|
Hilbert College |
Annotated Bibliography: The Social Construction of Reality |
- Home - Students - Tutorials - Student Papers - |
|
Ansart, Pierre. (1984) “Is All Social Knowledge Ideological?.” Society and Knowledge. Nico Stehr and Volker Meja, eds. Transaction Books. Ansart states that a nonideological world will never exist, although he proposes that sociology involves the constant deconstruction of dominant societal views and reconstruction of knowledge. Ansart states that knowledge is constantly being redefined through the ?conceptualization? of society. Something about the article or book goes here. Using the writings of Marx and other sociologists, Ansart draws sharp distinctions between social, societal and political ideologies, based on their generality of subject. These distinctions, Ansart claims, allows social theories to be considered radical at one level and yet conformist on another.
Berger, Peter. (1966) Identity as a Problem in the Sociology of Knowledge. Journal of Sociology. In this article Berger asserts there is a definite, on-going link between social psychology and cognitive processes. He says reality arises through social processes and is maintained by the same. He states that the reality belongs to the world that built it. In example, we both created language and use it for the foundation of the social construction of reality Berger claims. He also addresses the role of identity and how it is determined.
Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality. Anchor Books. This book discusses the problems raised by the theory of the sociology of knowledge, as put forth by theorists Karl Mannheim and Max Scheler. Berger and Luckmann state that the sociology of knowledge, while it covers “knowledge” as a whole, does not account for the subjective knowledge generated by distinct societies. They contend that the sociology of knowledge should be redefined from the study of objective reality to the study of subjective reality, for the forces working inside a given society, such as institutions and other sociological machinery, shape what that society views as reality.
De Gre, Gerard. (1941) The Sociology of Knowledge and the Problem of Truth. The Journal of the History of Ideas. De Gre notes a fundamental fault in discussions of the sociology of knowledge, that of failing to distinguish between sociology of knowledge and sociological theories of knowledge. He stresses the importance of discovering the social roots responsible for varying interpretations of experience. He also notes the problem of identifying the reason for specific aspects of experience being stressed in certain social situations.
Dewey, John. (1902) Interpretation of the Savage Mind. Psychological Review. Dewey states that the mind is an organ of service for the control of the environment in relation to the goals of the life process. He values the social and natural contexts of facts and says they can not be separated from those environments. He believes that many social realities break down into the animalistic “hunting schema.” He finds a problem with mental patterns because it removes the immediacy of our innate hunting psyche and does not allow us to hone our own emotional and rational skills.
Eriksson, Bjorn. (1975) Problems of an Empirical Sociology of Knowledge. Stockholm Uppsala Offset Center. Eriksson cites the lack of “empirical investigations of specific ideas in specific social settings” in the sociology of knowledge. He claims that many investigations of this sort fall under the sociology of science, which cannot be viewed simply as a subset of the sociology of knowledge. He claims that the two cannot be reconciled because of the substitution of broad philosophical answers about knowledge and consciousness for specific investigations into them in the sociology of knowledge.
Gabel, Joseph. (1984) “Is Nonideological Thought Possible?” Society and Knowledge. Nico Stehr and Volker Meja, eds. Transaction Books. In this article, Gabel argues the possibility of a society free from distorted, or ideological, thought. First, Gabel disproves Marx’s theories on this subject, then discusses the positive points concerning Mannheim’s theory of sociology of the intellectual class. Although this point has been highly criticized, when the “intellectuals” are viewed as a group of people who have the ability to overcome societal control rather than a socioeconomic class, the point becomes somewhat viable.
Hacking, Ian. (1999) The Social Construction of What?. Harvard University Press. Hacking discusses social constructionism in terms of modern society, through such issues as anorexia, feminism, and “Freud wars.” He discusses how the term “social construction” has evolved into a pat phrase that can be applied to almost any modern topic. Hacking also explores constructionism as being a construct in and of itself, the result of overuse of the social construct theory. He mentions how social constructionism has invaded even the scientific world, as evidenced by the “science wars,” which is a broad phrase encompassing the current mudslinging antics of the scientific community.
Hartung, Frank E. (1952) “Problems of the Sociology of Knowledge. Philosophy of Science, XIX. Hartung puts forth that the main problems surrounding the sociology of knowledge are: the theoretic impossibility of a sociology of knowledge (though he does not discuss it in the article), specifying the location of an existential basis of thought, and describing the way that the existential basis is actually related to thought. Hartung states that although Mannheim believes he has made an improvement in the definition of the existential basis, he is actually only rehashing what Marx put forth earlier. Hartung also accuses Mannheim of vaugeness concerning his adherence to the idea of existential determination of knowledge, and that Mannheim changes his conception of it several times throughout his work.
McCarthy, E. Doyle. (1996) Knowledge as Culture; the New Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge. McCarthy explains the older ideas of social construction of reality and how they were based on Marxist, French structuralism, and “American pragmatist traditions.” The article also discusses the evolution of the theory to focus on how society produces and disseminates knowledge. He holds that social stratifications effect the construction of reality and that these realities are direct reflections of situations and problems of real, day-to-day life.
Mead, George Herbert. (1922) A Behavioristic Account of the Significant Symbol. Journal of Philosophy. Mead discusses how the essences of ideas are understandable only through thought processes and relations to the environment they form. He also says objects of experience exist only in relationship to the biological and social individuals whose environments they make up. He discusses how conduct and gestures are a direct product of reactions to ideas we have based on society.
Merton, Robert K.. (1957) “Paradigm for the Sociology of Knowledge.”Social Theory and Social Structure. The Free Press. In this article, Merton establishes the “Where, what, how, and why,” of the sociology of knowledge in an attempt to achieve a more concrete definition of the theory. Merton discusses the existential basis of the theory, ranging from Marx to Sorokin. He begins with Marx’s theory of foundation and superstructure of ideas, and then builds upon that using the theories of Scheler, Mannheim, Durkheim, and Sorokin. Merton also expands upon Scheler’s theory concerning the sociological character of all knowledge, or how unique types of thought and intuition are “co-determined” by the divisions among groups of people within any given society.
Parsons, Talcott. (1959) An Approach to the Sociology of Knowledge. Transactions of the Fourth World Congress of Sociology, IV. Parsons contends that the sociology of knowledge in the tradition of Marx and Mannheim has followed an unvaried path. He faults such problems as getting mired in debates over the “most important” aspects of social theory, such as idealism vs. materialism. He redirects attention to the interdependence of the social and cultural systems in formulating conceptions of reality.
Popper, Karl. (1966) The Open Society and it’s Enemies. Routledge & Kegan. This article discusses how pioneers of the social construction of reality theory, like Marx and Hegel, had ideas that reflected the times during which they lived. Popper asserts opposition to some of the archaic ideas such as the belief truth is not relative to history, and the notion objectivity is not possible in a societal reality. He does concur with other scholars on the concept that people are unaware they are learning and constructing some social facts.
Scheler, Max. (1980) Problems of Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Scheler discusses his beliefs that societal knowledge is primarily individual because of social fragmentation and the notion neither knowledge or experience came first but instead they co-exist. He also voices opposition to some traditional theories on the construction of social reality. In addition, he presents the idea that science is rooted in spirituality and cannot be distinguished from those roots, the belief that people do not indiscriminately belong to certain groups, and the theory some ideals develop from our innate human drives and are not related to the environment.
Searle, John R. (1985) The Construction of Social Reality. The Free Press. The book discusses the existence of mental phenomena, like language and marriage, that are in no way physical entities but instead are created by humans. Searle explains that the reality we unconsciously create is for our own purposes and is dependant on everyone’s agreement and acceptance. He believes the social reality exists apart from the external reality which is independent of human interference. He also delves into the interaction between the natural and the cultural.
Simonds, A.P. (1978) Karl Mannheim’s Sociology of Knowledge. Clarendon Press. The book presents Karl Mannheim’s contributions to the sociology of knowledge. Simonds discusses several of Mannheim’s theories that shaped the movement, such as the fact that Mannheim saw that the rules of study concerning the physical world could not be accurately applied to the sociological world. Simonds also puts forth that most criticism of Mannheim’s theories concerning the sociology of knowledge stems from the fact that most critics fail to realize that Mannheim’s points are part of a larger contention about the nature of social inquiry.
Speier, Hans. (1938) The Social Determination of Ideas. Social Research. Speier notes the incursion of philosophical generalizations into sociological theory. He shuns exploring whether they should be included in the field, instead stressing the importance of the individual researcher’s awareness of them. He asserts that detrimental effects will occur only if the researcher neglects to look into the value of theoretical considerations.
Vitebsky, Piers. (1993) Is death the same everywhere? Concepts of knowing and doubting. Routledge. Vitebsky questions whether ignorance can grow, and in doing so explores the meaning of “ignorance” and “knowledge” in different societies. In order to study this Vitebsky focuses on the question, “What happens to people we know when they die?” since this is an underlying question in societies with many different assumptions about reality.
Willard, Charles Arthur. (1983) Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge. University of Alabama Press. Willard argues that arguments themselves are processes of social comparison that undergird knowledge, defining arguments as “interaction in which two or more people maintain what they consider to be incompatible positions.” Since argumentation is grounded in reason and rationality, it can be studied to provide a view of the cognitive processes that make it possible.
|
||