Me...last assignment befor I graduate. I am studying to be an art therapist and sociology is fantastically confusing. I have to answer are bodies social? I thought I might go with the idea of the body as a cultural canvas specifically body modifications through history, what do you think? Need all the help I can get even from a stranger across the world. Hope you have had a great year sorry for the weird reply!
Mostly agreed. It might sound a bit more complete with just a small addition. "Human beings create social reality while they are mutually being created by social reality concurrently".
I just had the difference explained to me by a lecturer at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia - Social constructionism and social constructivism are similar terms, but the former originates in sociology and the latter in psychology. Both refer to the theory that our world is socially constructed rather than objective. The psych term, when used properly refers to the cognitive processes involved in the social construction of our understanding and experience of the world. Given the similarity of meanings, the terms are often used interchangeably. Strictly speaking, students of sociology should stick to using the term social constructionism.
No wonder you don't understand. He doesn't explain anything. He just chants a load of unsupported claims about reality. Most of which are obviously false. "We impose the order of race" - yes, because of discernible differences in human beings, not because of nothing.
@@aidepaul534 It's been two years, so I understand a bit better now. The idea of the social construction of race is a sound one. Yes, people's skintones do differ, but our classification of people into races didn't become common practice until the age of slavery as a means of justification, as the logic went that it was okay to use "lesser" races to our benefit. Even the concept of "whiteness" has been used to exclude people. Irish people, for example, suffered intense discrimination for many years and weren't considered "white" even if that label would obviously describe their skintone. So basically, race as a conceptvis mostly used not as a simple classification of skintone, but as a justifier and enforcer of social hierarchy
@@CH-wd6qs Race is not based solely on skintone. But anyway, the fact that the concept of race is used in a bad way doesn't mean that the differences that constitute races do not exist or are a construct.
@@CH-wd6qs I'm sure there are observable criteria within scientific definitions of race. It's not up to me. The function of race doesn't interest me, since whatever the function may be it's not a patch on the existence of that which constitutes it.
Thank you for this amazing summary of Social Constructionism. I am happily constructing great value to this video and to the research process it has begun for me!🙏
Peter L. Berger says “Constructionism” is a term he often rejects because “the social construction of reality” isn't an ideology as much as it’s a point of view.
thank you for this lecture, i read the original book twice. Still, i don't understand the idea of the book clearly, in particular, the process "externalization, institutionalization, internalization" until I watched this Video. thank you sir. good day to everyone.
I got an A on my exam about The Social Construction of Reality. I love this theory so much, and it makes so much sense. I know it is hard to learn, it was for me too, but once you do...! Wow, it'll blow your mind
Excellent overview of this some what complex theory. The final question for me to resolve, is what the difference is between the construction -ism and -vism? And to what extend moderate constructions are the be understood as the same as sosial construtions? Øyvind Pedersen, University of Tromsø, Norway
Okay. I understand political debate as arguing about what is social constructed and what is a natural kind. It is often about things like market, race and gender as something that is given as a fact (natural reality) or depending on human culture and therefore can be re- and deconstructed.
I know that the phrase "social construction" has been around since the early 1900s and has become increasingly used by a variety of people to mean a variety of things. I think that to be more sociologically precise, we may want to adapt "mutually constructed social reality" to capture the truest essence of what we mean.
Does anyone know where I can get the source of the table regarding the different types of realities (objective/subjective, dependent/independent)? I'd like to refer to it in my essay but could not find its origin. Thanks!
He is an excellent teacher. Can't the Great Courses invite him to offer an college-level audio and/or video course, titled, "Social Science and Christianity," or better yet, "Religion and Sociology"?
Divine Command has been questioned since Plato. Religions are not beyond questioning of Divine Command thus their diversity. Nature and our many views of it presuppose a diversity of popular and scientific thinking. The constructivist view tends to take the old Nature/Nurture controversy with bias toward the nurture side. Sometimes, as is well the case here, humans are viewed as entirely socially constructed. To me this gives to much credit to nurture and obscures human predispositions and instincts. Furthermore, the constructivist's view of our social institutions as arbitrary brings into question their own beliefs as no less arbitrary and fanciful leaving them no where to hang their hat be it nature or nurture.
Oh noes, a widdle cough with a .03% fatality rate amongst young adults, better give the government the authority to force you to obey utterly arbitrary rules at gunpoint guies!11!!11 You're delusional.
I disagree with the statement "as things become more dependent on us they become more meaningful." The things in life which I find most meaningful exist naturally and independently, and therefore do not rely on the human agent for it's existence. For example: If I gaze at the stars and become imbued with an overwhelming sense of meaning, it is because there is a part of me which intuitively knows that the stars and myself are inseparable. This has nothing to do with a social construct or dependency. The meaning derived from nature is both inherent and universally shared.
I think you misinterpreted what he meant by meaningful.. given the social contruct of society. Let’s say we have a hammer and there’s a million people who need to put a nail in a wall. That hammer would be more meaningful to the individuals in the social construct then if we were to supply them with stars. Meaning is abstract, and I agree the stars are truly breathtaking although it serves to purpose to have one in my pocket if I need to put a nail in the wall.
The theory of "social construction" was also socially constructed correct? if something is or may not be objective truth simply because it was socially constructed (and is dependent on people for its own existence) wouldn't this in turn diminish the objective validity of social construction as a theory in the first place.
This is one of the recurring themes in postmodern thought, especially among left-leaning intellectuals. For example, they'll say, "There is no such thing as an absolute truth." But, you must accept the concept of absolute truth, to accept their declaration. At the end of the day, the source of this irrationality and the contradictory nature of these statements, stems from the fact that the academic left, is more concerned with political ends than the pursuit of objective truth and making good judgment/decisions; all of which was and is many cases still is the goal of most elite schools.
Good points. Perhaps this friendly philosophical critique of "The Social Construction of Reality" will be helpful: apologiabyhendrikvanderbreggen.blogspot.ca/2016/12/deconstructing-social-construction-of.html
Social constructionism gets a lot of stick because it is misunderstood. It's even misunderstood by some of those who claim to be its proponents. But in short, many many constructionists do not deny that a world exists 'out there', as academics like to say. The perspective is not about what is and is not real, but about the social relationships and dynamics of knowledge that shape how we make sense of the world - how we categorise it and so on. A way of illustrating this is to take something concrete and undeniably real, like a physical disease. Skin cancer exists. It is objectively true. But as soon as we start to discuss it, to give it words and meanings and morals (e.g. it's your fault because you sunbathe), it also becomes a social thing. It takes on a social reality because we develop a social construction of it.
Yes, and I've thought about this as well as have others: philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/34239/is-a-social-construction-a-social-construction/34308
You might want to look into Burkart Holzman's 1972 book entitled "Social Reality Construction". This is the 1972 second edition. It's a bit easier to read than Berger and Luckmann and takes a slightly different tack on the subject; however, the books agree substantially on HOW social construction works, where Holtzman's work goes more into the POWER dynamic behind social construction.
It sounds as if he is talking about a particular trait of language where the socially constructed is talked of as if it were not so, as if it were natural. This is equivalent in many ways to Roland Barthes discussion of 'mythology', which is worth looking into - and talks more about the politics of language in this type of disguised use.
Most simply, he is trying to explain the portion of Berger and Luckman's theory that basically says humans construct their reality in such a way that they forget and/or cover up the fact that everything that they know exists because they created it.
@@finchbevdale2069 Or maybe it's just what he thinks because he is a Christian himself. We promote intellectual freedom at Prov and encourage students to challenge professors
For further thought, see "Deconstructing ‘The Social Construction of Reality’": apologiabyhendrikvanderbreggen.blogspot.com/2016/12/deconstructing-social-construction-of.html
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I wouldn't have been able to understand him very well without the transcript. Now I can fully understand what's going on thank you so much!
Yes!! Berger and Luckmann were highly influenced by the phenomenological sociology of Alfred Schutz and dedicated the first chapter of The Social Construction of Reality to a phenomenological description of everyday social life.
No way I created my own reality and I never trust what people tell me or what I read and question everything I see and want to know how it works why it is as it is and everything about it, I'm definitely treat tv and all media as entertainment even this video .....but I might agree with other people as well as disagree about certain things , I make my own reality I am me, with that said their is only one true reality we all live in 💯 ❤️🇨🇦🍀
With that said the media Government institutional medial complex has made a false reality that SARS-CoV-2 is not that big of a deal when in fact it's our biggest most dangerous obstacle we have faced and a very long time, like since we have been keeping track, and that false reality that has been created world wide has started to fall about more and more people are snapping out of the denial they have been living in 💯🍀❤️🇨🇦
Stronger than God said is did God say? doubt is stronger than conviction, just ask Decartes because it's so much easier. If by religion, communism and the functional equivalence of religion are included, then there maybe something to this, but if by religion you mean my religion but not yours then you're not doing sociology your doing zealot postulation posturing as scientific.
I cannot find almost anything of interest in this talk. A salad of hyperbolic statements without much grounding, reaching nowhere and mysteriously insisting on god and religion. Or is this maybe a religious university?
@@finchbevdale2069 Perhaps you could list an example of this, because I actually have been attending Prov for the past 3 years and have not once encountered a scenario where they encourage the violation of the Charter. It's possible you might be thinking of a different school since you refer to the law society of British Columbia, yet this is a Manitoban institution. Given your information, I assume this is the school you're referring to? www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/u-of-m-faculty-joins-fight-against-christian-law-school-256651921.html
I don't believe in the "social construction" of anything, as I've always been one to ignore the social world in almost every capacity, nerd that I am, but this was still a nice, informative video.
Does a fish believe in water? What is it that leads you to define yourself as a nerd? Is your post (utilising a socially constructed tool of language) an example of where you choose not to ignore the social world? If you ignore the social world, in so far as you may feel you retreat from other humans, it does not mean you avoid being subject to the social construction of your way of understanding the world.
Then you don’t understand his speech. The ideas in the head are not necessary reality even though it’s often perceived as such. For example if someone tell you a lie but you believed it then it became a reality for you.
isn't that the structure/agency problem? Who has a good resolution of that? I like structuration theory by Giddens to explore the problem. But is there anything else/more recent?
To believe this stuff, you also have to believe some other things such as the supremacy of the mental to the spiritual, that reality is essentially physical, that the activity of the brain generates consciousness, etc. This is essentally Marxist.
This, is a non starter philosophy. He's critiquing a socially constructed world taken as "real" , using a socially constructed language to tell us so. Why should i believe a "word" of anything he's saying? Language is a social construct right ? But this cat, wants me to take his words has "real" ? Massive own goal, methinks. G
"reality can be deconstructed and reconstructed"..is basically the same as "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past" from 1984...
George Orwell got it right and we were warned just long enough to forget and unfortunately allow the serpent right back in the damn garden. Congrats people!
Thank you very much! This is just an amazing and most comprehensive lecture about the Social Construction. I have read lot of stuff about it but this lecture is the best.
Dude making all sorts of claims without giving reasons or definitions (many of which seem to be loose). Edit: the longer i listen the more presuppositions he throws out without explanation or justification.
Idea of the law of non contradiction and the idea of photons are constructed but the law of non-contradiciton is an abatraction and photons themselves are real
Reality is not "socially" constructed. Reality is beyond what you believe. How can you believe what is real if what you believe is NOT in alignment with your own reality?
The start premise was brilliant, for me lost in a side track of example. for me the exploration of a premise into the construct of reality to the the way we measure it, is its own consciousness. beyond that is time itself, connected, we are a multidimensional paradox
not, made nor made up, it accretes over time. that accretion is actually natural as it is built up by natural beings - humans. language games, do not create a "new reality." sociology is now built on frankfurt school critical theory, that is a social construct that they chose. we should be extremely suspicious of these language games.
So society is a biological object, because we humans are biological? You dont see that as nonsense? For example, a mountain is physical creation, but the term mountain isn't, that is something we have created socially between humans. Socialconstructivism isn't about physical creations, it's about our societal agreed-upon perception of the world.
"the social world (...) is made up by people". "the physical world (...) is given to humans" Question: are humans a physical entity? Are our brains? Where's the "dependency" line between the physical and the social, exactly?
5:18- Well, skin colour is NOT continuum with respect to humans. Different races have different skin colours and race is not just about skin colour. It's about physical features. So you are wrong. Nobody IMPOSES the order of race. Human races are natural. Humans did not create race. Race has biological underpinnings as a race is a genetic cluster.
I think you confusing race (like humans) and race (cultural race). Very different things, and cultural race is for sure created by humans. Indians for example are a race of humans from the Asian region, but their cultural race has been created and identified by the facts of said culture, they eat curry, the women wear a red dot on their heads, etc. Race, gender, these are social constructs that have been created by humans. They don’t exist without dependency. Planets, and other worlds, they are not social constructs because they exist outside our own constructed reality.
@@techampgaming6001 The _'cultural race'_ you mention is more accurately referred to as 'ethnicity,' which is both socially constructed and real, as DNA tests can now determine whether you have Indian ancestry, for example. Race, as a biological category of humans, is not a social construct. Any DNA test from companies like MyHeritage will provide your racial breakdown and confirm your race. Unlike religion or nationality, which are indeed social constructs that you can change, race is not something that can be altered.
@@oneshot2028 I dont agree and there are many philosophers like Dr. Peterson who would tell you its not. Race and ethnicity are social construct, they are not facts like gravity. African, Indian, these are names that we only use on Earth by society and thus since we only use it here, its a social construct. You can argue DNA all day long, it won change what is it. Whether or not you want to agree or hear it, thats what it is. Read about it, and then we can talk.
@@techampgaming6001 Who is _Dr. Peterson?_ If race isn’t a biological fact, then DNA testing companies wouldn’t be able to identify genetic markers unique to different races. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, the greatest geneticist of the latter half of the 20th century, discovered over a dozen human genetic clusters that align perfectly with racial groups. Also, if race were merely a social construct like religion, we should be able to change our race at will, but we can’t. A couple of the same race will always produce children of the same race, which wouldn’t be the case if there were no biological basis for race. Citing philosophers without presenting their arguments and telling me to _"read about it"_ is an appeal to authority and a way to evade the discussion and shift the burden of proof. *PS:* According to your logic "oxygen" would be a social construct since it's only used on Earth by society, but we know for certain that _oxygen_ is not a social construct, which makes your reasoning flawed.🤔
“The sociological question is not what is real nor even how do we know what is real but how does anything come to be accepted as real.” - Dr. Dennis Hebert. Since I was not educated under the social construction reality, which based on this lecture would have us reject the scientific methodology of understanding the natural world, I question this methodology of understanding nature/reality. Sure you can create and indoctrinate followers into believing an interpretation of nature/reality but is it real? A scientific process or scientific method requires observations of nature and formulating and testing the hypothesis. What is this scientific methodology of understanding the natural world? 1. Observe something and ask questions about a natural phenomenon (scientific observation). 2. Make your hypothesis. 3. Make predictions about logical consequences of the hypothesis. 4. Test your predictions by controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study or a field experiment. 5. Create your conclusion on the basis of data or information gathered in your experiment. As explained by this professor, the social construct methodology of understanding the natural world requires you deny there is an observable fixed natural world (Take for example the periodic table of elements. This is an accepted reality but not static we have added elements to this table but it does not negate scientific observation. Regardless of whether people are aware of the periodic table of elements, it does not change the reality that these elements exist. You can’t make up whatever reality you want. It does not matter if you convince large numbers of people to “believe” your vision of reality. We know the earth travels around the sun because of gravity. In the past, the majority of society believed the sun traveled around the earth. This was a social construct that was not scientific and proved to be incorrect. Popular belief does not equate to reality.) The problem with the social construct theory is that it promotes a pseudo reality. It constructs a definition of nature that is subjective which can be redefined as it suits the culture. This is the definition of a cult mentality and is not based in reality. The fact that human beings can be manipulated and can collectively hold false beliefs does not make this reality factual. What a shame that this pseudo reality is being taught in our schools of higher education. We are producing a generation(s) of students who have been indoctrinated into “creating” a cultish false reality. The fact that human beings have a history of cult inspired belief systems and ignorance of science is obvious. This is evidence that humans do not think critically, are easily manipulated on a mass level and are subject to a cult mentality.
That statement was precisely clarifying that sociology is *not* giving any opinion, one way or another, about reality itself. You got it exactly backwards.
