Hear me out. There’s nothing innate to an object that makes it “food”. It’s an attribute we give to certain things that meet certain qualities, i.e. being digestible, nutritious, perhaps tasty or satisfying in some way, etc. We could really ingest just about anything, but we call the stuff that’s edible “food”. Does that make it a social construct?
“Food” is a social construct in the same way as every label we put on a thing is a social construct. “Chair” is a social construct. (The universe didn’t know what a “chair” was before humans started making and naming chairs.) “Tree” is a social construct. (Any physical thing you pick apart enough is particles (and I’m definitely oversimplifying here) and by giving it a human-made label like “tree”, we’re imposing something that wouldn’t otherwise be there.) “Particles” are a social construct! (They’re very much an abstraction of what’s actually going on. Even the math we use to understand things like quantum mechanics is just our way of thinking about something that may or may not “exist” but if it does, definitely isn’t the same as our “thoughts” about it.)
All words are social constructs, but I think there’s at least one more layer at which “everything is a human construct.” Even before we give something a name, we’ve already made the decision to distinguish it from a “background” as a distinct “thing.” (A sufficiently alien mind might, if it encountered earth, consider all of earth “atomic” and “indivisible” to the point that the idea of “a human” wouldn’t make sense to it. It’s not like there’s any empty space between our skin and the soup of amosphere we constantly live in, so in what sense am I a separate thing from the rest of earth?)
So, yeah, “food” is a social construct, but humans are very much removed from “reality” by an opaque ocean of social constructs.
All that said, I wouldn’t say that “food” is a social construct in any way that, say, a “planet” or a “fork” or a “rock” or a “human” isn’t.
You are halfway there. Those examples you gave define constructs but a lot of these things are not what philosophy uses to define social constructs. Scientific taxonomy constructs and linguistic constructs are things but they are fairly useless in discussion surrounding social constructs because while different cultures might draw the line differently around what exactly constitutes a “chair” vs say a “stool” or some such that’s more of just a linguistic boundry. Its basically always a thing you sit on.
Philosophy uses a bunch of different ideas labeled as different forms of construct to break down the idea of how different types of categorization or subjection happen… but when they start talking about “social” constructs they are specifically talking about categories of human interactions with something that have incredibly variable different potential contexts based on culture. It also requires things which are included or excluded from those category for not entirely practical reasons. Philosophy uses this to talk about how social categories are subjective creating or allieving tension between different cultural groups.
Food is actually a good example. There are a lot of things culturally considered food and non food items despite those items all having nutritional value and being safe to consume. In our increasingly cosmopolitan world a lot of expansion has happened to increase the size of the category. Like raw fish was not considered a food item by a lot of people when and where I was growing up. Now sashimi is everywhere and no one bats an eye. Digging for another example mice are technically edible but even raised and slaughtered cleanly very few would consider them valid as food. Whether what I put on your plate is deemed an disgusting insult or a delicious delicacy is really in the eye of the beholder and has caused a number of historical diplomatic and cultural issues around other cultures veiwing each other as inferior.
Just because something is a construct does not automatically make it a social construct.
awesome, this is the what i was lookin for is was is