Reflections: Different Worlds for Different Views

Introduction: The Basics of Social Constructionism and Relativism

The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge

Peter L. Berger

Colours, Perceptions and Values
An example could be the difference between the colours "blue" and "green". They seem readily obvious to many people because of the way we were taught to recognise colours - "blue is the colour of the sky" and "green is the colour of grass". Clear, simple and obvious - to English users, that is.

This obviousness does not necessarily seem as clear to other cultural understandings, for example, the Japanese used to see them as the same colour - hence the character 青 can still mean both "blue" and "green" (although it is more frequently used to mean "blue" now when the character stands alone). Indeed, when you see blue bleed into green, the concreteness of the dichotomy can actually come into question.

The point of that exercise was to illustrate how cultural understandings and interactions ultimately shape the way we understand reality and, above all, intrinsic human values. Indeed, the colour exercise should not be equated to "basic human values", but it shows that something as "simple" and as "concrete" as that can be seen in a different light.

The same goes with value judgements such as "sanctioned killings" - values that justify when the taking of human life is not an affront to humanity - as well as more abstract judgements such as the meaning of "progress". What does progress actually mean and to whom? Economic prosperity? Technological advancement? Social cohesion? Survival of the gene pool? Or perhaps all of the above? Should any of them be given a priority, assuming they were all equally important for progress?

The concept of a relative reality simply says that when individuals act, they do so in a frame of reference that they themselves and others around them can understand. In Hong Kong culture, when someone fills up your cup of tea, you tap the table to show gratitude (there is historical meaning to this but I will not delve into it here). This act is understood in the particular cultural context, however the frame of reference disappears and makes no sense in other cultures. In this regard, common sense and courtesy are also learnt behaviours reinforced through interaction (albeit unconscious).

Value Systems as Tools for Reason
It is therefore important to understand that individuals adopt value systems not as a matter of choice but rather as a matter of convenience and these systems dictate the workings of their logical reasoning. For example, a common sense approach to crime in America (and one often touted by the conservative right) is to lock up every criminal and make sure they learn their lessons. This is known as the "get tough" approach. It makes sense, locking them up should teach them that they are bad, bad people and besides we don't need bad people in society since they tend to wreck things. In fact, societies used to do that to the mentally challenged too since they were understood as useless and also tended to wreck things apparently. It just makes sense and the choice wasn't much a choice - you either supported a pointless argument that seemed to hinder the "progress" of all society, or you went with the more "sensible" lock 'em up route. Great, sounds like a plan.

The problem with "logical reasoning" is simply that we do it on limited information even if we do try to account for everything. It is then that we realise that considering everything is not actually logical and we begin to prioritise certain things, ultimately leading to guidelines for "best practices". But the question remains, what thought processes went in to determine the list of priorities?

To illustrate, the advancements of human societies across the globe have been tremendous but look beyond it and you will realise that there has been a general failure to account for the damage we are causing our own planet. The priority for many nations is economic growth because economic growth means better livelihoods and advanced technologies that would make people as well as the planet happy. The problem is simply that by the time our economies are able to help the environment, we may not have an environment left to live in - it's hard to refute that we have already screwed the planet up beyond repair, but the best part is simply that we don't care because our economies may be in peril if we tried to "save the earth". I concede that social constructionism and relativism do not account for the bigger picture either, but their precepts remind us that there is a bigger picture and we must think beyond what we believe as rational and logical to try to account for contravening perspectives that we would have otherwise discounted in the name of "logical reasoning".

In America, the lock 'em up approach is popular and logically sound - such a model of justice is known as retributive justice. It is the "An eye for an eye" model of justice. Australia has been a major proponent of a different type of justice - this is known as restorative justice. The concept is simple: the victim and offender meet to talk about the impact of the crime to each of their lives and resolve any outstanding questions that linger in the victim's mind ("Why did you have to kill Timmy?" for example). Both parties need to be willing to meet and engage each other on what happened - the offender, understanding what he has done, and the victim, understanding why this terrible event transpired. Then the offender, to whatever they are capable of, offers some form of compensation that could range from monetary compensation to going back to school or even finding a job. This, to some, is a sound and reasoned response - victims usually report a sense of "closure" while offenders report regret for their actions and understand their punishment.

Of course, to a logical mind that frames criminals as inherently evil individuals, this approach would sound crazy - "Hey pal, they are criminals, they would say anything to get out of jail!". Sure, but it is important to note that these models lead to lower recidivism rates compared to the supposedly more sensible retributive justice models, and it is recidivism rates that determine the success of a criminal justice system. If less people commit crimes after they are let free, then the system must be doing something right.

So, how does this all fall back into the discussion of relativism, social constructionism, value systems and logical reasoning? Well, if we believe that there are inherently obvious truths and values and if we hold these as uncompromisable (take creationism for example) then the logical outcomes of our arguments have already been determined.

Exemplifying Happiness
One who believes that all humans simply want to be happy are implying that there will be things that will make an individual happy and things that won't - but are the things that make people happy all the same? My African room-mate once told me that where he is from, people rejoice at the passing of a close relative because they see it as the person's soul being freed from its human bonds. They regard grief for the dead as a selfish emotion that shows one cannot share in the happiness of those who have passed to a better world after living out their pre-destined life. So here, death is a joyful experience.

Furthermore, what humans see as pleasurable and joyful can be learnt: In taking drugs, one must first learn to appreciate the sensations the drug gives as "good" and "desired" (these are sensations like an urge to regurgitate and disorientation, by the way). Those who play something known as the "Death Game" learn to appreciate asphyxiation as an euphoric feeling and even get sexually aroused by the high - make no mistake, it's a deadly game - I came into contact with it only because an acquaintance of mine passed away in this manner. Then there is smoking, the relaxation that comes from puffing a cigarette is a really trickery of the mind - it is the deep inhale and exhale that causes one to relax. The cigarette itself doesn't actually add value to the relaxation process but the perception helps to strengthen the effect (which reminds me of the "placebo effect").

End Game
Ultimately, the values we believe in brings us to a logical outcome of what we believe is an "answer". In reality, it is only an logical answer because we have considered all things within the scope of our beliefs - it may be possible that we have forgotten to include beliefs that are beyond this framework. For example, a Christian will find happiness in the Holy Trinity and Bible, explaining why their life is enriched within the scope of these beliefs then utilise this belief structure to explain the world around them, even where it may be inapplicable. They may mix in some beliefs of other arguments but such structures need to conform to that larger value for it to hold together (logic necessitates coherence). This is also true of the sociologist who could only see things via the sociological lens and of the biologist who could only see the world from biological perspectives. Even my proclamations are simply part of a large argument, but the point is simply that we cannot forget the possibility of dissenting arguments. The world is bigger than just us and our biased values as well as trained logical reasoning.

In the end of the day, holding to the belief that there is one common core value for all humanity creates the problem of arrogance because it negates the possibility that there may be perspectives that are equally tenable. Relativism only accounts for these variances and attempts to make no value judgement across these differences. This does not mean that believers in relativism are morally deprived, for they too are brought up in a culture and see things only relative to that frame of reference. However, it does make one more sensitive towards the realities of others and does not lead to the imposition of values on another. A compromised solution is only possible when one does not hold any value to be necessarily true because only then could one's mind be truly open to alternatives. Otherwise, it becomes an exercise in futility, like a devout Christian going to a Hindu temple seeking to learn about polytheism while still holding true to the greatness of monotheism (I've seen it too many times in church, enough to be sick of it).

Ultimately, believing in universal human values is a good thing as it diversifies our understanding of "human nature" and could foster respectful acceptance towards all people. But believing that these values are intrinsic and probably irrefutable - in spite of cultural differences in measures of success and progress - is plain arrogance.