The concept of constructing social reality is now well known to many. And this is not surprising, since in recent years quite a lot has been said about this process and relativity as such. But the term "construction of social reality" itself 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 rather large-scale phenomenon in the social sciences and the humanities as a whole, which replaced the prevailing social science prevailing and not only the position to objectify all kinds of social phenomena. Understanding of society as an external reality, as some kind of social dual factuality, independent of man and at the same time exerting pressure on him from the outside. All this changed in the middle of the 20th century, changing orientation from facts and the structure of social functions to discourse.
Categories for constructing social reality
To begin with, a little should be said about those historical, social and cultural conditions that laid the foundations for the discursive turn. In particular, it 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, finally, they became interested in it. The very idea that the meaning that certain words take in the language is random, and the differentiation of concepts such as sign and symbol were subsequently reflected in the theory of discourse.
Another theoretical source of 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 effect 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 current is also engaged in research in the field of sociology and culture. School participants primarily developed the concept of ideology and ideas regarding the zombie influence of popular culture. It was the Frankfurt school, for example, that created such a concept as the cultural industry, or the self-concept of mass culture as a kind of spiritual chewing gum that is completely emasculated from the inside, does not contain any critical potential, does not answer the main questions, and is generally meaningful empty.
And when now a person says that the TV is, in fact, such a zombie creature in which there is nothing valuable, he simply has a manipulative effect 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 the theoretical constructs is the philosophy of postmodernism, the study of structuralists, and subsequently poststructuralists, primarily Michel Foucault, who linked the concept of discourse and power and gave one of the most popular definitions of the term. He spoke about the dialectical relationship of society and speech as such.
Karl Marx Mirror
On the whole, the very concept of analyzing the social construction of reality involves a turn from studying society as a social fact to studying it as reality, which 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 impact on society. In general, he acts as a kind of creative subject, as a co-author of the state, producing a 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 can know himself only in fellowship with Paul. That is, any person needs a mirror so that he can understand who he really is.
Two categories
A 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 sciences as such. And not only social sciences. By the way, natural and exact sciences are also not valuable, 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 about the social sciences. In this case, there are two understandings of the very category of constructing reality, since these two types are quite close in content, which is embedded in them in the natural sciences. For example, the transcript given by Louise Phillips and Maryana Jorgensen reads: "Discourse is a certain way of understanding and explaining the world around or some aspect of it." There should be a slight clarification, this example, which Phillips and Jorgensen give themselves.
Elements of objective reality
The fact is that even in science, after a discursive turn, mankind 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 specific meanings and meanings.
Philips Yogerson offers the following example. The element of objective reality is the flood. An objective fact is that a flood occurs, people die, property suffers, an environmental disaster of a local nature occurs.
But after constructing the task, various ways of explaining the outside world come into play. In particular, we can use, for example, political discourse, that is, some way of explaining the world.
Power as a means of constructing a conflicting social reality appears in this particular case. Society can say that flooding is the fault of local government at best, but most of all the government as a whole is to blame. The authorities did not conduct a technical check in a timely manner, the entire top of the policy was corrupt, they did not follow the state of the dam, they did not notify the population, and did not evacuate in a timely manner. People were hurt because during this flood, local authorities showed their incompetence. And so on. Here it is, the political discourse that can be so often found in everyday life.
Environmental discourse - firstly, the society can say, for example, that the flood is the result of the activity of any plant that provoked this ecological disaster with its toxic emissions. Or it could be a consequence of 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 breakthrough of the dam, but we must consider it in a wider environmental context. This flood is only the first bell for the impending flooding of the entire globe.
The social construction of religious reality - this village perished for sins. The flood occurred because in this locality all citizens liked to drink, in other words, they were alcoholics. It is obvious that in this example, society can turn to the images of Sodom and Gomorrah. The community, which died due to its misbehavior, did not observe morality and religious rules.
In addition to the discourses listed above, we can turn 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 it, in turn, in some broader historical, cultural and social natural context.
Another opinion
Another explanation for the classic critical discourse analysis comes from Norman Fairclaw. He explains that discourse is understood as a language used in the process of representing social practice, different from the point of view. That is, discourse does not happen 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 transmitted for centuries. It is he who regulates society, makes it predictable, familiar and comfortable. And in this case, it represents a certain social practice.
The theory of discourse analysis itself and the idea of the constitutive nature of social reality is a product of a rather interesting complex of historical events. That is why many sociologists love to write and ask their students the essay "Social construction of reality."
Student Uprising 1986
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, student uprisings took place, a kind of strike against authority, against the political system, capitalism as such and against popular culture. All this fashion for criticizing the authorities, independent worldviews and a kind of underground description of external reality is a consequence of the uprisings that occurred 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 indicating their independent position in the bipolar world. And these are the times when a large part of the theoretical concept that is used by mankind today has developed.
So, the very direction of social constructionism is quite new. It is partly marginal in the social sciences in the sense that social constructionism has not acquired the status of a 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 arose 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 Kant's philosophy. Namely, it is worth paying attention to his selection of things: "for himself and for himself." In the first case, we are talking about noumenas, 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, which 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 it determines the worldview of a person, his behavior, identity, self-image, as well as 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
Touching upon 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 Luckman. This work was called Social Construction of Reality. A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. " It is worth reading to everyone who is fond of this topic. Moreover, the volume of the book is only 300 pages.
In The Social Construction of Reality, Berger and Luckmann present the process of reproduction of public order as such a three-step cycle:
- Externalization.
- Objectification.
- Internalization.
Externalization is a tendency of the external expression of 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.
In the treatise on the social construction of reality, Berger and Luckmann cited 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 experiences with other people if there is no definite consensus on how to express experiences.
The second element that Berger has identified in the social construction of reality is objectification. This term means the expression of internalized experiences in those forms that can be shared by other people. The author gives the following example. Suppose a person constantly quarrels with his mother-in-law. He wants to share this problem with his friends and uses the category “trouble with a relative”. He just comes to the park and tells his friends: “So, guys, I have problems with my mother-in-law today,” and they reply: “We understand you that way”. That is how objectification works.
And finally, the third category that Luckman introduced in the social construction of reality is internalization. The concept denotes the assimilation by people included in a community of objectified phenomena. Internalization can have a variety of ways of expression. 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 simply priceless.
The third element, namely, internalization, refers to the fact that a person in the process of development masters certain objectified elements of social reality, turns into an individual, as a member of a certain community, and 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 images, for which you need 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 engaged in creativity, he knows what a joy it is to be understood. Although such a desire has a philosophical significance rather than a scientific one, 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 called into question 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 already in a certain sense opposes 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 fine line between mass and elitist art, and any social norms can change over time.