#the social construction of reality

[articlesofnote]

SCoR - Section II, Ch. 1, Part E "Scope and Modes of Institutionalization"

I. So far we have only addressed essential/universal features of institutionalization, and while addressing all variations is impossible, certain important ones bear discussing.

II. For example: within a given society/collectivity, how is the scope of institutionalization defined? How much behavior is defined within institutions, how much outside of institutions?

III. Answer: Scope depends on generality of "relevance structures" i.e. how widely these are shared among social group members

IV. To understand better, think of an extreme case: total institutionalization means ALL problems are common, all solutions already socially objectivated, all social actions institutionalized. No role specificity, all situations equally relevant to any actor. "Institutional order embraces the totality of social life, which resembles the performance of a complex, highly stylized liturgy."

V. The opposite extreme is a social "order" where only one problem is shared; all other concerns are completely individual.

VI. Between these extremes, we can identify conditions that place actual societies along this spectrum. The main distinguishing condition is the degree of specialization of labor, with the associated specialization of institutions. A second distinguishing condition is the availability of economic surplus.

VII. Institutionalization is not irreversible though institutions do have a tendency to persist. Institutional scope may expand or diminish eg. modern "private life" is notionally less governed by institutions that historically; the concept itself may be a modern one.

VIII. Another question: what is the relationship of institutions to each other?

IX. Outside of extreme case (one institution for all, or no institutions at all), the objective issue of inter-institutional meaning integration arises, which is different from the self-integration of a given institutional order.

X. We can't assume that integration WILL happen, but it DOES happen. How?

XI. One way is that a mythos is imagined which encompasses the disparate institutions into a larger frame, then this mythos is spread.

XII. The mythos so derived would itself be reflective of the existing social order; it would need to be, in order to spread. That is, it has to reflect common problems and common understanding, or nobody would give a shit about it.

XIII. This integrative problem will appear whenever there are multiple institutions, but methods for resolving it vary historically.

XIV. Institutional segmentation can also lead to isolated "subuniverses of meaning"/subcultures disjoint from the wider collective, which hold esoteric knowledge (mathematicians? MCU fans?); this phenomenon becomes more common with increasing economic surplus/division of labor

XV. These subcultures must be "carried" by a particular group; these groups may compete, and when they do, it is likely to be about surplus allocation. Advanced industrial societies have huge surpluses, and a corresponding multiplicity of possibly-competing subcultures.

XVI. A multiplicity of subcultures also means a multiplicity of perspectives on the larger society. This makes it more difficult to establish common/unifying perspectives. Subcultural perspectives will be related to but NOT wholly defined by the material interests of the associated subculture.

XVII. Moreover, body of subcultural knowledge can turn around and act on the group that defined/carries it. "The relationship between knowledge and its social base is a dialectical one."

XVIII. Autonomous subcultures have a double problem: outsiders must be kept out AND insiders must be kept in. There are many techniques to solve each problem, which will be explored later.

XIX. Differential rates of institutional change lead to special problems of legitimation eg. astrology vs. church vs. science are changing at different rates, leading to tensions.

XX. A final question of "reification": to what extent is an institutional order treated as an objective, non-human fact?

XXI. "Reification implies that man is capable of forgetting his own authorship of the world."

XXII. Because a shared social world is already objectivated, reification is a likely next step - an extreme of objectivation where the "world" becomes the producer of meaning, rather than humans. "Man is capable … of producing a reality that denies himself …"

XXIII. Reification seems to be a default mode of experiencing social reality, such that recognizing it as a separate phenomenon happens relatively "late" in individual and social development.

XXIV. Any aspect of a social system may be reified. "Through reification, the world of institutions appears to merge with the world of nature. It becomes necessity and fate, and is lived through as such …"

XXV. Roles may be reified in the same manner as institutions: "I have no choice; as an X, I must do Y"

XXVI. Analysis of reification is an important corrective to default reifying tendencies, and also suggests that special attention be paid to social circumstances that favor DEreification: institutional collapse, first contact between previously segregated societies, social marginality, etc. ----

re: II - I think they're being too strict with definition of institution here: all behavior is structured by SOMETHING, why not call that something an institution?

re: IV - The Borg vs. Deadwood vs THX 1138/"The Machine Stops" - order into chaos, chaos into order

re: V - why "one shared problem" as an extreme, rather than NO shared problems? because with no shared problems, there is no need for any institutionalization at all. ex: Deadwood again, or Earth Abides: the first problem that forces collective action is one of defense i.e. maintaining individual integrity through collective action

re: VI - economic "surplus" is rarely left free for very long i.e. it is 'captured' by institutions quickly, right? "extra" wealth does not remain "extra" forever! but on the other hand, "surplus" is only recognized as such in particular social contexts i.e. petroleum in 1850 vs. 1950

re: VII - I disagree here. Modern action might be structured more by eg. consumption than the medieval Catholic church but it's still structured. Although, maybe "less" structured - I don't actually know. How would you define this?

re: XII - ref "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" - to be insane is to be outside of the prevailing mythos. Do you also need to be "outside the mythos" in a way that is seen to damage the mythos? i.e. in "Zen", Phaedrus lost his mind chasing Quality - but what got him put in the insane asylum was ceasing to take care of himself in even the most basic ways

re: XVI - suggests a perspective where corporations/consumerism are stabilizing forces. Corporations both generate AND absorb much "surplus", meaning less surplus available for subcultural multiplication, meaning less work has to go into reconciling perspectives relative to if these surpluses were "free"; consumerism is an excellent example of a unifying mythos ("you need things, you want things, you should have what you want"). any other mythos would have to be AS universal in order to 'outcompete' consumerism. Don't forget Mumford! "the magnificent bribe" is highly relevant. unrelated point: material "needs" are often socially defined, so perspectives of different subcultures often trace back to "how do we get our needs met by interacting with others"

re: XVIII - "The Age of Innocence" is all about "keeping the insiders in" - then the outside world changes and tramples down the boundaries of the subculture that the book reflects, completely obliterating it (off page) before the final section

re: XXVI - dereification example in paper "Moving off the Map: How Knowledge of Organizational Operations Empowers and Alienates" (Huising) - employees engaged in work to accurately map corporate operations discovered institutional reality dramatically differed from their taken-for-granted understanding of how their own companies worked, causing subsequent behavior for many of these folks to dramatically differ from what we might "expect" in a corporate setting. contrast with example of reification in action: "doomsday preppers" are avatars of consumerist consumption; as portrayed in media, they "prep" by hoarding supplies, rather than eg. planning out how to reproduce productive enterprises in what would necessarily be a different social context

[blue-village]

"Therapy entails the application of conceptual machinery to ensure that actual or potential deviants stay within the institutionalized definitions of reality, or, in other words, to prevent the 'inhabitants' of a given universe from 'emigrating'. It does this by applying the legitimating apparatus to individual 'cases'. Since, as we have seen, every society faces the danger of individual deviance, we may assume that therapy in one form or another is a global social phenomenon. Its specific institutional arrangements, from exorcism to psycho-analysis, from pastoral care to personnel counselling programmes, belong, of course, under the category of social control. What interests us here, however, is the conceptual aspect of therapy. Since therapy must concern itself with deviations from the 'official' definitions of reality, it must develop a conceptual machinery to account for such deviations and to maintain the realities thus challenged. This requires a body of knowledge that include a theory of deviance, a diagnostic apparatus, and a conceptual system for the 'cure of souls'. "

- The Social Construction of Reality (1966). Peter L. Berger & Thomas Luckmann.

[chamerionwrites]

Intellectually I understand where people are coming from, but personally I do THE biggest double take every time someone boils down conservative Christian ideology (and/or secularized cultural reflections thereof) to a kind of dour puritanism that proclaims happiness is sin/suffering is a moral good/everyone should be miserable all the time. Like I get it! I do. But also, institutionally, I have never met a group of more passionate worshippers and vicious defenders of their own comfort than evangelical Christians. There is a reason the common thread between my various weird triggers more or less boils down to "toxic positivity." There is a REASON my exvangelical tag is #walking away from omelas.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Daisy Stephens

Published: Jul 24, 2022

The Black Trowel Collective, a group of American archaeologists, claimed there are suggestions that many historical cultures had more than two genders and so archaeologists should be "wary of projecting our modern sex and gender identity categories onto past individuals".

The group claimed scientists have a "long history of imposing modern patriarchal gender and sexual norms onto the past".

"Human gender is highly variable and... human beings have historically been comfortable with a range of genders beyond modern 'masculine' and 'feminine' binaries," the group wrote in a blog post.

The Daily Mail claims that some academics are beginning to label ancient human skeletons as 'non-binary' or 'gender neutral'.

The idea has been criticised by historian Jeremy Black, who said gender is key to understanding history.

"It is an absurd proposition as the difference between genders, just as the difference between religious, social and national groups, are key motors in history," he told the Daily Mail.

"This very ideological approach to knowledge means that we're in danger of making knowledge itself simply a matter of political preference."

==

Life continues to imitate parody. 🤡

"projecting our modern sex and gender identity categories onto past individuals"

Current gender woo is the invention and imposition of bored, modern first-world academic elites, which makes this absurdly ironic.

"we're in danger of making knowledge itself simply a matter of political preference."

This is literally the postmodern, social constructivist belief and objective.

No one ever needs to respond to this deranged ideology with anything other than "no."

[alphaketoglutaricacid]

As much as i think toshiros complicity is based in his cowardice I do kinda get why he didnt talk to tade about what he thought abt how she views her retainership. Like even if he had that conversation like what could she do other than nod and smile—the power differential between them is huge. I feel something that plays into his conflict aversion is that if he did get upset or hit someone its not like they could hit back without serious consequences. But also he’s been raised in an environment where his comfort has always been prioritized above other ppls wellbeing and he def chooses the easier route A Lot. Like the fact that instead of genuinely engaging w whats going on w izutsumi and tade he ignored all his retainers, let maizuru handle it, and went on some two year spring break dungeon crawling whatever like words cannot describe what an abdication of responsibility this was. That instead of working w his party he went off on his own w his retainers bc he just didnt want them to know he was a noble that much (granted he also didnt think laios was cut out to lead which tough but fair) like cmon man…. But i do think his fight w laios was good for him even tho it was a shitty bitch fight when they rlly shouldve been helping their party revive ppl bc he could have a conflict on equal footing w someone. His whole life hes viewed himself as someone w no power (and the ways this is false esp on the island) but i think in the dungeon he realized he genuinely has a responsibility to his retainers n his actions led to them following him into something really dangerous when they had no dog in this. But also it seems as an attempt to reciprocate, he does seem to have become very observant of other people beyond what is normal bc he doesnt speak much. Culture plays into his clash w laios but i think the fact he’s grown up being so closely observed and in turn closely observes others plays into it too. But its fun how hes always toeing the line between being a spoiled brat, being too passive bc of his own lack of agency, n also that hes genuinely intelligent and has thought a really long time about power.

I think it also gets at why marcilles plan to equalize the races by making their lifespans the same was doomed to fail and also highlights how she can only view other ppls oppression thru her own suffering—that theres always going to be differentials in power that are difficult, but you have to interact meaningfully w them rather than running from them. A simple world w easy solutions like that would be bloodless and false, no?

[miiju86]

[papirouge]

it's always the non virgin women hellbent in arguing that virginity is a "social construct"

Bestie, if medics can check whether a woman has been vaginally penetrated (in case of (suspected) rape), it means that sexual activity does have a tangible/objective/material reality. And de facto, it's absence as well

And you don't have problem acknowledging that sex boosts endorphins, or how some women can be "dickmatized" for their hookup, because that's precisely HOW BIOLOGY WORKS AND HOW SEX WAS MADE TO CONSOLIDATE BONDING IN A COUPLE? But yeah let's just act all of this is just a social construct, and virgins who've yet to experience any of this are the same.

[depressed-cryptid]

I’m a girl but I don’t look very feminine. I cut my hair short and don’t wear makeup to make it even worse. I love to see the fear in people’s eyes when they try to pronoun me. I can physically see them struggling and it gives me joy.

[aufdemzauberberg]

kinda starting to believe i'd make a decent actress cause i've become so good at make-belief I'm falling for it myself

[articlesofnote]

SCoR - Section II, Ch. 1, Part D "Roles"

summary of “The Social Construction of Reality” by Berger and Luckmann

I. As seen previously, institutional order arises out of mutual typifications of action. This implies that certain actions, goals, forms, etc. are shared with others and mutually comprehensible: "as an X, I do Y; if you do Y, you must be an X."

II. To be typified, there must be objectivations; to be objectivated, there must be linguistic structures describing the typifications.

III. These typifications then structure self-experience: "When I am doing Y, I am an X." As people can have many such roles, more and more of self-consciousness is structured in terms of these typifications; the self becomes a social self.

IV. Because these typifications can be assumed and exited, they can be - and are - apprehended AS types, and the acting individuals seen as (potentially) separate from the typifications they enact.

V. "We can properly begin to speak of roles when this kind of typification occurs in the context of an objectified stock of knowledge common to a collectivity of actors. Roles are types of actors (actions?) in such a context."

VI. Standards of role performance are available broadly to members of a culture, more particularly to potential actors of that role. This allows actors to be held accountable for abiding by these standards.

VII. "Roles appear as soon as a common stock of knowledge … is in the process of formation, a process … endemic to social interaction and prior to institutionalization proper."

VIII. Roles represent the institutional order in two ways: performance of the role represents itself, and additionally, an entire institutional nexus of conduct - relations with other roles which represent the institution entire. Enacting roles is what makes institutions real in people's lives.

IX. Other representations - in symbol, in word, etc. - are subordinate to role enactment. The symbol is dead unless it lives in human action.

X. Some roles symbolically represent the institutional order more powerfully than others: the judge compared to the clerk, the president compared to the aide, etc. These roles thus also serve an integrative purpose, holding the institution together.

XI. Roles also serve to integrated/structure much (inward) knowledge of society not immediately relevant to the outward performance of the role.

XII. A society's stock of knowledge is thus distributed among its members according to differing scopes of relevance: more, or less, universal/broad.

XIII. Division of labor means specific roles are created/defined more frequently than general ones, so in turn, role-specific knowledge is accumulated faster than general knowledge in a given society.

XIV. In turn, accumulating role-specific knowledge means a society must be organized to support specialization.

XV. The "typology" of specialists then becomes an important part of the common stock of social knowledge.

XVI. Thus we see two perspectives on roles and knowledge:

Institutional order: roles are institutional building blocks and embody institutionally objectivated bodies of knowledge

Roles: institutions exist only as embodied in actors enacting certain roles associated with those institutions.

XVII. Roles and their definitions thus mediate between the self and society.

----

Notes:

re: IV - total identification with one role - eg. Daniel Day-Lewis as an actor, or fictional characters (magnus in 'the octopus', the judge in Babylon Berlin s4) - what purpose does this exaggeration serve? there is a read where there is no 'you' other than the roles you embody

re: VI - pygmalion/my fair lady - plot is all about the enacting of roles, "if you can do 'it' well enough, then you ARE 'it' whatever 'it' may be" - eliza is trained up to be a lady, and later feels 'ruined' for her previous life. same with her father, tho in a different way. higgins as a social "philosopher's stone" transmuting low to high?

re: XII - the authors say there's a "dichotomization" of knowledge between general and role-specific, but this seems wrong - knowledge inheres to roles, so the ROLES may be more or less specific: "i am an american" vs. "i am an engineer" vs. "i am myself" but the knowledge is ALWAYS "role specific"

re: XIII:

a. this is as close to a concrete mathematical relationship as I've seen expressed thus far

b. knowledge and role genesis concept; refer back to part B "origins of institutionalization" for something similar. TODO: figure out how to recreate the diagram I drew in my paper notes

[caffeinatedopossum]

People: wow how come you and your girlfriend communicate so well?? That must be hard right?

Me: we are both ✨️autistic✨️ *extremely dramatic jazz hands*

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Social constructivism is a social construct.

[z00r0p4]

I kind of actually think the postmodern affinity for constructionism will be the downfall of society as we've known it and not in a good way.

[burningtheroots]

You can’t say "I identify with the female »gender« and thus I should be given access to spaces and categories which are separated on the basis of »sex«".

You CAN say "I am a trans person and we should be allowed to have our own safe spaces, categories/not be excluded from sex-based categories and be given respect like anyone else".

[noknowshame]

everyone else go away i'm communing with early 20th century sociologists again

[onceuponamillennia]

time is so wierd like why does this post say 5 days ago i swear it's been a month.