Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Sociologists Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckman introduced the theory of social constructionism in 1966 in the book The Social Construction of Reality. Three separate intellectual movements came together to form the basis of social constructionism in the late 1960s. The second was a literary and rhetorical impetus to the deconstruction of language and how it affects our knowledge of reality. Furthermore, the third is a criticism of scientific practice. It was led by Thomas Kuhn, who argued that scientific discoveries are influenced by and, therefore, represent the specific communities in which they are created, and no objective reality.
The Theory’s Purport and Development
Social constructionism, or in other words, the social construction of reality, is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication that explores the development of a co-constructed understanding of the world. Social constructionism can be determined as a perspective that believes that a significant part of human life exists because it exists due to social and interpersonal influences. Although genetically inherited factors and social factors act simultaneously, social constructionism does not deny the influence of genetic inheritance. However, it decides to focus on the study of social influences on community and individual life. Topics that are the interest of social constructionism are related to what anthropologists call culture, and sociologists call society: general social aspects of everything psychological. There are several versions of social constructionism in which different authors make different accents.
Two social constructionisms distinctive features comprise the rejection of assumptions about the nature of the mind and the theory of causality, and the emphasis on the complexity and interconnection of many aspects of individuals in their communities. Social constructivism casts doubt on most of our shared knowledge about ourselves and the world in which we live, and this means that it does not just propose a new analysis of subjects such as personality or attitude, which can be inserted into our existing system of understanding. The structure itself must change and with it our understanding of every aspect of social and psychological life. Constructivism assumes that each individual mentally constructs a world of experience via cognitive processes, while social constructionism has a social, not individual orientation.
The thing that there is no single position of social constructionism has become more evident than ever, and that positions that have never been identified or identified as social constructionism are sometimes indicated in this way, adds confusion. Like the term postmodernism, social constructionism is not the only goal (for its critics) or a separate movement (for its enthusiasts). The British sociologist Dave Elder-Vass in the book The Reality of Social Construction considers the development of social constructionism as one result of postmodernisms heritage. He writes: Perhaps the most widespread and influential product of this process [coming to terms with the legacy of postmodernism] is social constructionism, which has been booming [within the domain of social theory] since the 1980s (Elder-Vass, 2012). Social constructionism emphasizes the importance of social relations in the formation of knowledge and explains how these relations function to construct knowledge. Social construction specialists argue that knowledge creation is the product of our daily interactions with each other, and knowledge is created through our conversations. Constructivist orientation claims that there is no ultimate universal reality; our reality is the result of a shared learning process (Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). Language, a fundamental aspect of the process of knowledge production, is considered not as a description and idea of the world, but as a way of constructing it, as a form of social action. The language derives its meaning from its use in context. The constructionist approach emphasizes the ability to create realities with the help of language in its various forms of representation, stimulating the process of continuous creation.
Social Constructionism and Media
The picture of reality that is displayed (designed, created) by the media is fragmented, one-sided, and without an alternative, often contradicting the real problems and difficulties that people face in modern society. The problems of the small media are regularly omitted, but if they decide to mention them, these are usually meaningless things related to the attitude and behavior of their governments and owners. The problem is that a person can hardly find and find out the truth because there is no access to alternative sources of information related to the sphere of government of powerful corporations, in which the chains are usually the largest and most influential media. Alternative sources are necessary if we want to know the true essence of the problem, that is, a hidden dimension of a phenomenon, process, or relationship. The media mainly serve large corporations, with the help of which they form the top of the power structure and dominate the private economy (as opposed to the state), which, in turn, together represents a large tyrannical structure of the global power pyramid that creates reality and imposes it. For example, a newspaper belonging to one of the global potentials selects and processes certain information and makes sure that only certain things are made public. The socializing role of the elite educational system teaches that certain things are undesirable to talk about, and specific thoughts that are unacceptable, and if the person does not adapt to this, he will find himself outside the system that protects and guides. For example, The New York Times is one corporation that cares about how best to sell its products. This product is represented by privileged people who need to be sold on the market, and market advertisers operate on the market, i.e., other corporations. Whether on television, in newspapers, or in any other media, they sell the audience to other corporations. A state that cannot control people by force (because it imitates democracy) controls their thoughts. A way to control peoples thoughts, ideas, and attitudes is to create the illusion of ongoing discussion (dialogue), but it is necessary to ensure that the discussion remains within particular (given and constructed) limits. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that both sides in the discussion make certain assumptions, which are necessarily a specific advertising system. The question is, who are the leaders of this propaganda? The leaders are a privileged, educated elite (journalists, political, military and economic analysts, scientists, institute leaders, and public relations specialists), which has the task of creating a certificate that ensures effective management with the consent of the public, the masses, citizens and all other consumers of media products.
Social Constructionism in Personal Life
Sometimes we think, is this real? However, the essential question is: what makes something real? In most cases, the things we experience in this world are just constructions.
We have opinions about everything, and we see the world through this lens. Social constructionism is a theory according to which knowledge and many aspects of the world around us are unreal in themselves. They exist just because we give them a reality through social consent. Things like nations, books, and even money do not exist in the absence of human society. Nations are groups of people who have a common language or history. Books are paper with doodles. Moreover, money is just pieces of paper and metal that have no value other than the one we assigned to them. The concept of self can also be considered a social construct. Our identity is the result of interaction with other people and our reaction to the expectations of society.
There are two streams of social constructionism: weak and strong. Weak social constructionism suggests that social constructs depend on gross facts, which are the most fundamental and not based on any other facts. Crude facts are hard to understand because it is so strange to think of something that cannot be explained by something else. For example, take the computer screen the person is looking at. The movement of subatomic particles comprised of quarks can explain the screen works due to changes in voltage, and so on. None of these facts are rude. A gross fact is what explains the quarks or what explains the explanation of quarks. These gross facts are separated from institutional facts, which are created by social agreements and are based on other pieces of evidence. So, for instance, money depends on the paper that we have given value. Strong social constructionism, on the other hand, argues that all reality depends on social habits and language, that all knowledge is a social construct, and that there are no gross facts. Therefore, it would be said that we created the idea of quarks and everything that we use to explain it. There are no facts that only exist. The primary criticism of social constructionism is that it does not take into account the influence of natural phenomena on society. Furthermore, at least for strong social constructionism, it is even painful for him to explain these phenomena, since they do not depend on the speed or action of a person. Strong social constructionism explains reality only by human thoughts, not by gross facts.
We can see how Jesus and his followers initially interacted as an active initiation and participation in the social construction of the church through the institutionalization process of Berger and Luckmann. Therefore, Jesus is the key actor in the foundational narrative of the church and the Christian faith. A religious person models behavior and thoughts about the religious activities of ancestors such as prophets, apostles, and other charismatic individuals. In this way, religious communities position themselves for future visions and missions, closely related to narratives rooted in hidden underlying myths.
References
- Berger, P. L., and Thomas Luckman, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. Doubleday: Anchor.
- Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.
- Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
- Chomsky, N. (2003). Media, Propaganda, and the System. Zagreb: The Society for the Promotion of Literature on the New Media, 17.
- Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Constructivism: New Implications for Instructional Technology. Educational Technology, 31(5), 7-12.
- Elder-Vass, D. (2012). The Reality of Social Construction. Cambridge, University Press.
- Gergen, K. J. (2011). The Self as Social Construction. Psychological Studies. 56. 108-116. doi:10.1007/s12646-011-0066-1.
- Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and Relationships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Gergen, K.J. (1985). Theory of the Self: Impasse and Evolution. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York, Academic Press.
- Henderikus, S. (2001). Introduction: Social Constructionism and its Critics. Theory & Psychology THEOR PSYCHOL. 11. 291-296. doi:10.1177/0959354301113001.
- Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Payne, M. (1999). Social Construction in Social Work and Social Action. In Jokinen, A., Juhila, K., & Pösö T. (eds.), Constructing social work practices. Brookfield, VA: Ashgate Publishing Company, 25- 65.
- Young, R & Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and Social Constructionism in the Career Field. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 64(3), 373- 388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.005.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.