Is Reality a Social Construction ?

Okay guys allow me to say once more, "Reality" is not "out there".
"Reality" is our INTERACTION with what is "out there". As the interaction proceeds "we change" and "out there" changes (mutually). So to say "reality is a social construction" is to say (1) that "we" approach "out there" with "our" linguistic categories , (2) with common cultural or species specific needs (3) and that the status of the changes in "out there" are subject to social consensus.

Thus in as much that "we" are united then "reality" is coherent, but where we are in conflict then "reality" yields to the dominant culture.

Finally whereas common perceptual apparatus may be relevent
at the species specific level, the fact that perception is "active" and not merely a set of transducers means we "select" the focus of our attention. It is the selection process that is open to (social)manipulation.

Fresco, I have been trying, off and on, for the last few days to sort out just what you are saying. I think I've finally, more or less, grasped your idea of reality as a social construction. Let me say that for some little time now, I have been casting about for a theory like this that would dispell my skepticism, set my mind at rest, and allow me the pleasure of going to my grave knowing that I finally know something.

However I must say that as I began to think that I understand the basics of your argument, I get the same queasy feeling that I get when reading the Apostle Paul. There is a lot of good logic there, but what, in the end does it signify?

I kind of like your definition of reality being our interaction with what is out there i.e. the result of a social interaction. But then I begin to wonder if that is all that reality is. Could it not be a social interaction plus the result of other means of knowing: such as via the senses (or are these also a social interaction) and the power of imagination. I realize that any exercise of the senses or the imagination or of any other way of knowing must involve the use of language, but is it not possible, even likely, that it is a mistake to attribute to any one of these the one controlling power of how we perceive? Is it not possible that each of these powers is the handmaid or the others? I think that you can come back and say that all these powers are somehow logically subservient to language, but just because it is or sounds logical does not make it so, and that's what bothers me.

I feel like I've learned a great deal from following this thread. There has been a lot of thoughtful opinion.

Hazlitt

You make good points. We SHOULD be skeptical of of our so-called "knowledge". I suppose (hopefully) the argument has the flavour of Wittgensteins demolition of much philosophical debate as so-much "word salad". But the "significance" is not so much in refuting "absolute truth" or "objectivity" but to support the shift of our attention from "materialism" or "idealism" to the interface of "inner" and "outer states". This shift is already under way in "quantum mechanics", "genetic epistemology", and "second order cybernetics". In all of these fields the struggle goes on to adequately describe the mutuality of observer and observed.

Just as we ignore the "heliocentric model" for every day purposes, we tend to ignore that "purposeful perception" (perceptual set) is operating and that much of this "purpose" is "social". Thus even the words "thought" and "senses" are open to cultural relativism (consider e.g. "unconscious thoughts" or "sixth sense" etc). But what do we do ? We take "vision" say as equivalent to an external camera system (which is fine for opticians purposes) but we ignore what is selecting and editing the "shots". If you cast your eye round your room at this point "what" do you "see"/"not see" ?
You see what you have "open boxes" for ! Where language comes in is in the direction and editing of perception. This is not to say that a pre-linguistic child has "no boxes". (All systems have to start somewhere) We are all partially pre-wired to extract human specific features such as "contours", but that the combination of such features into "meaningful complexes" is mediated by "language".

I have just noticed this thread and, excuse me adding in, what maybe a stupid observation - or maybe it's already mentioned and I've missed it.

Is 'Reality a Social Construction'? According to whom?

I have worked for a few years with some people with learning disablement from the ages of 16 to 60 years. My young grandson suffers from Asperger's Syndrome and I have tried to interact with Autistic children. What is their reality? And does it apply to the original question. Excuse me if I am totally off beam.

Tommy, You need to read the entirety of this thread to 'catch up' with this discussion. I promise you that all the posts will reveal a new idea or thought, and your q will not sound so "off the beam." Join in the fun! c.i.

If I might bring up one of my favorite writers and philosophers, Marcel Proust has extended many ideas in concurrance with what you're saying, fresco. The novels are essentially about a social construction as reality. With existentialism and objectivism concurring and then at odds with one another, are the answers somewhere inbetween?

Hazlitt

Your point about the status of "language" should perhaps should perhaps be taken in the context of "being human".

As far as we know, non-humans don't have a "problem with reality". They just get on with it ! So the significance of lanuage is perhaps that it allows for "alternative realities". These potential interactions are compared and contrasted in advance of human action, and this "capacity to delay a response" has been used by some psychologists as the definition of human intelligence.

The second point about language (or metalanguage) is that it allows "thoughts" to be formally externalized in written form thereby allowing for extension of "cognitive"memory limits and mutual manipulation by "several minds" unbounded by the usual time constraints of particular interactions. This may account for the unique human degree of control of the environment and may also lead us to conclude (falsely) that we have discovered "eternal truths" instead of "relatively stable coherence."

Lightwizard.

Thanks for the Proust boost !

I'm only familiar with him second hand and by Monty Python references but Hopefully I will find time to give him a try.

(AND IN FACT GOOGLE GAVE ME THIS QUOTATION)

"Though there are as many realities as there are perceivers, one quality of reality can always be taken for granted: it cannot be truly perceived at any point in time without a knowledge of the past and the future. Points of time are artificial and deceptive; they foster the illusion that they are real and complete in themselves."

philosophy of reality
It was just about impossible for me to jump into this discussion after my absence in a meaningfull way. So much needs to be responded to, but it would require so much effort (we must thank Fresco for his dedication and energy here) and capacity that I have chosen mainly to observe you all. My overall impression regarding Reality, is first of all is that it too is a construct. Indeed, the problem addressed here is culturally constituted. I know many people here and in other countries for whom this is not a problem. And this is not because they are nihilists or pragmatists who consider the issue false or non-problematic. It's simply not of their world. I personally slant toward idealism. The world is my idea (Schopenhaur) and knowledge is artificial, a falsification of Reality--which is also delusional (Nietzsche). And I favor the pragmatists and anti-foundationalists who are argue that we pursue explanations to "problems" of our making, and that our attempts have no certain assumptions from which to take off.
And like one of our participants asserted, it ain't no grand cosa. The "universe" is "chaotic" and I am OF that chaos (and "universe" and "me" and "chaos"--as well as order--are ultimately artifacts of "culture"). I have nothing to stand upon but my delusions. I only hope that they continue to permit me to avoid confusion and disorientation. And if they don't I'll just have to become a full-time zen buddhist.

JLNobody, I think you touched on one of the principal truism of "reality." That is that we all live in a delusional state, because we are influenced by our environment. Since all of our individual experience is unique to all others, what we think to be our reality is determined by our genes, culture, language, religion, parents, siblings, friends, home, school, relatives, our exposure to the world, and our experience within it. You call it a social "construct," but I don't think that's the complete answer, because I think the makeup of our brains, it's chemicals and electrical charges that allows us to think, learn, communicate, and retain what we experience all fits into the mix. c.i.

philozophy and debate
C.I. no doubt you are right to include our physiology if we are to approach a "complete answer." But you'll agree, of course, that a complete answer is a fruitless ideal. The range of necessary causes is virtually infinte. I accept (resonate with) the metaphysical assume that ULTIMATELY everything is "caused" by everything else. Leave one item that is existing now out of the grand equation and no claim to completeness regarding an explanation for a condition existing now is possible. But this all rests on our acceptance of causes and causation as absolutely (as opposed to having limited and specific) valid notions.

I whole-heartedly agree. c.i.

Greetings. Reading . . . Any comment from anyone on Max Weber?

Hi seydlitz, WELCOME to A2K. Max Weber? That's too deep for me. "Society" for me represents the culture and/or country in which we live. That becomes our "reality" for all intent and purposes. For example, my life here in the US has provided for a relatively comfortable life, because of many variables, but primarily as the recepient of opportunity afforded our citizens. Free education and the freeoms we enjoy have been phenomenol during my life time. The system of government, although not perfect by any means, have resulted in our country composed of many cultures, races, and religions, producing the strongest and richest economic system in the world. We are envied around the world for our freedoms and wealth. Our country represents only 5 percent of the world population. I think that in of itself speaks volumes. c.i.

ci-

Greetings. Notice that you are a forum guide? What's that?

Actually my question wasn't political, but rather how Weber's action theory and value-free methodology might fit in with what's been said here. Some of the posts I found very thought provoking. . .

I think much of this goes back to Nietzsche's view the language does influence how we think and precieve things, and shows the limits of what and how we can understand. N of course has had a great influence on many thinkers including Weber. . .

What you describe is the American social religion, a Weltanschauung (a combination of politics, religion or spiritual values and culture) that unites many people. As to opportunities, well I lived in the US for almost 30 years and then came over here to Europe. I've been very successful, not in money terms perhaps, although we own a house, have pretty much all the material things we want, we're not "rich". But I'm part of a very old and rich culture which has very permanent values, that puts great emphasis on family and responsibility. Education is valued and just about everyone speaks at least two languages, my wife speaks seven and my kids four. . .

People are tolerant and don't believe everything they hear. Democracy is strong and not just a word, if people disagree with the government they get out on the streets.

I don't think the US is very much envied here in Europe. . .

. . . not any more.

seydlitz, Do you think it has a chance to turn around once this administration is replaced by an individual that has more "liberal" leanings? c.i.

ci-

I'm not a liberal, so I'm not the one to ask such a question. I would hope that those in charge would be more open with their information, that for instance very important decisions like war be deliberated carefully. Unfortunately I get the impression that this war had been planned for some time (even before 2000) and that they are not honest about their goals and intentions. . . We are getting far away from the original subject of this thread however. . .

A Forum Guide is supposed to keep the subject on track. However, each Forum has it's guide which are self-explanatory. I have been assigned as a Forum Guide in Travel, Philosophy and Debate, Finance, and Medical News. I've had occasion to remind people to keep their discussion on subject when it crosses the line to abuse and personal insults, but it's been very rare. c.i.

ci-

Hey, don't me wrong, I'm not trying to do your job . . .