#Berger & Luckmann

[bluestblau]

"Bei der Resozialisation wird die Vergangenheit uminterpretiert, um ihr die gegenwärtige Wirklichkeit anzupassen, wobei sogar Elemente in die Vergangenheit eingeschmuggelt werden, die seinerzeit subjektiv nicht möglich waren. Bei der sekundären Sozialisation wird die Gegenwart so interpretiert, daß sie in kontinuierlicher Verbindung zur Vergangenheit steht, wozu dann Transformationen, die tatsächlich zustande gekommen sind, verkleinert werden. Mit anderen Worten: die Wirklichkeitsgrundlage für Resozialisationen ist die Gegenwart, für sekundäre Sozialisationen die Vergangenheit."

Berger & Luckmann; Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit (S. 174)

[ilikefelines]

And I quote:

'So what does it mean that Laenor and Corlys agree to pass Rhaenyra’s children off as trueborn? It means that their bastardy cannot be proven at the moment insofar as the legal father, Rhaenyra’s husband, is playing along and covering for Rhaenyra, and Viserys is backing them up by giving this his “legal” stamp of approval. But again, our view that it’s no one else’s business but Laenor and Rhaenyra’s and that Viserys “legalized” their status is very modern.

Jaehaeyrs and Alysanne were not considered married in the eyes of the Westerosi until they’d had a bedding ceremony, that is, the consummation of their marriage was witnessed. Royal marriages and the children that come from them are a public matter because the succession affects everyone in the realm. Laenor, Corlys, and Viserys can protect those children in the short term, but Laenor and Corlys and Viserys won’t live forever, and they could withdraw their support for those children and renounce them as bastards at any time.

Harwin could admit to fathering them, Rhaenyra and Harwin could get caught in the act, or someone else close to them might confess. Sure right now the black faction are all one big happy family, but 20 years down the line when bastard Jace takes the throne over trueborn Aegon III? There are multiple people in the family who could confess to knowledge of the bastardy, including Aegon III himself. The bastardy is too obvious and there are too many legitimate heirs of both house Targaryen and house Velaryon getting pushed aside in favor of bastard born children for it to be an issue that simply disappears because Rhaenyra and Laenor say so.

So “legal bastardy” is a pretty meaningless concept when it comes to royal succession because it’s not a matter that’s going to be settled by some neutral third party in a court of law. What matters in the long run is not whether or not Laenor claimed the kids, what matters is whether or not the situation is questionable enough that people with the power to challenge it might challenge it.'

There are a lot of Rhaenyra stans who act wilfully obtuse when it comes to this. There's no point applying our modern views to Westeros when nobody who matters in that world knows or cares.

There's this weird thing going on Reddit right now where people are claiming that legally, Rhaenyra children are not bastards. And I was wondering if you agree or disagree. I think that people are just making up their own canon lore at this point.

Hi anon,

I think what gets kind of muddled in this discussion is what "legally" means in the context. Generally speaking, children born within wedlock are considered legitimate until proven otherwise. Now in the medieval world, it's not like you were issued a birth certificate that you could whip out and say see, it says right here who the father is! There were no DNA tests, it was all a matter of word, and by and large a woman's virtue was her word, and it was what kept her and her children protected within the framework of medieval marriage. But the reason why bastardy matters in this context is also important. It's not like Rhaenyra is trying to collect child support here, nor is she a common merchant's wife whose husband has decided just to roll with it. She's the heir to the throne and the parentage of her children is a matter of inheritance and dynastic succession, so it's not a situation where a legal loophole is particularly helpful as a gotcha. There is not at this point in history a comprehensive codified law that clearly defines what these terms mean and defines the rights and obligations of parents and children legitimate and illegitimate, mostly you have combinations of precedent, tradition, oath, and a healthy dose of might makes right.

(I saw another reply to this question in which the responded basically goes, "free yourself from the shackles of this construct! Marriage isn't real it's an oppressive institution and the idea of bastardy is made up, so let it go," and while it's true that marriage, legitimacy, etc. are all social constructs and not absolute states of being, they started off as having a functional purpose within a certain social framework. And this is a basic problem a lot of people have with George's world, it's not that we have to have the views of a 12th century French peasant, or that everything has to be historically accurate, but George chose the medieval world as a setting for a reason, and it's not just an aesthetic one. Characters in even a quasi-historical setting have to act within the constraints of that setting. We have to understand that people don't know what they don't know. The medieval world doesn't have any framework for the introduction of feminist ideals. Westeros hasn't even had a Christine de Pizan yet. You couldn't walk up to a medieval peasant woman and say "marriage is a tool of patriarchal oppression and bastardy is a social construct," they'd look at you like you had two heads. And so we have to acknowledge that you can't simply start dismantling existing social structures if the framework doesn't exist to replace them with something better that offers more protections for a broader group of people, and at this point it definitely doesn't. Making an exception for one very privileged woman does not mean progress for all women, instead it often means destabilization of the flawed system that does exist, and even more violence against those less powerful in order to enforce the exceptional status).

So from a medieval point of view, marriage was pretty much a non-negotiable for a woman. And women weren't simply getting married because they were pressured into it by their families or because their fathers were opportunistic assholes, they got married because unmarried women had no legal status or standing. In most places they could not sign contracts or own land. A woman could join the church or get married (or become a prostitute, but it's not like sex workers had freedoms or protections either). Divorce wasn't a thing, and annulment was hard to get and usually available only as a tool for men to set aside their wives. So, for all intents and purposes, once you were married, that was generally it, you were stuck for life (the upside is that widows did get a lot more freedom, so marrying an older guy and waiting it out was not a bad option sometimes, all things considered). But what marriage did provide was assurance that you and your children would be protected and provided for. Marriage was a practical agreement, involving dowries, inheritances, and alliances sealed in blood. And this is one of the reasons why bastards could not inherit. Inheritance for once's children was one of the few perks of a marriage for a woman (this is, incidentally, why Alicent is so pressed about her children being effectively disinherited. There is NO reason for her, as an eligible maiden of good standing, to marry a man who will not provide for her sons, king or not). And of course, a man's bastards are obvious and are disqualified from inheriting (setting aside legitimization because it is not nearly the easy out that people think it is). You can't really pass them off as legitimate because your wife clearly knows which children she gave birth to, whereas a man might be told he is the father of a child when that child's father is in fact someone else.

In a dynastic marriage, all of this becomes even more important. Marriages were made as alliances and to strengthen the ties between kingdoms or houses. A child seals the marriage agreement by binding two bloodlines and creating kinship bonds that will last beyond the current generation. Those kinship bonds can ensure peace between kingdoms at war, trade agreements, and military aid. Passing a bastard off as trueborn breaks that agreement; it violates the very principle by which the agreement was made. And in this context, it doesn't actually matter if the father claims the children as his, because in a dynastic marriage inheritance is not just a personal matter, it's a matter of the state. The truth matters to a great many people, more than just the immediate family. A lie doesn't become the truth simply because the liar isn't caught, and there's no statute of limitations or court ruling that will ever put the matter to rest for good. Passing off a bastard as trueborn destabilizes the succession and breaks the dynastic bonds that the marriage was meant to establish. When the bastard heir in question attempts to take the throne, it won't be a smooth transition.

So what does it mean that Laenor and Corlys agree to pass Rhaenyra's children off as trueborn? It means that their bastardy cannot be proven at the moment insofar as the legal father, Rhaenyra's husband, is playing along and covering for Rhaenyra, and Viserys is backing them up by giving this his "legal" stamp of approval. But again, our view that it's no one else's business but Laenor and Rhaenyra's and that Viserys "legalized" their status is very modern. Jaehaeyrs and Alysanne were not considered married in the eyes of the Westerosi until they'd had a bedding ceremony, that is, the consummation of their marriage was witnessed. Royal marriages and the children that come from them are a public matter because the succession affects everyone in the realm. Laenor, Corlys, and Viserys can protect those children in the short term, but Laenor and Corlys and Viserys won't live forever, and they could withdraw their support for those children and renounce them as bastards at any time. Harwin could admit to fathering them, Rhaenyra and Harwin could get caught in the act, or someone else close to them might confess. Sure right now the black faction are all one big happy family, but 20 years down the line when bastard Jace takes the throne over trueborn Aegon III? There are multiple people in the family who could confess to knowledge of the bastardy, including Aegon III himself. The bastardy is too obvious and there are too many legitimate heirs of both house Targaryen and house Velaryon getting pushed aside in favor of bastard born children for it to be an issue that simply disappears because Rhaenyra and Laenor say so.

So "legal bastardy" is a pretty meaningless concept when it comes to royal succession because it's not a matter that's going to be settled by some neutral third party in a court of law. What matters in the long run is not whether or not Laenor claimed the kids, what matters is whether or not the situation is questionable enough that people with the power to challenge it might challenge it. And we see even within the actual narrative of the Dance that this is indeed the case. There is already a situation brewing with the other branches of the Velaryon family who are rightfully pretty pissed to see their ancestral seat pass to someone with no blood ties to the family (and as an aside, people will say Vaemond was self-serving, and of course he was, but that doesn't make him wrong, and maybe Baela or Rhaena should have inherited instead, but neither they nor their father were pressing their claims because they were backing up the bastard claimants, so was Vaemond supposed to do that for them?). And yes the king and Rhaenyra can cry treason and they can kill Vaemond and cut out tongues, but using force to silence people for telling the objective truth is by definition tyranny, and that's exactly the sort of situation that would get the nobility nervous. Because if Rhaenyra has to silence people already and she's not even queen yet, what will Jace have to do when he takes the throne? That's the real problem, not the "legal" status of Jace and his brothers, but the practical ramifications of hiding the truth.

[theophagie-remade]

That post that's like "when you see just one out of a couple of authors/academics/etc who are always quoted together aww where's your buddy". Berger and Luckmann

[caarcas]

absurdo diario - orígenes del escritor fantasma

[techramonic]

haiiiii i just discovered your blog and i think you have an amazing grasp on human psychology and i really admire that :D . i wanted to ask if theres any reading you would recommend to someone; any articles or poems or books or essays in particular that you think give a deeper understanding of humanity?

Hello! Thank you, I appreciate this compliment so much. Yes, of course. Most of the books I read tackle sociology, but they do have psychological aspects that allow better understanding of humanity. I haven't fully finished the books below but so far, these are the ones that impacted me the most. I also included some theories that I studied last year for my sociology class that gave me a better understanding of some topics that fall under humanities.

BOOKS

Suicide by Émile Durkheim

The Sociological Imagination by C. Wright Mills

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

The Games People Play Eric Bern

Why Kids Kill by Peter Langman

Some People Need Killing by Patricia Evangelista 

The Social Construction of Reality by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann

THEORIES

Sigmund Freud's 3 Levels of Consciousness and ID, Ego, and Superego

Patriacia Hill Collins and Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw's Intersectionality

Martin Heidegger's hermeneutic phenomenology

Slavoj Žižek's philosophy on Ideology

[aurevoirmonty]

« Si l'on ne peut transformer ou saboter la société, on peut s'en détacher intérieurement. L'aliénation a constitué un moyen de résistance aux contrôles sociaux au moins depuis l'époque de Lao-tseu et a été transformée en théorie de la résistance par les stoïciens. La personne qui se retire de la scène sociale vers des domaines religieux, intellectuels ou artistiques qu'elle a elle-même créés emporte encore, naturellement, dans cet exil volontaire, le langage, l'identité et le fonds de connaissances initialement façonnés par la société. Néanmoins, il est possible, bien que souvent au prix d'un coût psychologique élevé, de se construire une tour d'ivoire spirituelle où les attentes quotidiennes de la société peuvent être presque complètement ignorées. Ce faisant, la personnalité intellectuelle de ce château spirituel est de plus en plus façonnée par la personne elle-même, et non par les idéologies du système social qui l'entoure. »

Peter L. Berger et Thomas Luckmann, La Construction sociale de la réalité

[articlesofnote]

SCoR - Section II, Ch. 1, Part B "Origins of Institutionalization"

summary of “The Social Construction of Reality” by Berger and Luckmann, gotta repost because Tumblr fucked up the article slugs and I couldn’t link to individual posts correctly

I. Repeated actions become habitual/patterned, thus reproducible with less effort; NB this isn't a specifically social phenomenon.

II. Habitualization provides psychological relief of choice limitation, and also frees energy for times when innovation/deliberation is required to respond to a situation.

III. Habitualization also means we don't need to define each response on the fly; prediction becomes possible, even precise.

IV. Habitualization precedes institutionalization, and can take place in isolation, but in practice it takes place in the context of an institution or institutions.

V. institutions are formed when there is a reciprocal/multilateral typification of particular types of actions by particular types of actors ("the president shall address the congress")

VI. Inherent in the institution are: historicity and control. Historicity, because institutional patterns aren't formed instantly ("institutions always have a history, of which they are products"); control, because institutional patterns are typified, therefore limited, even regardless of actual enforcement behaviors or patterns as such that are part of the institutional structure.

VII. Institutionalization is incipient in every social interaction continuing in time.

VIII. That is, even two individuals thrown together without a shared social context WILL start to typify each other's behaviors - the initiation of roles, patterns of action, historicity, etc.

IX. The participants in this process benefit from it in that they end up with more ability to predict the other's actions - less astonishment/fear, more familiarity.

X. Any repetition tends to some degree of habitualization; any observation tends to some degree of typification; but in an ongoing bilateral social situation, certain actions are more likely to be habituated/typified. Which ones?

XI. Generally, that which is relevant to both parties (hereafter, A and B). This obviously varies based on material conditions, however, usually communications come first, followed by labor/sexual/territorial relationships, etc. all of which will be inflected by the prior socialization of A and B.

XII. Then, if A and B have a child ("C"), C will experience the parental patterns as objective historical givens, NOT contingent constructs.

XIII. In other words, prior to C, A and B construct a world that is entirely transparent and accessible to them, fluid and mutable. After C, and to C, this world is objective and opaque - and this also affects A and B since they now need to keep things more consistent for C's sake.

XIV. This is the birth of the social world we are familiar with, i.e. an objective fact received from without - the child takes it all for granted, the signifier IS the signified, etc.

XV. This extends to the world of institutions that we live within - objective, external, incomprehensible except via experience.

XVI. Nevertheless, this is still a human-constructed reality - "Society is a human product. Society is an objective reality. Man is a social product." - in an ongoing dialectical interaction.

XVII. Institutional reality also requires legitimation - ways in which it can be explained and justified to those who do not have a direct memory of its creation. These legitimations are learned as part of socialization into a given institutional order.

XVIII. As institutions depart form the original social processes that formed them, there is a corresponding increase in the need for more explicit mechanisms of social control - folks must be "taught to behave" then "kept in line."

XIX. In practice, mutual interactions between people or groups lead to multiple tracks of institutionalization which don't necessarily share a functional or logical integration.

XX. Nevertheless, institutions (which persist) do tend to some level of functional/logical coherence, implying some level of common relevance/shared meaning among participants. Note that role performances can (and must?) be functionally segregated, but MEANINGS tend to a consistency of some sort as people try to understand their experiences as occurring within some kind of framework. There may be a physiological cause for this drive*, but it isn't necessary to assume one to appreciate this habit as a real empirical phenomenon.

XXI. "It follows that great care is required in any statement… about the 'logic' of institutions." The 'logic' is not 'within' the institution, but rather is imposed by our reflections about that institution.

XXII. Language provides the fundamental well of logic which can be drown on to explain the institutional world, and all legitimations are expressed in language. This also connects with the social "knowledge" that the world one inhabits is a consistent and logical whole, since from that fact comes efforts to explain experience in terms of the pre-existing internalized social knowledge.

XXIII. So, institutions are integrated, but this is "not a functional imperative of the social processes that produce them;" rather, it is a byproduct of individual need to see their actions as part of a subjectively meaningful whole.

XXIV. Given this, it follows that analyzing social phenomena/institutional order would primarily depend on analyzing the understanding of the social knowledge of the people composing these institutions, of which complex theoretical legitimations are a part but by no means the whole. In fact, "the primary knowledge about the institutional order is knowledge on the pre-theoretical level," the sum total of "what everybody knows" about that order.

XXV. Since this knowledge is socially objectivated AS knowledge, deviations from it ("depravity", "insanity", "ignorance") occupy an inferior cognitive status; because this social knowledge is coextensive with "what is knowable," deviations are seen as deviations from reality itself. "Knowledge in this sense is at the heart of the fundamental dialectic of society… [it is] a 'realization' in the double sense… of apprehending the objectivated social reality, AND in the sense of … producing this reality."

XXVI. For example, in the course of division of labor, an area-specific body of knowledge is developed, crystallized in language, and transmitted to particular actors; the knowledge thus transmitted becomes an objectivation that serves to structure and channel further actions of its type.

XXVII. Then, this body of knowledge is available to the next generation as an objective truth which has the power to shape an individual into an instance of that actor, which definition only has meaning inside the social world that hosts this knowledge. With variation, this same process applies in ANY area of institutionalized conduct.

----

Notes:

re. V - The word "institutionalization" was used in the book where is used "formed"; "institutionalization" is overloaded to also mean "molding a human as an institutional actor" IMO (ref Brooksy from Shawshank Redemption)

re. XII - Unlearning the "objectivity" of parental dictates is probably a universal developmental phase? Or not - but maybe recognizing it is?

re. XVII - I can imagine an institution so totalizing that no legitimation is required - "force of nature" - conflict/discrepancies generate questions that must be answered, but if no discrepancies, no questions? Also implies that such institutions may already exist but we wouldn't know - because we don't question them or they are so universally taken for granted (i.e. the concept of death itself, see The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant)

re. XX -

* I added the caveat about persistence - might be gratuitous, but seems relevant given my interest in institutional life cycles i.e. they CAN die or degrade or change, so how? Dis-integration of belief seems related, but is it symptom or cause? Or both?

** I think Energy Minimization IS this physiological (or even pre-physiological/physical) cause(? need? drive?)

re. XXI - Found this paragraph extremely surprising statement at first, but then less so - interpreted as another instance of "The institution is in our minds" - but might be wrong about this!

re. XXIII - So what happens if folks no longer feel the need or have the ability to do this integration of experience into a "meaningful whole?"

If institutional strength is in the minds of its members, then institutional weakness would result from folks not feeling a need to integrate their experiences into the institutional patterns

"all is vanity" - "integration is pointless" (cynicism?) as a concept is a degenerate simplicity, saving much effort - folks don't have to think hard about things or meaningfully engage with the world they inhabit, because all effort is proactively deemed a waste of time

and in a complex technical society such as ours, which is relatively productive and protective of its members, a given individual member doesn't NEED to engage with many of its structures in order to survive (vs. eg the medieval peasant of my imagining)

leads to a dislocation/disconnection/differentiation between 'social integrators' eg. folks who commit to institutional logics and embody them, pulling together and strengthening them, vs. 'social neutrinos' - folks existing without integrating or participating much ("consumers", maybe!)

hypothesis: industrial productivity gains not put into "shorter workdays" (i.e. fewer hours assigned to materially-productive labor) but rather in giving less of a shit about the world we find ourselves in; anomie/ennui

drivers(?)

existentialism/scientific revolutions driving human "place in universe" farther and farther out of center (Thomas Kuhn, Eric Hobsbawm)

nb existential philosophy seems to develop roughly parallel to industrial revolution, initially dislocated (kierkegaard?) provide language for those who follow

american "rugged individualism"

contra "network", individual DOES matter, but lives in a matrix (hah) of institutions that he believes he cannot influence - which makes it so

institutional immune systems - change-from-within resistance (Le Chatelier's Principle again?)

institutions also try to change their environment to be more hospitable (Legibility)

re. XXV - See also XVI for the cycle being described in more words here

[sivavakkiyar]

Peter L Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality

tbh a really uh interesting example they use there. Couldn’t find the doorknob one—-I think that might have been in Heidegger

[maaarine]

Hello! Same anon of Midsommar haha I want to explore more Anthropology/Sociology readings after having read Sapiens by Harari a few years ago, which I enjoyed a lot. What would you recommend I should go first next? I am leaning on Graeber's work which I know you've posted about. I started reading Guns, Steel, and Germs some time ago but didn't actually enjoy it enough to continue it (maybe too scientific/specific in the style for me. I guess I am more into generic/global style of writing, don't know if it makes any sense). Thank you!

in David Graeber's work, I thought Bullshit Jobs was the easiest one to read, but Debt: The First 5,000 Years was more informative re: how the world works

here are 3 classics and 2 more recent books I recommend:

Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist (George Herbert Mead, 1934)

"George H. Mead shows a psychological analysis through behavior and interaction of an individual's self with reality.

The behavior is mostly developed through sociological experiences and encounters.

These experiences lead to individual behaviors that make up the social factors that create the communications in society."

—

The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, 1966)

It "proposes that social groups and individual persons who interact with each other, within in a system of social classes, over time create concepts (mental representations) of the actions of each other, and that people become habituated to those concepts, and thus assume reciprocal social roles."

—

The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling (Arlie Russell Hochschild, 1979)

"Just as we have seldom recognized or understood emotional labor, we have not appreciated its cost to those who do it for a living.

Like a physical laborer who becomes estranged from what he or she makes, an emotional laborer, such as a flight attendant, can become estranged not only from her own expressions of feeling (her smile is not "her" smile), but also from what she actually feels (her managed friendliness)."

—

Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States (James C. Scott, 2017)

"Against The Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States is a 2017 book by James C. Scott that sets out to undermine what he calls the "standard civilizational narrative" that suggests humans chose to live settled lives based on intensive agriculture because this made people safer and more prosperous.

Instead, he argues, people had to be forced to live in the early states, which were hierarchical, beset by malnutrition and disease, and often based on slavery."

—

Humankind: A Hopeful History (Rutger Bregman, 2019)

"It argues against popular ideas of humankind's essential egotism and malevolence.

It engages in a multi-disciplinary study of historical events, an examination of scientific studies, and philosophical argumentation to advance Bregman's opinion that, contrary to popular opinion, this outlook is more realistic than its more negative counterpart."

[omegaphilosophia]

Shaping Our Reality: Exploring the Dynamics of Consensus Reality

Introduction:

Reality, as we perceive it, is not a static and universal construct but is profoundly influenced by social, cultural, and historical factors. The concept of consensus reality delves into how shared beliefs and agreements shape our understanding of the world. In this exploration, we will unravel the intricate ways in which these factors interplay to construct the tapestry of our collective reality.

Social Construction of Reality:

Our shared reality is, to a significant extent, socially constructed. Sociologist Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann introduced the idea that reality is an ongoing, socially negotiated process. Institutions, language, and everyday interactions contribute to the construction of a shared reality. For example, the perception of certain social roles or institutions is deeply embedded in cultural norms and values, shaping our understanding of what is considered 'real.'

Cultural Dimensions:

Cultural perspectives exert a powerful influence on how we interpret and define reality. Different cultures may have distinct worldviews, mythologies, and belief systems that significantly impact their understanding of the world. Cultural lenses shape the significance assigned to certain events, objects, or behaviors, contributing to the diversity of interpretations within our global community.

Historical Context:

The historical backdrop against which a society evolves plays a pivotal role in shaping its reality. Historical events, narratives, and collective memories become integral parts of a shared reality. For instance, the way a society interprets its past, including historical triumphs or traumas, influences its present perceptions and future aspirations.

Consensus Reality and Social Agreement:

Consensus reality emerges through social agreement, where individuals within a community accept certain beliefs or interpretations as valid. This shared understanding allows for social cohesion and cooperation. However, it's crucial to recognize that consensus reality is not universal, and different groups may uphold distinct realities based on their unique social, cultural, and historical contexts.

Media Influence and Perception:

In the contemporary era, media plays a significant role in shaping consensus reality. The dissemination of information, narratives, and images through various media channels contributes to the formation of shared beliefs and perspectives. Media representations influence how we perceive events and issues, contributing to the ongoing construction of our collective reality.

Challenges to Consensus:

While consensus reality provides a framework for social order, it is not immune to challenges. Diverse perspectives, subcultures, and individual differences can lead to conflicts in interpretation and understanding. Acknowledging and navigating these challenges is essential for fostering a more inclusive and nuanced shared reality.

Conclusion:

Our reality is a dynamic and multifaceted entity, intricately woven by the threads of social, cultural, and historical influences. Exploring consensus reality offers insights into the mechanisms that contribute to the formation of our shared understanding of the world. As we navigate this complex tapestry, understanding the impact of these factors is crucial for fostering empathy, dialogue, and a richer appreciation of our diverse human experience.

[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.

[bluestblau]

"Ein Außenseiter wird gemieden, weil er immer die drohende Vernichtung verkörpert. Die religiöse Sekte ist der Prototyp für Subgesellschaften dieser Art. In ihrer schützenden Gemeinschaft nehmen noch die ausgefallensten Abweichungen den Charakter objektiver Wirklichkeit an. Umgekehrt ist der Rückzug in die Sekte typisch für Situationen, in denen ehedem objektivierte Wirklichkeitsbestimmungen auseinanderfallen, das heißt aus der größeren Gesellschaft desintegriert und damit entobjektiviert werden. Die Einzelheiten solcher Prozesse gehören in eine historische Religionssoziologie. Allerdings ist hinzuzufügen, daß Sektierertum in verschiedenen säkularisierten Formen geradezu der Schlüssel zum Verständnis von Intellektuellen in modernen pluralistischen Gesellschaften ist."

Berger & Luckmann; Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit (S. 136)

[female-malice]

An idea formulated by ancient Greek philosophers but popularised by sociologists Peter L Berger and Thomas Luckmann in the 1960s, the social construction of reality is the idea that people continuously create, through their actions and interactions, a shared reality that is experienced by those people as objectively factual and subjectively meaningful. This process helps people create communities, structured around norms, shared ideas and understandings. All the good stuff you need for a society, basically. We agree as a culture that money exists, that it is exchanged for goods and services, that a border is a line separating one land mass from another, etc etc. But this isn’t the only thing that exists. Alongside the socially constructed reality there are natural realities. Or brute facts, as some sociologists call them. Things that you can’t socially construct your way out of. Things that just are. Gravity. Oxygen. CO2. Viruses. But not everyone believes in these things.

[rodrigoavalos1109]

La Construcción Social del Conocimiento y la Intersubjetividad

Rosío Sofía Márquez García, en el segundo capítulo, presenta la idea de que el conocimiento no se genera en un vacío, sino que es el resultado de la interacción social. Este proceso de construcción social del conocimiento destaca cómo los estudiantes no solo adquieren información, sino que la interpretan y resignifican dentro de sus contextos culturales y sociales.

Márquez García utiliza como referencia la Teoría de la Construcción Social de la Realidad, postulada por Berger y Luckmann, para explicar que los significados que se transmiten en las aulas son subjetivos y dependen del entorno. Además, resalta la importancia de la intersubjetividad en la evaluación educativa, pues los juicios de valor emitidos en los procesos evaluativos se basan en interpretaciones compartidas entre el docente y el estudiante.

[reloaderror]

i’ll start my sociology lessons with “this is easy peasy” and then spend 45 minutes talking about fucking Berger and Luckmann

[renanossaurus]

O livro “A construção social da realidade” é uma obra que tem como propósito fazer uma leitura da chamada “Sociologia do Conhecimento”. Ele começa exatamente explicando o que seria essa forma de sociologia. Nessa obra, Thomas Luckmann e Peter Berger fazem uma análise do que eles chamam de “processos de legitimação pelos universos simbólicos” que coloca como base do seu pensamento a intersubjetividade e a biografia individual. A grande proposta do livro está na análise de como o homem constrói o seu próprio conhecimento da realidade. Ele trata das relações entre o pensamento humano e o contexto social dentro do qual ele vive. Resumindo o entendimento que os autores têm do que é realidade e conhecimento: a realidade da qual temos consciência, o conhecimento que temos dela, é um produto da sociedade.