Reality as a Social and Linguistic Construction

Reality can be viewed as both linguistically constructed and socially constructed, despite

the fact the two concepts are markedly different. Although the linguistic and social

elements of life, and therefore a human being’s reality, intertwine and affect one another,

the two cannot be said to be one and the same. The linguistic construction of words, from

the very inception of language, has given meaning to what would otherwise merely be

abstract concepts. Words also enable the delineation of emotion, complex ideas and

theories thereby defining humanity’s perception of reality. Language serves as a type of

filter for reality, allowing communication and thought, while providing meaningless

answers to deep questions, to stop people from being overwhelmed by reality. Socially,

the rituals, regulations and taboos that guide human reality, while differing from group to

group, exist in common throughout all races of people. The relationships formed by a

person throughout their life, give meaning to their existence, and on a more basic level,

confirm an individuals own reality. The need for human interaction, to form complex

social groups, can be simply described as an attempt to socially construct our own reality.

It is overly simplistic to describe reality as being either linguistically constructed or

socially constructed, because the truth lies somewhere in between the two. The fact that

reality cannot be clearly defined can cause the misconception that linguistic construction

and social construction are the same thing. This is simply not the case. The linguistic

construction of reality refers to the effect language has on our perception of reality,

whereas social construction refers to how relationships with others impact on an

individuals reality. (DeVito, 1994). This means that since the discussion at hand relates to

the construction of reality, and not the perception of reality, the social and linguistic

aspects must be viewed as separate entities in said construction. An example of the

aforementioned linguistic construction, to further illustrate this point, is the instant mental

connection and clarity of communication one can receive upon hearing the word “seven”.

This word is a description of a number of objects, and for anyone with even a basic

understanding of the english language, this word conveys meaning from one completely

separate mind to another. This example, while perfectly illustrating one aspect of

linguistic construction, does not aid in the understanding of social construction, thus once

again underlining the fact that the two are completely separate concepts. An example of

social construction of reality is the bond that exists between biologically unrelated

friends. There is no genetic link between this these types of friends to explain the

connection. Nor, in the case of platonic friends, can biological reproductive urges explain

this relationship. This relationship exists because of the human desire to socially

construct their reality. These examples make it clear, that while the two might overlap on

occasion, linguistic and social construction are two different and separate concepts.

When examining linguistic construction of reality, it is necessary to consider the history

of language, rather than merely the etymology of certain words. The evolution of

language is a development that is unique to humanity amongst all animal species, which

naturally arouses curiosity as to why this is the case. All other animal species manage to

communicate without the benefit of language. This is because human beings are of a

higher order of intelligence than every other species. Thus the need to communicate

complex thoughts and ideas developed. From this point, it was an obvious and logical

step, toward the forming of a language. As this language developed, so did the ability to

define thought and emotion, through language. (Farrell, 1979). This definition allowed

greater understanding of reality, through words which held a shared meaning. This, of

course, relates back to semiotics. To more clearly show this point, take the example of the

events collectively referred to as the Cronulla Riots. The event that caused the simmering

racial tensions to explode into outright violence was the physical beating of a lifeguard. It

is important to remember that this type of violence had occurred before, between all

races, on the Cronulla beaches. What made this attack different was the fact that the man

was a lifeguard. In Australian society, the word “lifeguard” has extremely strong, positive

semiotic value. Upon hearing that men of Middle Eastern appearance had beaten a

lifeguard, hundreds of people gathered to make their disapproval known. From this point

on the violence was inevitable. This example shows us how the history of language

causes words to take on a deeper, symbolic meaning, which in turn controls how we

construct our reality.

Language allows the crystallisation of thought and emotion. Philosophy would not be

possible without language. Questions of ethics and morality could not be comprehended,

let alone answered, without words. Language allows a broader range of thought, with

more depth. One great proponent of this theory was George Orwell, famous science

fiction novelist. In his novel 1984, Orwell suggested that thought was made possible by

language, as was emotion. (Orwell, 1949). If language was pared down to nouns and

verbs, getting rid of all adjectives and other unnecessary words, people would not be able

to emote or think. For example, a person could not feel sad when they did not know any

words to describe that feeling. A person, who was unfamiliar with the concept of, or even

the word, “justice” or “democracy”, could not complain about their government. This idea

goes to the very heart of the idea of a linguistically constructed reality. Words are

symbolic of ideas that are common to the human experience. Thusly people view reality

through the language they choose to use to describe it.

The importance of language as a filter for reality cannot be overstated. The labelling of

things, ideas, places, and the like, help to stop people from looking too deeply into the

nature of the reality of whatever they are looking at. After a while, people stop looking at

whatever is before them, and instead look upon the label it has been given. (Severin,

1979). To illustrate this point let us take the example of a tree. When a person walks past

a tree, they register it as a tree, and then move on. Once the label has been recognised, no

further thought is given to the tree. If asked “what is that?” the person would tell you that

it was a tree. This is not an answer, simply a name. However if you were to ask one

hundred people that question, all would tell you the same thing. If you were to change the

question more significantly, “what is that specific tree?” you would be met with

confusion. This is because the reality of things is not what a person looks at, but rather

the linguistic construction built to filter that reality. A further illustration of the linguistic

construction of reality can be seen in the following example. It is well documented that

many people suffering from illness will recover if told they are being given medicine, but

are in fact given placebos. This shows us just how powerful a label can be in a

linguistically constructed reality. Sickness can be cured by a tic-tac if the person is told

they are being given medicine.

Reality is not only linguistically constructed, but also socially constructed. How a person

behaves is dictated by their society, which in turns controls how they view reality. In a

society in which polygamy is the norm, the reality is that men have more than one wife.

Conversely, in countries wherein polygamy is outlawed, the reality is that men have only

one life. This shows us that reality is simply a social construction to some extent. The

society a person lives in determines their reality. (Dance, 1976). In that particular case,

the determinant was morality, which differs depending on social group. However this is

not true for all cases. Some realities, such as the sun rising in the morning, the grass being

green, are reality simply through experience. The sun has risen every day of my life in the

morning, and therefore it will rise again today. That line of reasoning is facetious, but is

the basis for most supposed “realities”. Another socially constructed reality is the idea of

writing an essay. Depending on which university a person is at, or which teacher they

have, the reality of an essay is different. Some teachers will praise original thought. Most

however are only interested in the regurgitation of another person’s ideas. After all, that

is what quoting is. It is saying “I don’t have any ideas, but this guy says…”. Once again it

comes down to the rules of a society what the exact nature of a reality is. If all reality is

thusly infirm, then the social construction of reality, or any construction for that matter, is

a necessary defence mechanism, to deal with the instability of our world. The social

construction made from ritual, regulation and taboo, is a method of controlling our

reality.

Every person, through their life, will form a number of human relationships. People

choose who they want to be around them, the people they wish to associate with. These

are the people who will compose that individual’s reality. (Anderson, 1972). To that

extent reality must be viewed as a social construction, for what is reality if not the

dealings with other human beings? Once other people are taken from a reality, the reality

starts to look a little thin. There is nothing within that reality to make it worthy of the

name. It is therefore nothing. Let us take, for example, Mohammed Ali. If you take all of

the important people out of his life, then you have very little left. Without his opponents

in the ring, his friends in the media, his fans, his mother, father and wife, there is nothing.

A man must therefore be the sum of the relationships he has. If we take this idea one step

further, a person, and their entire reality, cannot exist without other people. If there is

nobody else, then a person has no proof that they even exist at all. If this is true for all

peoples then all humanity must be part of a larger, ever changing, and completely fluid

reality. Viewing this reality from a personal standpoint is where one begins the social

construction of their own reality, which explains why all views of reality differ. Thus it

can be said that reality is partly a social construction.

Like many other species, humanity has always had a strong herd instinct. The desire to

gather in large group seems to be an innate trait. This explains the appeal of gangs, clubs

and the like. The urge to gather ties back in rather intimately with the desire to socially

construct a reality. If a person were to join the Hell’s Angels, and make that gang their

whole life, then that persons reality would shrink. Reality for that person would simply be

the gang. This shrinking of life makes reality more predictable and thus more easily

controlled. Therefore this type of socially constructed reality has always appealed to

those people who demand a high level of control over their existence. This is yet another

face of the idea that reality is socially constructed.

Unfortunately reality is not black and white, so it must be accepted that it is both

linguistically and socially constructed. It must also be accepted that the two types of

reality construction are different and separate. On the linguistic side, words give meaning

to abstract concepts which define human reality. Language allows the clear expression

and understanding of emotion, thoughts and philosophy. Yet another facet of the

linguistic construction of reality is the fact that language serves as a filter for reality. On

the social element, ritual, regulation and taboos give meaning to reality. The relationships

a person forms in their life makes up their reality, and the people they form the

relationships with affirm the person’s own reality. The need to gather in large social

groupings is more proof that a person can construct their own reality through a large

grouping of people whom they choose to live with. This shows us that reality is both

linguistically and socially constructed.

Bibliography

Anderson, K. 1972, Introduction to Communication Theory and Practice, 1st Edition edn, Cummings Publishing Company, California.
Dance, F. & Larson, C. 1976, The Functions of Human Communication: A Theoretical Approach, 1st Edition edn, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Devito, J. 1994, Human Communication: The Basic Course, 6th Edition edn, HarperCollins, New York.
Farrell, T. & Frentz, T. 1979, “Communication and Meaning: A Language-Action Synthesis”, Philosophy and Rhetoric, [Online], vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 7/5/05. Available from:
http://80-web113.epnet.com

Orwell, G. 1949, Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1st Edition edn, Martin Secker & Warburg LTD, London.
Severin, W. & Tankard, J. 1979, Communication Theories, 1st Edition edn, Copp Clark, Toronto.