Socially Constructed Reality

I am glad to see this webpage still exists. I ran across it years ago - I think it was early 2003, while I was originally researching the constructed reality concept. It is still, for me, the best summation of the idea, and the one that finally allowed me to "get it."

I have been thinking about the article a lot lately, in connection with some of our discussions here. I found it on my computer, but I did not have the page url, so I googled, hoping I could find it, so I could correctly credit the source:
http://www.grhouse.org/reality.htm


I had first heard about the concept of "constructed" reality or knowledge back in the early 90's, in a book called Women's Ways of Knowing:
http://www.amazon.com/Womens-Ways-Knowing-Development-Anniversary/dp/0465090990

The main ideas are very neatly summed up in this PDF file;
http://www.colorado.edu/ftep/publications/documents/WomensWaysofKnowing.pdf

Quote :

The Five Stages of Knowing [as experienced by women]
1. Silence: total dependence on whims of external authority
2. Received Knowledge: receive and reproduce knowledge
3. Subjective Knowledge: truth and knowledge are conceived of as personal, private,
and intuited
4. Procedural Knowledge: rely on objective procedures for obtaining and
communicating knowledge
5. Constructed Knowledge: view all knowledge as contextual; value subjective and
objective strategies

Belenkey and the other authors were focused on giving value to the way women think, but they quote studies on men's thinking as well, and overall, both men and women go through the same processes, so it is valid for everyone (if for anyone).

During the time I was struggling with this concept, a very bright student noticed that I was distracted one morning, just before classes were to begin, and asked me what I was thinking. I asked him, "Do we really construct reality?" His reply: "No, Ms. J. We just recycle it."

Either way, it is an interesting idea, and the article I linked at the top of this post, that I came across a good decade after Belenkey, et.al introduced the term into my thought processes, does a good job of explaining it, and doesn't limit the concept to women.

Quote :

Quote :

I'll tell you what we talk to ourselves about. We talk about our world. In fact we maintain our world with our internal talk. Whenever we finish talking to ourselves the world is always as it should be. We renew it, we kindle it with life, we uphold it with our internal talk. The world is such-and-such or so-and-so only because we tell ourselves that that is the way it is. If we stop telling ourselves that the world is so-and-so, the world will stop being so-and-so.... don Juan (Castaneda 1971: 218-19)

This quote is central to the idea of the social construction of reality: "The world is such-and-such or so-and-so only because we tell ourselves that that is the way it is". Reality construction has been discussed by many different people but has frequently left the first year Sociology student more confused than enlightened, I hope to change that confusion to understanding. As Pirandello's character in The Pleasure of Honesty says upon meeting a family:

Inevitably we construct ourselves. Let me explain. I enter this house and immediately I become what I have to become, what I can become: I construct myself. That is, I present myself to you in a form suitable to the relationship I wish to achieve with you. And, of course, you do the same with me.

Before we begin to enter the world of reality construction there are a few things about the human body and brain/mind that must be made clear. To begin, we must realize that, based on current scientific evidence, all stimuli coming into the brain comes through one of the five senses: taste, touch, sight, smell, and hearing. But, the eyes don't see, the nose doesn't smell, our ears don't hear, our mouth doesn't taste, and our skin doesn't feel. These sense organs are merely transmitters of sensual information. Let's use the eyes as an example. We believe that "seeing is believing", but that's not really the case. We usually see what we expect to see. Light photons are reflected in some manner from something in the direction in which our heads are turned and are received as various light wave patterns by the cone and rod receptors in the eyes. These photons strike the rods and cones inside the eye in a precise manner causing an electrical-chemical signal to pass down the optic nerve to sight receptors in the back of the brain. These sight receptors receive these signals as an upside-down image. The mind then interprets these signals, turns then right side up and, after being filtered, or censored, through the neocortex, and based on our past experiences, tells us what it is we are seeing. The point is, it is the brain/mind combination that sees, not the eyes. The same is true of the other four senses.
-----------------------------------------
... if we accept the above as being true and combine that with the idea that our "reality" is shaped by (1) the signals received through the central nervous system and (2) the person's interpretation of that imput as filtered through their individual personality and biases, then no two people "see" or experience reality in exactly the same way which means that they must create or construct their own individual reality based on their day-to-day experiences. From this, then, we see that reality is not as concrete as people usually believe that it is and reality must actually be quite fluid and shaped by individual experience. Again, all we know is what our five senses tell us as filtered through the nural connections of our central nervous system and the personality of our mind.
------------------------------------
"If we all create our own reality, then how do we come to any agreement as to what anything is?" The answer is simple, we negotiate reality. For example, say twenty people are standing at the four corners of an intersection when an accident involving three cars occurs. If we interview all twenty people individually and ask them what happened we're going to get twenty similar but different stories. But, if we put those twenty people in a room together and ask them to come up with a single coherent story as to what happened at the accident, they eventually will. One person might say that the navy blue car hit the ... , and another will interrupt and say no, it was black, and someone else may interject another color; but they will start out disagreeing. Through a process of negotiation they will finally come to an agreement as to what happened at the accident that they can all agree with, and, a few years later, if asked about the accident, they will recall that same negotiated story rather than their original story. This negotiated reality becomes their new reality. This story will be different from any of the stories that the witnesses gave individually. Therefore, what we call reality is simply the agreement that we have come to as to the content of our world.
http://www.grhouse.org/reality.htm

Group reality - whether in a family, an institution, a country, or a planet, is constructed and defined by whoever is in control. A parent, a teacher, our media, our leaders tell us what is real, and if we are to survive, we must accept it and believe it, or face ostracism. In a modern country, the controlling power often works behind the scenes. Whoever controls the media controls what we read, see, and hear.

So, the media is the problem. I looked until I found that salient point. You put it at the end though so I had to read the whole thing. I want an A for today and a credit in Sociology.

You get an A+ just for reading the whole thing.

Annie

Ann,

Thank you very much.


You are now my favorite teacher.

It makes logical sense, Ann.
Just concluded a discussion with my son about fact and faith. Won't go into detail, however what we believe or want to believe can become fact to us, although fiction. Facts are things that can be proved. Faith is not fact.

I agree that faith and proof are contradictory. The very notion of faith excludes proof. The terms are mutually exclusive, although even "Proof" is not infallable:
http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/Prove.Point.htm

I have a problem, though, with terms like "fact" and "fiction."

Facts are slippery things. They are easily manipulated, and fiction can often express truth in a way that a mere presentation of facts cannot achieve.

We are generally more than the sum of our parts.
2+2 (does not always) = 4:
http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html