The Social Construction of Reality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Social Construction of Reality: A

treatise in the sociology of knowledge

Author

Peter L. Berger
Thomas Luckmann

Country

United States

Language

English

Subject

Sociology

Publisher

Anchor Books

Publication date

1966

Media type

Paperback

Pages

240

ISBN

0-385-05898-5

OCLC

3154402

Dewey Decimal

306.4/2 20

LC Class

BD175 .B4 1990

The Social Construction of Reality is a 1966 book about the sociology of knowledge by Peter
L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann.
The work introduced the term social construction into the social sciences and was strongly
influenced by the work of Alfred Schtz. The central concept of Social Construction of Reality is
that persons and groups interacting in a social system create, over time, concepts or mental
representations of each other's actions, and that these concepts eventually become habituated
into reciprocal roles played by the actors in relation to each other. When these roles are made
available to other members of society to enter into and play out, the reciprocal interactions are
said to be institutionalized. In the process of this institutionalization, meaning is embedded in
society. Knowledge and people's conception (and belief) of what reality is becomes embedded in
the institutional fabric of society. Reality is therefore said to be socially constructed.
In 1998 the International Sociological Association listed this work as the fifth most important
sociological book of the 20th century.[1]

Contents
[hide]

1 Basic concepts of the book

1.1 Social stock of knowledge

1.2 Semantic fields

1.3 Language and signs

1.4 Social everyday reality

2 Society as objective reality

2.1 Institutionalization

2.2 Social objective worlds

2.3 Division of labor

2.4 Symbolic universes

2.5 Universe-maintenance
3 Society as subjective reality

3.1 Socialization

3.2 Conversation

3.3 Identity

4 See also

5 Notes

6 References

Basic concepts of the book[edit]

Social stock of knowledge[edit]
Earlier theories (Max Scheler, Karl Mannheim, Werner Stark, Karl Marx, Max Weber, etc.) often
focused too much on scientific and theoretical knowledge, but this is only a small part of social
knowledge, concerning a very limited group. Customs, common interpretations, institutions,
shared routines, habitualizations, the who-is-who and who-does-what in social processes and the
division of labor, constitute a much larger part of knowledge in society.
theoretical knowledge is only a small and by no means the most important part of what passed
for knowledge in a society the primary knowledge about the institutional order is knowledge
is the sum total of what everybody knows about a social world, an assemblage of maxims,
morals, proverbial nuggets of wisdom, values and beliefs, myths, and so forth (p.65)

Semantic fields[edit]
The general body of knowledge is socially distributed, and classified in semantic fields. The
dynamic distribution and inter dependencies of these knowledge sectors provide structure to the
social stock of knowledge:

The social stock of knowledge differentiates reality by degrees of familiarity my knowledge of

my own occupation and its world is very rich and specific, while I have only very sketchy
knowledge of the occupational worlds of others (p.43) The social distribution of knowledge thus
begins with the simple fact that I do not know everything known to my fellowmen, and vice versa,
and culminates in exceedingly complex and esoteric systems of expertise. Knowledge of how the
socially available stock of knowledge is distributed, at least in outline, is an important element of
that same stock of knowledge. (p.46)

Language and signs[edit]

Language also plays an important role in the analysis of integration of everyday reality. Language
links up commonsense knowledge with finite provinces of meaning, thus enabling people, for
example, to interpret dreams through understandings relevant in the daytime. "Language is
capable of transcending the reality of everyday life altogether. It can refer to experiences
pertaining to finite provinces of meaning, it can span discrete spheres of reality...Language soars
into regions that are not only de facto but also a priori unavailable to everyday experience."p. 40.
Regarding the function of language and signs, Berger and Luckmann are indebted to George
Herbert Mead and other figures in the field known assymbolic interactionism, as acknowledged in
their Introduction, especially regarding the possibility of constructing objectivity.
Signs and language provide interoperability for the construction of everyday reality:
A sign [has the] explicit intention to serve as an index of subjective meanings Language is
capable of becoming the objective repository of vast accumulations of meaning and experience,
which it can then preserve in time and transmit to following generations Language also typifies
experiences, allowing me to subsume them under broad categories in terms of which they have
meaning not only to myself but also to my fellowmen (p.35-39)

Social everyday reality[edit]

Social everyday reality is characterized by inter subjectivity (p. 23-25):
Compared to the reality of everyday life, other realities appear as finite provinces of meaning,
enclaves within the paramount reality marked by circumscribed meanings and modes of
experience (p.25)
This is in contrast to other realities, such as dreams, theoretical constructs, religious or mystic
beliefs, artistic and imaginary worlds, etc.

Society as objective reality[edit]

Social order is a human product, or more precisely, an ongoing

human production

Institutionalization[edit]
Institutionalization of social processes grows out of the habitualization and customs, gained
through mutual observation with subsequent mutual agreement on the way of doing things. This
reduces uncertainty and danger and allows our limited attention span to focus on more things at
the same time, while institutionalized routines can be expected to continue as previously
agreed:
Habitualization carries with it the important psychological gain that choices are narrowed the
background of habitualized activity opens up a foreground for deliberation and innovation [which
demand a higher level of attention] The most important gain is that each [member of society]
will be able to predict the others actions. Concomitantly, the interaction of both becomes
predictable Many actions are possible on a low level of attention. Each action of one is no
longer a source of astonishment and potential danger to the other (p.53-57).

Social objective worlds[edit]

Social (or institutional) objective worlds are one consequence of institutionalization, and are
created when institutions are passed on to a new generation. This creates a reality that is
vulnerable to the ideas of a minority which will then form the basis of social expectations in the
future. The underlying reasoning is fully transparent to the creators of an institution, as they can
reconstruct the circumstances under which they made agreements; while the second generation
inherits it as something given, unalterable and self-evident and they might not understand
the underlying logic.
a social world [is] a comprehensive and given reality confronting the individual in a manner
analogous to the reality of the natural world In early phases of socialization the child is quite
incapable of distinguishing between the objectivity of natural phenomena and the objectivity of
the social formations The objective reality of institutions is not diminished if the individual does
not understand their purpose or their mode of operation He must go out and learn about them,
just as he must learn about nature (p.59-61)

Division of labor[edit]
Division of labor is another consequence of institutionalization. Institutions assign roles to be
performed by various actors, through typification of performances, such as father-role, teacherrole, hunter, cook, etc. As specialization increases in number as well as in size and
sophistication, a civilization's culture contains more and more sections of knowledge specific to
given roles or tasks, sections which become more and more esoteric to non-specialists. These
areas of knowledge do not belong anymore to the common social world and culture.
A societys stock of knowledge is structured in terms of what is generally relevant and what is
relevant only to specific roles the social distribution of knowledge entails a dichotomization in
terms of general and role-specific relevance because of the division of labor, role-specific
knowledge will grow at a faster rate than generally relevant and accessible knowledge The
increasing number and complexity of [the resulting] sub universes [of specialized knowledge]
make them increasingly inaccessible to outsiders (p.77-87)

Symbolic universes[edit]
Symbolic universes are created to provide legitimation to the created institutional structure.
Symbolic universes are a set of beliefs everybody knows that aim at making the institutionalized
structure plausible and acceptable for the individualwho might otherwise not understand or
agree with the underlying logic of the institution. As an ideological system, the symbolic universe
puts everything in its right place. It provides explanations for why we do things the way we do.
Proverbs, moral maxims, wise sayings, mythology, religions and other theological thought,
metaphysical traditions and other value systems are part of the symbolic universe. They are all
(more or less sophisticated) ways to legitimize established institutions.
The function of legitimation is to make objectively available and subjectively plausible the firstorder objections that have been institutionalized Proverbs, moral maxims and wise sayings are
common on this level [as well as] explicit theories symbolic processes a general theory of
the cosmos and a general theory of man The symbolic universe also orders history. It locates
all collective events in a cohesive unity that includes past, present and future. (p. 92-104)

Universe-maintenance[edit]
Universe-maintenance refers to specific procedures undertaken, often by an elite group, when
the symbolic universe does not fulfill its purpose anymore, which is to legitimize the institutional
structure in place. This happens, for example, in generational shifts, or when deviants create an
internal movement against established institutions (e.g. against revolutions), or when a society is
confronted with another society with a greatly different history and institutional structures. In
primitive societies this happened through mythological systems, later on through theological
thought. Today, an extremely complex set of science has secularized universe-maintenance.
Specific procedures of universe-maintenance become necessary when the symbolic universe
has become a problem. As long as this is not the case, the symbolic universe is self-maintaining,
that is self-legitimating. An intrinsic problem presents itself with the process of transmission of the
symbolic universe from one generation to another [additionally] two societies confronting each

other with conflicting universes will both develop conceptual machinery designed to maintain their
respective universes mythology represents the most archaic form of universe-maintenance
theological thought may be distinguished from its mythological predecessor simply in terms of its
greater degree of theoretical systematization Modern science is an extreme step in this
development. (p.104-116)

Society as subjective reality[edit]

Socialization[edit]
Socialization is a two-step induction of the individual to participate in the social institutional
structure, meaning in its objective reality.
"The individual is not born a member of society. He becomes a member of society. In the life
of every individual there is a temporal sequence, in the course of which he is inducted into
participation in the social dialectic" (p. 129) By successful socialization we mean the
establishment of a high degree of symmetry between objective and subjective reality (p. 163)
Primary Socialization takes place as a child. It is highly charged emotionally and is not
questioned. Secondary Socialization includes the acquisition of role-specific knowledge, thus
taking ones place in the social division of labor. It is learned through training and specific rituals,
and is not emotionally charged: it is necessary to love ones mother, but not ones teacher.
Training for secondary socialization can be very complex and depends on the complexity of
division of labor in a society. Primary socialization is much less flexible than secondary
socialization. E.g. shame for nudity comes from primary socialization, adequate dress code
depends on secondary: A relatively minor shift in the subjective definition of reality would suffice
for an individual to take for granted that one may go to the office without a tie. A much more
drastic shift would be necessary to have him go, as a matter of course, without any clothes at all.
[citation needed]

The child does not internalize the world of his significant others as one of many possible
worlds It is for this reason that the world internalized in primary socialization is so much more
firmly entrenched in consciousness than worlds internalized in secondary socialization.
Secondary socialization is the internalization of institutional or institution-based sub worlds
The roles of secondary socialization carry a high degree of anonymity The same knowledge
taught by one teacher could also be taught by another The institutional distribution of tasks
between primary and secondary socialization varies with the complexity of the social distribution
of knowledge (p. 129-147)

Conversation[edit]
Conversation or verbal communication aims at reality-maintenance of the subjective reality. What
seems to be a useless and unnecessary communication of redundant banalities is actually a
constant mutual reconfirmation of each other's internal thoughts, in that it maintains subjective
reality.
One may view the individuals everyday life in terms of the working away of a conversational
apparatus that ongoingly maintains, modifies and reconstructs his subjective reality [for
example] Well, its time for me to get to the station, and Fine, darling, have a good day at the
office implies an entire world within which these apparently simple propositions make sense
the exchange confirms the subjective reality of this world the great part, if not all, of everyday
conversation maintains subjective reality imagine the effectof an exchange like this: Well, its
time for me to get to the station, Fine, darling, dont forget to take along your gun. (p. 147-163)

Identity[edit]
Identity of an individual is subject to a struggle of affiliation to sometimes conflicting realities. For
example, the reality from primary socialization (mother tells child not to steal) can be in contrast
with second socialization (gang members teach teenager that stealing is cool). Our final social
location in the institutional structure of society will ultimately also influence our body and
organism.

life-expectancies of lower-class and upper-class [vary] society determines how long and in
what manner the individual organism shall live Society also directly penetrates the organism in
its functioning, most importantly in respect to sexuality and nutrition. While both sexuality and
nutrition are grounded in biological drives biological constitution does not tell him where he
should seek sexual release and what he should eat. (p. 163-183)

See also[edit]

Social constructionism
Reality tunnel

Dramaturgy (sociology)

Notes[edit]
1.

Jump up^ "ISA - International Sociological Association: Books of

the Century". International Sociological Association. 1998.
Retrieved 2012-07-25.

References[edit]

Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann (1966), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in

the Sociology of Knowledge, Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. ISBN 0-385-05898-5;
ISBN0140135480 (h.);ISBN0713900199 (ib.);ISBN9780140135480 (h.)
Charles Arthur Willard Liberalism and the Problems of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for
Modern Democracy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Categories:

1966 books

Sociology books

Books about public opinion