The Social Construction of Reality

“For what comes by nature is harder to cure than what comes by custom for the reason why custom is held to be so strong is that it turns things into nature.” —Aristotle, Magna Moralia, Book II, 4 B.C..

“1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.”—Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

A very brief overview of the philosophical school of thought known as the “Sociology of Knowledge” is needed before further discussing Aristotle’s distinction between first human nature and a second constructed cultural nature. Max Scheler (1874-1928) was known in 1920 as the father of the “Sociology of knowledge” (Wissenssoziologie), which is concerned with the relationship between thought, and the social context it arises. His phenomenological examination focused on how existential determination dialectically influences thought.

The best overview of this area of critical sociology is a small book authored by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann titled, “The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Anchor Books, ed. 1967, here after referred to as “SCR”).” This book is particularly indebted to Emile Durkheim as the first French professor of the sociology of knowledge although authors Berger and Luckman give a dialectical interpretation of Karl Marx’s critique of society combined with sociologist Max Weber’s research into how subjective meanings become reality (SCR., p. 17).  I first encountered this book when an excited graduate sociology student hurriedly walked into the philosophy department holding a paperback book saying, “Have you guys heard of this?” I think in some ways the sociology of knowledge presents critical theory more intuitively than critical philosophy since it has a stronger empirical side that people can relate to instead of abstract epistemological questions. [1] For many readers the sociology of knowledge was their first introduction to critical theory.

[1] Footnote: A point of phenomenological interest is Peter L. Luckmann worked with Alfred Schutz on the text, “Structures of the Life-World (1982).” We discussed the concept of the Lifeworld in regard to Husserl. The sociology of knowledge uses the phenomenological method to critique ideology and understand how ideas are formulated in a social context to create a commonsense worldview.

Max Scheler (not to be confused with Karl Schlegel) further developed Husserl’s phenomenological method by researching a new area of study called the phenomenology of ethics. Interestingly, Scheler understood phenomenological observation to be akin to a “spiritual posture.” The later Husserl likely adopted Scheler’s interpretation of the phenomenological method of the Epoche. Scheler viewed Husserl’s phenomenological method as “an attitude of spiritual seeing...something which otherwise remains hidden....”[2] The German word "Geist" means both "Spirit," and "Mind." Ethics and phenomenological description merge in Scheler’s methodology:

“Rather, that which is given in phenomenology ‘is given only in the seeing and experiencing act itself.’ The essences are never given to an 'outside' observer with no direct contact with the thing itself. Phenomenology is an engagement of phenomena, while simultaneously a waiting for its self-givenness; it is not a methodical procedure of observation as if its object is stationary. Thus, the particular attitude (Geisteshaltung, lit. ‘disposition of the spirit’ or ‘spiritual posture’) of the philosopher is crucial for the disclosure, or seeing, of phenomenological facts. This attitude is fundamentally a moral one, where the strength of philosophical inquiry rests upon the basis of love”(Wiki: Max Scheler).

Scheler’s key insight is that human knowledge is given in society as a priori to individual experience giving thought the order of a “relative-natural view”(SCR., p.8). Scheler developed an entire theory of values based on “beings-of-value” (Wertsein). Heidegger had a very high regard for Scheler’s contribution to contemporary philosophy. Scheler was the only prestigious member of the German intelligentsia to warn of rising German Nazism in 1927. Scheler’s entire works where not in English even in 1967. One interesting historical note is Pope John Paul II studied Scheler’s ethics resulting in his dissertation titled "Reevaluation of the possibility of founding a Catholic ethic on the ethical system of Max Scheler.“ [3]

“The world expresses itself in the type of the human spirit, and this type represents itself in the world."—Friedrich Schleiermacher

Another important scholar that inspired the sociology of knowledge is Karl Marx with his critique of human activity as labor (Substructure) and the society (Superstructure) this activity produces. 1.) Marx and Engels had a dialectical view of the interaction between consciousness and a dynamic material world: in history human consciousness re-shapes material existence (Nature), then material existence in return re-shapes consciousness (Society). 2.) Ideology holds the stock of cultural knowledge, which can be manipulated to reflect and advance only the interests of factional groups. 3.) Socially functional false beliefs create a false consciousness in which the thinker is alienated from his own life. 4.) Reification occurs when the subject apprehends human phenomena as “things” which are non-human, or even super human that re-appear as an alien force (Economic Depressions). However, reification also includes “facts,” “cosmic laws,” or the “will of a divine being.” Reification is a kind of forgetting of the past and de-humanization of the world (SCR., p.89). When Wittgenstein said, “The world is a totality of facts, not of things,” he means A.) The concepts of  “world” and of “facts” are linguistic interpretations of existence as appearances. B.) “Things” are appearances (phenomena) of which we cannot go beyond to the thing-in-itself (noumena). The key question for sociology of knowledge is how these subjective meanings are transformed into objective facts.

American sociologist Karl Mannheim combined Marxian critique to Scheler’s work in sociology of knowledge. His main interest was the phenomena of ideology and distinguishing between the “part, whole, and general concepts of ideology” (SCR., p.9). Ideology can dominate a part or the whole of consciousness as in Marx’s false consciousness. Ideology influences both the other’s thinking as well as one’s own thoughts. No one is immune to the influences of ideology. Mannheim most famous book is “Ideology and Utopia” (1936) translated from German by Louis Wirth and Edward Shils, Harvest Books, edition, 1996. For editions published in the US after 1936, Part I, was added especially for English readers. Mannheim’s thesis is “utopianism is like ideology, but unlike ideology it has the dynamism to transform that reality into its own image”(SCR., p.10).

Wilhelm Dilthey’s research focused on countering historical relativism by arguing that a historical situation can be understood only in its own social historical context (SCR., p.7). American sociologist Robert Merton made the very important distinction between “the intended, conscious functions of ideas, and the unintended, unconscious ones” (SCR., p. 11). Merton was the first fully developed sociologist of knowledge. Sociologist Talcott Parsons’ studies were a critique of Mannheim’s research. Neither C. Wight Mills, nor Parsons, nor Merton developed the sociology of knowledge further than Mannheim. And lastly, Werner Stark diverts from Mannheim’s focus on ideology by turning from the “sociology of error” to the sociology of truth.

Construction of Reality by Externalization, Objectivation, and Internalization

Dr. Dennis Hiebert of Providence University College, Canada defines the social construction of reality as “…the process whereby people continuously create, through their actions and interactions, a shared reality that is experienced as objectively factual and subjectively meaningful.” This socially unifying process has at least three other related processes. 1.) Externalization is a process in which the institutions of society and nature appear as external and independent of one’s own existence. Reality is that quality of phenomena recognized as being independent of our own existence and volition. 2.) Objectivation is the “…process by which the externalized products of human activity attain the character of objectivity.” Daily life is viewed as having a pre-arranged ordered reality. The dynamics of human created products act back on the producer appearing as other than a human creation. Money capital moving around causing worker dislocation and unemployment is a good example of the objectivation of human labor as profit returning in money form as an alien force. 3.) Lastly, Heibert defines internalization as “…the process whereby the individual learns the legitimations (explanations and justifications) for society’s order.” These justifications could be cognitive, or moral. Knowledge is the certainty that phenomena are real and have attributes. When we define the world, we define ourselves.

The Social Totality

Adorno is known for his intentionally non-scientific philosophical concept of the “social totality.” Adorno argues that 1.) Society gives facts meaning in a social order. The social totality is not a causal chain matrix, nor a collection of disconnected facts. Rather, the social totality is a driven self-sustaining system that provides a social pre-constructive model of the world. At the same time the social totality act as a constraint on thinking. Adorno’s thesis is “…that society, as a totality, is not an object which can be grasped through any of the scientific methodologies adopted by positivism” (Adorno, by O'Connor, Brian, Pub. Taylor & Francis Books, 2012, p. 27). Positivism misses the dialectical process by which objective facts are formulated. 2.) Society is shaped by fundamental ideological beliefs. Most importantly, 3.) Society is a coercive totality that can force persons into self-destructive circumstances. However, this influence cannot be understood with the category of “causality,” but rather by “integration.” It is within the social totality that “ ‘Damaged life’—our condition—is a life pursued within the space of the social totality in which our beliefs and decisions are directed by institutional norms which seem objective and reasonable”(Ibid., p. 27).

Aristotle postulated two human natures: the first nature humans are born with while the second nature is formed by socialization. This second nature is viewed by the sociology of knowledge as having two key general processes the individual undergoes: Primary socialization, and Secondary socialization. However, I want to change these terms to “Primary paradigm,” and “Secondary paradigm.”

Bitter Sweet Symphony