Construction of social reality. Dual facticity of society

2024 Author: Leah Sherlock | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 05:25

The concept of constructing social reality is well known to many today. And this is not surprising, since in recent years there has been quite a lot of talk about this process and relativity as such. But the very term "construction of social reality" appeared not so long ago. In particular, in the second half of the 20th century, namely in the sixties, a movement began, called the "Discursive Turn". This is a fairly large-scale phenomenon in the social and human sciences in general, which has replaced the previously dominant position in social science and not only the position to objectify all kinds of social phenomena. Understanding society as an external reality, as some kind of social dual factuality, independent of a person and at the same time pressing on him from the outside. All this changed in the middle of the 20th century, changing the orientation from the facts and the structure of socialfunctions to discourse.

Categories for constructing social reality

First, let's say a little about the historical, social and cultural conditions that laid the foundations for the discursive turn. In particular, this is structural linguistics, developed back in the 19th century by Ferdinand de Saussure. The time for this concept came later, only in the middle of the 20th century, they finally became interested in it. The very idea that the meaning that certain words take on in a language is random, and the differentiation of such concepts as a sign and a symbol was subsequently reflected in the theory of discourse.

Another theoretical source for constructing social reality is neo-Marxism, in particular, the works of researchers who worked in the middle of the 20th century, primarily representatives of the Frankfurt School in the social sciences.

Zombie influence on the masses

The Frankfurt School is best known for its philosophical work on the analysis of the social construction of reality. In particular, this trend is also engaged in research in the field of sociology and culture. The participants of the school primarily developed the concept of ideology and ideas regarding the zombifying influence of mass culture. It was the Frankfurt School, for example, that created such a concept as the cultural industry, or the self-image of mass culture as a kind of spiritual chewing gum, which is completely emasculated from the inside, does not contain any critical potential, does not answer the main questionsand is generally empty in content.

And when a person now says that the TV is, in fact, such a zombie, in which there is nothing of value, it simply has a manipulative influence on people. In fact, we reproduce ideas that are not so many years old, ideas that appeared only in the second half of the 20th century, and specifically in the sixties. And of course, it is quite obvious that the direction that led to theoretical constructions is the philosophy of postmodernism, the studies of structuralists, and later post-structuralists, primarily Michel Foucault, who connected the concept of discourse and power and gave one of the most popular definitions of the term. He spoke about the dialectical relationship between society and speech as such.

Mirror of Karl Marx

In general, the very concept of analyzing the social construction of reality involves a turn from studying society as a social fact to studying it as a reality that constantly produces and reproduces precisely in the process of communicative interactions, in speech acts, in the communication of individuals.

And in this case, a person immediately acquires a much more noticeable influence on society. In general, he acts as a kind of creative subject, as a co-author of the state, producing society along with other people, knowing himself in dialogue with others and allowing other people to know themselves.

If we talk about the social construction of reality briefly, it is best to resort to the example of Karl Marx. He said that Peter could only know himself infellowship with the man Paul. That is, any person needs a mirror so that he can understand who he really is.

Two categories

The discursive turn is an appeal to communicative interactions, to language and speech, as well as a shift towards a relativistic approach. This is the end of objectivism and relativism in culture and science, the denial of self-sufficiency and objectivity, as well as the value neutrality of the sciences as such. And not just the social sciences. By the way, the natural and exact sciences are also not value-based, neutral or objective, as it seemed in previous naive centuries. The main knowledge on this topic is perfectly revealed in the works of Berger, the social construction of reality is, of course, the main core in the work of the scientist.

Discourse is one of the most ambiguous concepts in the social sciences. In this case, there are two understandings of the very category of reality construction, since these two types are quite close in terms of the content that is invested in them in the natural sciences. For example, the transcript given by Louise Phillips and Maryana Jorgensen says: "Discourse is a certain way of understanding and explaining the world around us or some aspect of it." There should be a little clarification here, this example given by Phillips and Jorgensen themselves.

Elements of objective reality

The fact is that even in science, after the discursive turn, humanity does not fully deny the external reality. That is,Of course, a brick can fall on anyone and it will end tragically. This statement is a fact. But this option is not social, but rather medical and physiological. Nevertheless, the world itself is devoid of any meanings and meanings. And in this approach, it is assumed that a person, or rather, people included in some communities, endow each other with certain meanings and meanings.

Philips Jogerson offers the following example. The element of objective reality is the flood. The objective fact is that a flood occurs, people die, property suffers, a local environmental disaster occurs.

But after constructing the problem, various ways of explaining the outside world come into play. In particular, we can use, for example, political discourse, that is, a certain way of explaining the world.

Power as a means of constructing a conflicting social reality appears in this particular case. The public may say that flooding is the fault of the local government at best, but more often than not the government as a whole is to blame. The authorities did not conduct a technical check in a timely manner, the entire top of politics is corrupt, they did not monitor the state of the dam, they did not notify the population, they did not evacuate in a timely manner. People suffered because during this flood the local authorities showed their incompetence. And so on. Here it is, the political discourse that can be seen so often in everyday life.

Ecological discourse - firstly, society can say, for example, that flooding is the result of activitiesany plant that provoked this environmental disaster with its toxic emissions. Or it could be due to global warming. Flooding is a consequence of the fact that due to the frivolous irresponsible approach of capitalist corporations, carbon dioxide emissions increase, glaciers melt and lead to this particular flood. Yes, it was just a dam failure, but we have to look at it in a broader ecological context. This flood is just the first sign of the coming flooding of the entire globe.

Social construction of religious reality - this village died for sins. The flood occurred because in this locality all the citizens liked to drink, in other words, they were alcoholics. It is quite obvious that in this example society can turn to the images of Sodom and Gomorrah. The community that perished because of its unworthy behavior did not observe morality and religious rules.

In addition to the above discourses, we can refer to dozens and hundreds of explanatory models, for example, the construction of social reality by the media. They allow us to place ourselves in a certain way in the context of social reality, and in turn, in a certain wider historical, cultural and social natural context.

Another opinion

Another explanation of classic critical discourse analysis is by Norman Fairclough. He explains that discourse is understood as a language used in the process of representing social practice, distinct from point of view. That is, discourse does not occur simply because one person holds an opinion. These are always the thoughts of a fairly broad social group.

Discourse can be reproduced from generation to generation, it can be passed down through the ages. It is he who organizes society, makes it predictable, familiar and comfortable. And in this case, it represents a certain social practice.

The theory of discourse analysis itself as such and the idea of the constitutive nature of social reality is the product of a rather interesting set of historical events. That is why many sociologists love to write and give their students essays on "The Social Construction of Reality."

1986 student uprisings

In general, the concept of discourse dates back to the Middle Ages, but nevertheless, in this context, it began to be used only in the 1960s.

In 1968 there were student uprisings, a kind of strike against authority, against the state system, capitalism as such and against mass culture. All this fashion for criticism of the authorities, independent worldviews and a kind of underground description of external reality is a consequence of the uprisings that took place in the 1960s.

This is also the period when all sorts of racial, ethnic minorities began to fight for their rights. These are the years when the second wave of feminist uprisings began. This is the period when a number of countries joined the non-aligned movement, thereby denoting their independent position in the bipolar world. And it's thosetimes when most of the theoretical concept used by humanity today was formed.

So, the very direction of social constructionism is quite new. It is somewhat marginal in the social sciences in that social constructionism has never acquired the status of the dominant theory in the social sciences. In justification, we can say that this theory is still quite young.

Noumena and phenomena

Sociology as a science is very young, it emerged only in the 19th century. And in this case, you can get acquainted with the opinion voiced in the work of Arena Sikureli, one of the theorists of phenomenological sociology. It says that social constructionism arose precisely in the mainstream of phenomenological sociology. This is the concept of a phenomenon that society often uses when it wants to talk about some unique phenomenon of external reality. But in the context of phenomenological sociology, this concept should rather be understood as a category that goes back to the philosophy of Kant. Namely, it is worth paying attention to his selection of things: "for himself and for himself." In the first case, we are talking about noumena, and in the second, about phenomena.

If the noumenon is inaccessible to our knowledge, since a person does not have an organ that allows us to fully perceive these entities that create objective reality, then the phenomenon is a kind of reflection of this objective reality in the human mind.

And phenomenological sociology studies just the perception of social reality, how exactly it determinesa person's worldview, behavior, identity, self-image, and how society as a whole is transformed and recreated under the influence of this kind of information.

Peter Berger, Thomas Luckman. Social Construction of Reality

To touch on this topic, one cannot help but recall such great scientists. The most significant social work was written in 1966. Its authors are Peter Berger and Thomas Lukman. This work was called “The Social Construction of Reality. Treatise on the sociology of knowledge. It is a must read for anyone interested in the subject. Moreover, the volume of the book is only 300 pages.

In The Social Construction of Reality, Berger and Luckmann present the process of reproducing social order as a three-step cycle:

1. Externalization.
2. Objectification.
3. Internalization.

Externalization is the tendency to externally express certain inner experiences. That is, all human positive and negative experiences: aggression, anger, fear, rage, nervousness, love, tenderness, admiration inevitably find one or another external expression in facial expressions, in gestures, in behavior, in actions.

The treatise on the social construction of reality by Berger and Luckmann gives such an example. It is very difficult to stand still when a person is nervous. Probably everyone noticed this for themselves. But it is not always possible to share your feelings with other people if there is no certain consensus on how to express your feelings.

Second element,which Berger singled out in the social construction of reality - objectification. This term means the expression of internalized experiences in forms that can be shared by other people. The author gives the following example. Suppose a person constantly has quarrels with his mother-in-law. He wants to share this problem with his friends and uses the category "relative trouble". He just comes to the park and says to his buddies: “So, guys, I have problems with my mother-in-law today,” and they answer: “We understand you that way.” This is how objectification works.

Finally, the third category that Lukman introduced in the social construction of reality is internalization. The concept denotes the assimilation by people included in a certain community of objectified phenomena. Internalization can be expressed in many different ways. The most important and significant is the objectification of opinions, experiences, reasoning, and so on.

Creative meaning

In general, the meaning of internal processes is defined by the term "signification". It's no secret that the importance of language for the functioning of social reality is priceless.

The third element, namely internalization, is about the fact that a person in the process of his development masters some objectified elements of social reality, turns into an individual, as a member of a certain community, can share cultural experience with others. This is a summary of the social construction of reality, or rather, its third part.

A person, even thanks to books or some kind of images, for the understanding of which one needs to have any cultural competence, can accept the experience of previous generations, as well as express himself through a low sign form, share his experience with other people.

If a person is creative, he knows what a joy it is to be understood. Although such a desire has philosophical rather than scientific implications, it is on the list of public needs. This is precisely the new social reality as an object of social construction.

The most important thing when studying is to remember that any knowledge is socially constructed, biased, changeable and can be questioned in the future. But it is worth noting that there is a position according to which the very thinking of a person in a postmodern society is already in a certain sense opposed to reification to some extent.

Modern man perceives the outside world as a game. He knows that society is external data, that political ideologies are temporary things. It is also worth remembering that there is a very thin line between mass and elite art, and any social norms can change over time.