bottle of Malibu and some lemonade. They decided it went well together, and a new drink was born.

Over the following years, knowledge of the "DBC" cocktail has spread to many a pub in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra in Australia, and parts of Europe and the United States.
One DBC, please, in a tall glass.

Social Constructionism 

Using your sociological imagination to completely bullshit your final paper for a sociology graduate student that doesn't understand what he or she is teaching.
Using social constructionism, I passed my sociology course!

constructions 

n. Directions included with items such as plastic models and furniture that require some assembly.

................
Are you sure that you followed the constructions Aliyah? Daddy’s chair looks very wobbly.
constructions by gnostic3 December 22, 2017

constructions 

n. Instructions, often included with a model or pice of furniture, detailing how to properly assemble something.

........................
That bookshelf does not look stable Aliyah. Did you follow the constructions?
constructions by gnostic3 April 21, 2018

Theory of Scientific Constructions

The theory that science is not a pure reflection of reality but a construction—built by communities, shaped by interests, developed through history, contingent rather than necessary. Scientific Constructions argues that scientific facts are not simply discovered but produced, that scientific methods are not timeless but historical, that scientific knowledge bears the marks of its makers. This doesn't mean science is false; it means science is human—fallible, situated, shaped by the conditions of its production. The Theory of Scientific Constructions explains why science changes, why different cultures develop different sciences, why scientific knowledge is always provisional. Science is constructed, not revealed—and constructed things can be improved.
Theory of Scientific Constructions Example: "She'd been taught that science was pure discovery—nature revealing itself to patient observers. The Theory of Scientific Constructions showed her otherwise: science was made, not found—shaped by funding, by institutions, by culture, by power. The knowledge was real, but so was the process that produced it. Science wasn't less true; it was differently true—human truth, not divine."

Theory of Rationality Constructions

The theory that rationality itself is constructed—that what counts as reasonable, logical, or rational varies across contexts and is shaped by social, cultural, and historical forces. Rationality Constructions argues that there is no single, universal standard of reason—only different communities with different norms, developed for different purposes, serving different interests. This doesn't mean reason is arbitrary; it means reason is plural, that different rationalities exist, that the question isn't "is it rational?" but "rational by whose standards?" The Theory of Rationality Constructions explains why cross-cultural communication is hard, why debates about reason never end, why what seems obvious to one person seems absurd to another. Rationality is constructed, not given—and constructed things can be contested.
Theory of Rationality Constructions Example: "He couldn't understand why his arguments didn't convince people from different backgrounds. The Theory of Rationality Constructions explained: they were using different rationalities, different standards, different norms. His logic was logical in his framework; theirs was logical in theirs. Neither was wrong; they were just differently constructed. Understanding didn't win arguments, but it stopped him from calling them irrational."