Social Constructionist Perspectives on Human Life

Drawing on empirical examples, discuss the insights into the human world that the social constructionist perspective offers. Social constructionism focuses on meaning and power. It maintains that, as humans, we respond to the meaning of events and objects rather than the actual objects and events themselves. This meaning is actually a construction, a product of social interaction between individuals. Our behaviour is regulated by guidelines, which make everyday life predictable and understandable. These guidelines set boundaries as to what is acceptable behaviour, and are themselves a product of social interaction. They cause us to behave in a certain way – the way that is seen as the norm. It is through social interaction that people "act and react in relation to others." Through this social interaction, we learn what is acceptable and what is not. Over time these ‘rules ' become internalised within us, and eventually become a somewhat unconscious part of our lives. We end up just taking them for granted, as we begin to see that what we do is just normal (e.g. habit). Burr (1985) identifies four assumptions that the social constructionist perspective follows: The first is that, as social constructionists, we should "take a critical stance towards our taken-for-granted ways of understanding the world." Whereas traditional science assumes that observation can be used to explain the nature of the world, social constructionism is wary of this opinion. It argues that just because we divide people and things in the world into categories, they may not actually be real divisions. Burr uses the example of music – there is nothing in the

040165640 nature of music that denotes that it should be divided into such categories as ‘pop ' or ‘classical '.
The second point Burr raises is that of ‘historical and cultural specificity '. This is the idea that the understanding we have of the world, and concepts in it, are specific to particular cultures and time periods. Burr also insists that these concepts are products of, and dependent on, the culture and the economic arrangements of the culture at that time.
The next point Burr mentions is that people construct their own understanding of the nature of the world through social interaction. Social constructionists are especially interested in how individuals interact, particularly the idea of language.
Through communication, we distinguish shared meanings. As Littlejohn argues, "People communicate to interpret events and to share those with others." These shared meanings would be impossible without communication. The interaction that takes place between individuals never ends. Like socialisation, it exists throughout one 's life. It leads to a collective understanding of meanings. Institutions are formed, and rules and policies are put into place. This brings us on to the last of Burr 's assumptions; the idea that knowledge and social action go hand in hand. Each social construction differs, and "brings with it…. a different kind of action from human beings."
Berger and Luckmann introduced the concept of the ‘social construction of reality ', to identify the idea that humans build the social world and everything in it through their interaction, and so social interaction amounts to the negotiating of reality. So, how is it that we construct our reality? From the moment we are born, we
040165640
become involved in the process of learning. A newborn baby has everything that they need to walk and talk, but they still have to learn the skill of walking, and language, from others. de Swaan uses the example of smiling. Babies have the ability to smile and make other facial expressions, but it is through interaction with others that they learn when to make the appropriate mouth movements. They hear high-pitched sounds coming from their parents and others around them, and after a few months, they learn how to respond, especially to familiar faces. This suggests that such processes are all socially constructed, and not inborn instincts.
It is not only our behaviour that is ‘learnt '. Society affects our thoughts and emotions. Social constructionists believe that our identities in particular are shaped by society (Berger, 1963, p.140). Berger describes identity as being something that is not ‘given ', but something "bestowed in acts of social recognition." Through the process of socialisation, we internalise the rules of society, and are compelled to stay loyal to these rules. Various forms of social control exist to keep us ‘in line ' and prevent us from breaking the rules. More formal types of control include law enforcement, whereas there are more subtle forms such as disapproval of deviant acts, followed by guilt and shame. Berger maintains that no society can exist without social control. (Berger, 1963, P.83) One of the primary areas in which an individual is socialised and controlled is the family. Here, Berger argues, is where there are the most important social ties for an individual. If this is so, then there will obviously be a huge influence on the individual, affecting the way they grow and develop, and consequently, the person they become, including their identity.

040165640
Burr argues that personalities do not necessarily exist within a person, but rather between people. Common words used to describe people 's personalities would be somewhat meaningless if the person being described lived alone (Burr uses the example of living on a desert island). Without other people around them, how can someone be described as having a shy personality? The point Burr is trying to make is that such descriptive words often refer to our behaviour towards other people, and don 't have much meaning if you take other people away from an individual. Similarly, our personalities may change depending on whom we are with. Burr argues that although our personalities may change slightly when we are with different people, it is still ‘us ' in all of them, but each ‘you ' is affected, and socially constructed by the relationships we have with those people.
There is a lot to say about the importance of how a family raises and nurtures it 's offspring. As already mentioned, the family is possibly the most important area when it comes to the disciplining of it 's young. If the children are not socialised properly, there could be serious effects on the child 's personality and behaviour. With the correct socialisation, a child is likely to mature into an emotionally stable, well-behaved and civilised individual. Although the socialisation process varies from one culture to another, the aim is generally to raise the individual to become accustomed with that particular society 's norms and values, and to follow on in the traditions of that society. If the socialisation process is not done effectively, and the norms are not internalised properly by the child, the child is very unlikely to behave appropriately. For example, the way in which children are toilet trained is not the same in every culture. In some, it is "imposed at a very early age, quite strictly and sometimes heavy
040165640
handedly." In others, it is a slower and gentler process. As de Swaan goes on to note, such differences have been linked to differences in personality formation – the stricter approaches tend to lead to more rigid personalities, "whereas a milder and more patient approach supposedly leads to more flexible and spontaneous personalities." Other areas in which children are socialised include the disapproval of swear words, the correct use of manners, and the importance of respect. Here we can see that how an individual is socialised is very important in affecting the person they grow into. This is an area of interest for social constructionists because it contributes to our understanding of individuals and their behaviour. In particular, it gives an insight into why people behave in certain ways.
The social constructionist perspective contributes greatly to the subject of gender. It is clear that sex and gender are very different things, and that sex is generally associated with the biological aspects of the body, whereas gender is concerned with more than this. In particular, gender is seen as the way individuals see and present themselves, including whether they are ‘masculine ' or ‘feminine '. However, it is obvious that masculinity is mostly associated with men, and femininity with women. Oakley suggested that an individual 's gender is social and cultural, not biological, and further argued that gender was socially constructed. Butler (1990) argues that if gender is not inherently linked with physiological aspects of the body, then "there is no reason to believe there are only two genders." Indeed, gender differences vary from one society to another, and so surely this suggests that gender is socially constructed, as if it were an innate aspect, it would be the same across all
040165640
cultures. Gender, along with sex, is assigned to a baby at birth. Immediately, boys are notoriously dressed in blue, and girls in pink. Studies have shown that boys are commonly treated more aggressively, with a parent lifting him high in the air or bouncing him on their knee, whereas girls are treated more tenderly, often given hugs and kisses (Bonner, 1984). Oakley (1985) talks about a study by H.A.Moss which showed that mothers behave differently towards boys and girls, even from the age of three weeks old. "Mothers held male infants 27 minutes more per eight hours than females." This again suggests that gender is a social construction, influenced principally by parents.
The way parents treat their children has an important effect on the development of their gender identities (their sense of being either male or female) and gender roles (a set of behaviours that indicate one 's gender). Children 's story books generally support the view that a female 's role is that of a carer and housewife, whereas a male 's role is that of the breadwinner. E.g. Books often show the mother of the family at home looking after the children, and the father as the one that goes out to work. This immediately reinforces the idea to children. Similarly, girls are encouraged to play with dolls and dress up as ‘mummy ', whereas boys play with cars and trucks. In the home, girls are often given chores such as helping to clean or cook, while boys are often encouraged to help dad with DIY jobs. From an early age children are allocated such roles based on their sex. Oakley (1985) observes that gender roles and identities "are not acquired mechanically by the child from the parent." It is more than just a motorized handing over. Children identify with their parents in various

040165640 ways, identifying with one more so than the other can have an effect on the way they behave and the identity they take on.
It 's argued that racial differences are socially constructed, too. The physical differences between races are arbitrary. In society there is no strict border between different races, as they are constantly inter-mingling. Here we can go back to the idea of language. It is through our communication and shared meanings that we have distinguished differences between ‘races '. Humans are all, in some way, visually different from one another, yet a lot of these differences are not noted. Race, in itself, is not a biological difference, but a socially constructed one.
Similarly, disability is seen in this perspective as a social construction. There is no clear division of what qualifies as a disability. We do not see colour-blindness or being left-handed as disabilities, although they are differences which affect the way people live. As a social construct, disability is due to discrimination that exists within society, and the way that that society views the issue.
The social constructionist perspective maintains that social interaction and socialisation are incredibly important, as they are the backbone for building individuals. Language is of particular importance to this perspective, and it 's argued that "language provides the basis for all our thought." In this sense, it is through language that we can give our experiences meaning. In conclusion, the social constructionist perspective offers a lot of insight into the human world, especially with regards to the construction of society and individuals within it.

040165640
REFERENCES
Berger, P, 1963, Invitation to sociology, Harmondsworth, Pelican
Burr, V, 1995, An introduction to social constructionism, London, Routledge de Swaan, A, 2001, Human societies, Cambridge, Polity
Jenkins, R, 1996, Social identity, London, Routledge
Macionis, J, and Plummer, K, 2002, Sociology: a global introduction, Harlow, Prentice Hall
Oakley, A, 1985, Sex, gender and society, London, Gower
Taylor, S, 1999, Sociology: issues and debates, Basingstoke, Palgrave
What is social constructionism? http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk
Sociology online www.sociologyonline.co.uk

References: Berger, P, 1963, Invitation to sociology, Harmondsworth, Pelican Burr, V, 1995, An introduction to social constructionism, London, Routledge de Swaan, A, 2001, Human societies, Cambridge, Polity Jenkins, R, 1996, Social identity, London, Routledge Macionis, J, and Plummer, K, 2002, Sociology: a global introduction, Harlow, Prentice Hall Oakley, A, 1985, Sex, gender and society, London, Gower Taylor, S, 1999, Sociology: issues and debates, Basingstoke, Palgrave What is social constructionism? http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk Sociology online www.sociologyonline.co.uk