At Sociologically Speaking a quick (~20 min.) podcast on social construction.
It is a good overview of social constructionism.
For
most of behavior, dissecting the social element is very difficult,
especially as developed entities within our particular cultural
system. This is because of two processes that we will call
reification and essentializing. Reification has to do with the
inability to see social institutions as contingent, as artifacts that
are capable of being changed. That is, we reify, objectify, or see as
unchangeable those social institutions. This can be applied to object
descriptions and valuations (diamonds), categorizations and beliefs,
and institutions and norms (say marriage structures and roles).
Essentializing has to do with identity. It is to place identity
structures and behavior structures as givens to human behavior or to
an individual's behavior. Though a certain developmental process
(socialization/education) and a certain social matrix may have
created an individual who has certain behavioral aspects, the ability
to ask about those processes become difficult to assess as we
essentialize the identity of a person. If we say something like “she
is smart,” we first, perhaps, have a problem with defining the
trait itself, but also we have a language instance that simply
postulates and ensconces a given being. This is useful for social
behavior but it can make reflection on self and society difficult. It
encourages us to see identity of individuals as simply unalterable
givens to the world instead of reminding us of the developmental
process that creates that identity, those behaviors, that brain/mind.
This
brings me to one slight criticism of the audio above. Her story about
buying a diamond ring is presented as a bit of a personal struggle
within the telling. That is, I feel like the author realized the
problem that I present, but sometimes life is messy.
There
are parts to our social world and hence our selves that we can shrug
at to a great degree. Some of the meanings that are imbued onto
objects and behaviors, and that we reproduce through our actions, are
ephemeral, or perhaps even those processes are enjoyable or practical in rather unproblematic ways.
I
feel like things such as the diamond ring example are going to have
to be a place where people who are in the best position to stop
reinforcing more problematic social reproductions need to also take a
stand against reproducing something seemingly more benign. Undoing,
unraveling the more simple reproductions needs to happen because
other instances where we would consider it vitally important to
undermine such social meaning making or change a social behavior are going to be very difficult to achieve.
I
have an intuition that two people standing at a privileged point to
bring about such changes, to help reshape our social worlds, are
going to need to have a better resolve towards not being so immersed
in the world that shaped them. And thus it is worrisome that such
people could not, or did not, reject the empty valuing of diamond
rings and the belief that they need such a social symbol in order to
have a good relationship (they don't). Continuing on with such
practices seems like a marker that suggests that they or we may not
be able to achieve the larger tasks. I use the diamond ring here but
there are probably many objects, behaviors, and norms that I think
need to be undone, or whose value reproduction are suggestive of a
non-aggressive attitude towards social change or to opening up our
selves and society to be better understood. The places in society and in our behaviors that are the most reified, that are the most unseeable contingent factors, are places that need to be marked as such. To continue to non-reflectively reproduce those instances, to not set in the possibility that there are others way to organize our selves, is to blur over those institutions. It is to encourage the reproduction of the world that we found, and that is problematic.
One
quick note on social behavior reproduction, played out a bit in this
example, is that stopping the reproduction of such is often difficult
for individuals. Mainly, one of the ways we continue to reproduce our social world is through social regulation. That is, individuals will
become upset or find others unfriendly if others do not have standard
behavioral structures. As individuals we are greatly moved by social
regulation. Some of this is good as it was developed either
biologically or socially over a long time to encourage more
harmonious living. But as we strive to build better societies and
better selves, worlds we want to live in, there is a need to stop
reproducing a great deal of social institutions, for instance gender
norms, gender roles, and socialization/education practices. Undercutting
emotional responses, to put these things on the table of reflection outside
of social regulation, is an important way to be able to adequately
reflect on those processes. It is difficult to ask about whether we
want to change institutions while under the emotional gaze of others.
That last thought brings up another point. All of this is why Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind) is wrong, and why Joshua Greene (Moral Tribes) only goes part of the way in dispelling him. Our moral world is our institutional world. All social policies and institutions are political policies, they are political institutions. As individuals we are the environment that created us, we are the end products of a socialization/education process and the institutional world that is around us. The world that we found needs to be drastically changed. And all of it needs to be open to reflection.
That last thought brings up another point. All of this is why Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind) is wrong, and why Joshua Greene (Moral Tribes) only goes part of the way in dispelling him. Our moral world is our institutional world. All social policies and institutions are political policies, they are political institutions. As individuals we are the environment that created us, we are the end products of a socialization/education process and the institutional world that is around us. The world that we found needs to be drastically changed. And all of it needs to be open to reflection.
No comments:
Post a Comment