‘It’s not that nothing is real, rather everything is real,’ (Acker, 1992).
For many years, both philosophers and sociologists have debated the concept of reality, with sociologists in general accepting that reality varies depending on the individual. The concept of reality being a social construction refers to theory that suggests the way in which we present ourselves, and act towards other people is structures by the interactions that we have experienced with others, including our own life experiences. Our upbringing and the things we were individually raised to believe in effect how we present ourselves to others, how they perceive us to be, and how we perceive others to be. Our individual perceptions of reality are shaped by our beliefs and backgrounds. However our reality is a constant battle, and what is real heavily depends on society and what is considered socially acceptable. Many social interactions will involve knowledge of what is happening. And it can be argued that whilst we do take part in the construction of reality, it is not always with us knowing and can be subconscious.
An example of this is wealthy man or woman, whose basic needs are met time and time again, may choose to buy expensive clothes that cost more per each week than the wages of somebody who earns minimum wage. They would be proud of their earnings, and are able to choose to wear expensive things. However, to the shop assistant who earn minimum wage may feel angry towards the wealthy individual as they have to work in the shop to feed himself or keep a roof over his head. The shop assistant may consider if the rich individual has any concept of reality. How the individual defines everyday situations depends on the individual’s background and personal experiences. The wealthy individual has learned through interactions with others that buying lavish clothes is a worthwhile expense, and it is part of their reality. However, the shop assistant has learned through their interactions with others that spending so much money on materialistic clothing is a negative thing, and thus making their perception of the situation dramatically different.
According to sociologist W. I. Thomas, ‘if a person perceives a situation as real, it is real in its consequences.’ This statement can also be known as the Thomas Theorem. Thomas claimed that our individual behaviour depends on our subjective understanding of reality, rather than the objective reality present in that situation. What this implies is that man, and the actions and reactions produced by man shape reality. He coined the terminology to explain how we as humans understand what reality is through the individual’s interpretation or understanding of situations. What is perceived may be accurate or inaccurate, however the individual will still behave on the basis that their interpretation is correct. Furthermore, he claimed that we have an understanding about the expectations that are required, especially when acting in a social situation, the definition of a situation is the process for individuals to use to understand how they are expected to act in different situations. An example of this could be a young male being labelled as a deviant, and then choosing to act upon the label, making it real. Each individual perceives reality differently, and our actions depend on how we choose to view a person, thus resulting in our reactions being different as each individual perceives something different. Our perception of a situation, whether it is good or bad, something to avoid or allow to happen dictates the way in which we react to it. The basis of this theory is that Thomas claimed the assessment to be subjective. Thus meaning that humans go through life deciding what they think the meaning of situations are, and these meanings influence how we behave in said situation, irrespective of the interpretations accuracy.
The society or reality in which we exist is formed of norms, values, and sanctions, (See Durkheim, 1964 and 1974). These norms and values are the fundamental rules that are accepted in each society as things that we should and shouldn’t do within everyday life, they form the cultures in which we live in. As stated by Elder-Vass, ‘culture is a shared set of practices and understandings. Unless our practices are shared there is no culture,’ (2012). Some norms and values are unwritten, yet are still socially accepted, these can be called ‘folkways’. Some examples of such are saying please and thank you, and are considered to be flexible. A large proportion of these folkways have developed over time, and have become second nature to us. However, there are of course written norms, enforced by legislation and monitored by government bodies. Any violations of these written norms will most likely result in some form of legal intervention or punitive measures. Sanctions are the punishments or rewards that come from breaking or following the norms set by society to encourage those to follow them. They come in two forms: the informal and the formal. Informal sanctions are unofficial, and can exist even in the form of a disapproving look, or a look of encouragement such as a smile, whereas formal sanctions are carried out officially, and can include either public reward or punishment such as a life sentence in prison. When either of these sanctions are ignored we are provided with people that break the norms, and these people are considered to be deviants. Deviant behaviour is any form of violations towards the accepted norms that construct society. All crime can be considered as deviant, but not all deviance is crime. For example, committing assault or murder are punishable offences, whereas walking down the street backwards or dying your hair the colours of the rainbow are not, however both are still out of the norm. These norms and values can change depending on individuals, groups or the place in which you are in, in other words, deviance is relative. In many cases, none of these actions are right or wrong, it actually depends on the society you are in, and the rules in which they adhere to.
Two sociologists who also looked to explain how reality is a social construction are Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. Within their book it is easy to see that their work follows many other attempts to combine the theories of Durkheim and Weber. Focusing on Durkheim’s analysis of social structure and its integrative aspects and Weber’s concept of methodological individualism, which looks at an individual’s actions as being the base structure for social actions and society. Berger and Luckmann claim that we as humans are part of a cycle of the ‘dialectic’, this means that whilst we are creating and objective reality through our social interactions, we are also internalizing these realities subjectively. They call this concept a ‘stock of knowledge’, and perceive knowledge to be a tool for the social construction of realities, meaning that without it, no meaningful idea of reality would exist, (see Gergen, 2009, Schutz, 1972 and Berger and Luckmann, 1991). Conclusively, their work lies alongside that of Giddens and his concepts of structure and individual based analysis, with the idea that each reality is socially constructed as a result of individual experiences, social actions and the consequential reactions. Unlike previous works such as that of Marx and Mannheim that often focused largely on scientific knowledge, Berger and Luckmann claimed that the stock of knowledge possessed by an individual derived from the upbringing the individual experienced and their childhood, divisions of labour that were specified areas, and experiences during social situations.
The two stated that ‘individuals experience the world to be an objective reality, comprising of persons and events that exist separately of individual perceptions,’ (Berger and Luckmann, 1991). This is backed up by Payne’s view in his 1997 work, which claims that ‘reality, according to social constructionism, can be stated to be the guidance of behaviour by individual perceptions of knowledge and reality.'(1997). All individuals share their own perceptions of reality through the way we share knowledge, using various social process that first prioritise the knowledge and then finalises by it becoming objective. It is by this process that both social and individual activity becomes ‘habitual’, with individual subjects sharing their personal assumptions about the ways in which reality is shaped. The way in which each individual behaves is dependent on social conventions they have experienced through the shared knowledge base. These notions then become institutionalised as more and more people accept them and adhere to them. As such, these conventions and notions become legitimised by this process, and the ideas become integrated with reality and are demonstrated repeatedly in an orderly system.
An important factor in the social construction of reality is language, (See Charon, 2004; Denis, Alex, Philburn and Smith, 2013; Searle, 2010 and Elder-Vass, 2012) as it provides the means in which we as individuals are able to make sense of the vast environment that we live in, the means to distinguish between people, and understand new experiences. The way we share our own reality or everyday life between different individuals allows us to separate this from individual realities, such as our dreams. Language has the ability to help us in sharing our experiences, as it makes it available to others to interpret. This sharing of realities leads to the concepts becoming institutionalised, and leads to a habitual way of working, as these realities become accepted between cultures depending on location and become accepted as the norms. Additionally, this habitualism turns the behaviours of others, and makes it accessible, if not more predictable for other individuals to understand, allowing social activity between the two individuals or more, allowing both to grow socially and display levels of social control as more than one person. Similarly, when knowledge becomes institutionalized it influences the behaviour of individuals, but can be projected to certain groups of individuals, or social levels.
With our knowledge of reality essentially being created and built by our own minds, it has the ability to change over time, and depending on cultures. As each culture embraces different beliefs, or perceptions about our human nature, and the way in which we grow and develop, the norms, values, beliefs and other aspects of the culture change over time, as their social knowledge is slightly different from other groups who practise and believe other notions. The way in which this is demonstrated by the work of Berger and Luckmann, and many other sociologists mentioned whose work contributed towards that of Berger and Luckmann, or looked to succeed and build upon their work must be recognised, and from this there must be some truth to the claim that society is as we make it, and that reality only exists because of mankind, and the actions in which we make and leave upon the world.