What is the social constructionist theory? How does the fact that our reality is socially and culturally constructed influence our beliefs and behaviors?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The social constructionist theory is the theory that our societies function on shared assumptions and collective “myths.” These assumptions and beliefs aren’t natural–rather, they are created by society and culture itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We’ll cover the origin of social constructs and how social constructionist theory explains many of your beliefs about what is “natural” or common sense<\/a>, and what isn’t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n A benefit of the Sapiens\u2019 language was how it was used to create fictions, also known as \u201csocial constructs\u201d or \u201cimagined realities.\u201d These were the first social constructs. Being able to communicate information about things that don\u2019t exist doesn\u2019t seem like an advantage. But Sapiens seem to be the only animals who have this ability to discuss things that don\u2019t have a physical presence in the world, like money, human rights, corporations, and God.<\/strong> For instance, you can\u2019t convince a monkey to give you its banana on the argument that if it does, it will get unlimited bananas when it dies and goes to heaven. Your negotiations with monkeys are limited because you can only promise rewards that exist materially in this world. Monkeys can\u2019t create imagined realities like heaven. In and of itself, imagining things that don\u2019t exist isn\u2019t an asset\u2014you won\u2019t aid your chances of survival if you go into the forest looking for ghosts rather than berries and deer. What\u2019s important about the ability to create fictions is the ability to create collective <\/em>fictions, fictions everyone believes. <\/strong>These collective myths allow people who\u2019ve never met and otherwise would have nothing in common to cooperate under shared assumptions and goals. Collective fictions are another name for social constructions of reality. Collective fictions aren\u2019t the same as lies. These aren\u2019t lies because everyone collectively believes them.<\/strong> For example, members of the UN weren\u2019t lying when they insisted that Libya\u2019s government respect the rights of its citizens, even though Libya, human rights, and the UN itself are all imaginary realities, or social constructs. The borders that separate Libya from other countries are man-made, not physical features of the landscape; human rights is a concept many of us believe in, but rights don\u2019t exist outside our collective imagination; and, like Libya, the UN is a social construct, an organization that has no physical existence. According to the social constructionist theory, while humans lived without these social constructs for millennia, today, imaginary realities in some cases matter more than objective realities.<\/strong> For instance, the survival of actual entities like rain forests and endangered river dolphins depends on the charity of imaginary entities like the United States and non-profit organizations. Let\u2019s look at a modern example of how we unquestioningly accept social constructs and treat them as real entities. Does the carmaker Peugeot<\/a> exist?<\/p>\n\n\n\n It must. The corporation employs 200,000 people, makes 1.5 million cars a year, and earns about 55 billion euros annually. So how can it exist? Peugeot, as with other corporations, has no existence in the physical world. It\u2019s an idea, a collective myth, a social construct, we all agree to believe in.<\/strong> This myth is so powerful that this imaginary entity can buy property, pay taxes, open a bank account, and be bound by laws. We grant these legal fictions, called limited liability companies, the same rights as people (the concept of \u201crights\u201d is a fiction, too). We treat LLCs like flesh-and-blood people. The Problem<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It wasn\u2019t always the case that a business owner could divorce himself from his business. In the 13th century, before the (imaginary) existence of LLCs, if you owned a business, you were personally liable for everything that happened with that business. So if your product broke, your customer could sue you personally. If you borrowed money and the business flopped, you had to pay back the debt out of pocket. If you couldn\u2019t, you might have to sell your personal property or sell your children into servitude. When you are your business and your business is you, starting a business is a scary prospect. People didn\u2019t want to take the financial risk, and this impeded entrepreneurship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Solution<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The solution to this problem was limited liability companies. The company became an entity independent of its founder, manager, or any other person or physical entity. We\u2019re so used to these corporations that we forget they\u2019re imaginary, existing only in our minds and invented only to shield their founders from too much personal responsibility. Often, the problem with imaginary things is that it\u2019s hard to get others to believe them (their power comes only with collective belief in them). But in France in the 1890s, if you got a lawyer to go through the ritual required of the French legal code (another fiction), involving writing down the correct words on a fancy sheet of paper and signing it, you could create a totally imaginary company that millions of French citizens would tacitly agree to believe. French law validated the existence of Peugeot. In other words, one imaginary entity legitimized another imaginary entity. Peugeot is a social or cultural construction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n People evolved to cooperate in small groups. As their way of life changed rapidly, there was no time for Sapiens to evolve the skills of mass cooperation. As groups of people got bigger, they needed some kind of organizing structure, a way to help people work together to divide land, settle disputes, and keep the peace.<\/strong> Organizing so many people involved creating myths that served as the links between previously distinct bands of people. This was the foundation of cooperation. According to the social constructionist theory, fictions can foster cooperation among nations and empires. We\u2019ll look at the Code of Hammurabi and the Declaration of Independence<\/a> together to demonstrate how these seemingly dissimilar documents actually function very similarly. Fictions, or social constructs, can be useful. We like to think that political orders are founded on truths, but in reality, political orders are unable to function without relying on fictions. In 1776 BC, the Babylonian Empire was the biggest in the world, with over a million subjects. King Hammurabi established a code that presented his power and legal system as mandated by the gods. The code emphasized hierarchy, breaking the population into \u201csuperior people,\u201d commoners, and slaves. Your worth was established based on your class and gender. The idea was that if everyone accepted this code, the empire\u2019s million subjects could cooperate with each other. And it worked. People believed the myth that the gods dictated these laws, rights, and differing human worths, and the Code of Hammurabi is still known today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s easy to think of the Code of Hammurabi as a myth. It may not be as easy to think of our own country\u2019s foundational document as a myth. Similar to Hammurabi\u2019s assertion that his code came from the gods, Thomas Jefferson justifies the rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence by writing that they are \u201cendowed by [men\u2019s] Creator.\u201d Both have a divine source. Also like the Code of Hammurabi, the Declaration of Independence was written as a way to unify disparate groups of people. Unlike the Code, the Declaration is based not on hierarchy but on equality. Who\u2019s right? Neither. The concepts of rights and equality are just as much myths as the concepts of hierarchy and of value based on class and gender. They exist only in the mind. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order for the phrase \u201call Men are created equal\u201d to be true, we\u2019d have to find that sentiment in the physical world. But there\u2019s no sense in which we are equal in objective reality. People have different genes, are influenced by different environments, develop different personalities, and have different chances of success and survival. The evolution of our species depends on our differences, our genetic mutations. There\u2019s also no objective existence of \u201crights.\u201d For example, birds don\u2019t fly because they have the right to fly. They fly because they have wings. Likewise, \u201cliberty\u201d is a concept humans invented. You can\u2019t measure it and it doesn\u2019t exist outside our minds. None of this means that the Declaration of Independence is a lie or worthless. It has helped create a stable, cooperative society. In fact, collective myths are the only <\/em>way to organize large groups effectively. Why are social constructs invisible to us?<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the social constructionist theory, we live the principles of our social constructs in daily life. It even affects our architecture. Compare how architecture differs in individualistic societies vs. collectivist societies. In the West, we believe that we\u2019re all individuals, unique in the world, and that only we know our true worth. When you\u2019re a kid in school and your classmates make fun of you, your teachers tell you to just ignore them. They don\u2019t define your worth. Only you know your worth. Our architecture expresses this belief in individualism. Houses consist of many rooms so that each child can have his or her own space. These rooms have doors, locks, and are often decorated by the child, with posters and colors that the child feels represent her. Parents often have to ask permission to enter the child\u2019s room. If you have your own space, you can\u2019t help but grow up feeling like an autonomous individual, believing your worth is defined and expressed by you.<\/strong> Architecture is part of the material, \u201creal\u201d world. But it reinforces an imagined principle. Medieval communities, on the other hand, didn\u2019t believe in the myth of individualism<\/a>. In their imagined order<\/a>, your worth was determined by those outside of you, by the gossip about you and your place in the social hierarchy<\/a>. You had to defend your good name at all times, at all costs. Nothing mattered more.Social Constructionist Theory and the Ability to Create Fictions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nCollective Fictions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nSocial Construction of Reality, Example #1: Peugeot<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Birth of Limited Liability Companies<\/strong>
<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nBack to Peugeot<\/strong>
<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nSocial Constructs and the Fiction of the Political Order<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nSocial Construction of Reality, Example #<\/strong>2: The Code of Hammurabi<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Code of Hammurabi<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nSocial Construction of Reality, Example #<\/strong>3: The American Declaration of Independence<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Factors That Keep Us From Realizing Our Order is Imagined<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Factor #1: The imagined order is woven into objective, material reality.<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nIndividualism Architecture<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nCollectivism Architecture<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n