Social Constructions of Reality

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

 Understand the sociological concept of reality as a social construct

 Define roles and describe their places in people’s daily interactions

 Explain how individuals present themselves and perceive themselves in a social context

Who are we? What role do we play in society? According to sociologists, we construct reality through our interactions
with others. In a way, our day-to-day interactions are like those of actors on a stage

Until now, we’ve primarily discussed the differences between societies. Rather than discuss their
problems and configurations, we’ll now explore how society came to be and how sociologists
view social interaction.

In 1966 sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann wrote a book called The Social
Construction of Reality. In it, they argued that society is created by humans and human
interaction, which they call habitualization. Habitualization describes how “any action that is
repeated frequently becomes cast into a pattern, which can then be … performed again in the
future in the same manner and with the same economical effort” (Berger and Luckmann 1966).
Not only do we construct our own society but we also accept it as it is because others have
created it before us. Society is, in fact, “habit.”

For example, your school exists as a school and not just as a building because you and others
agree that it is a school. If your school is older than you are, it was created by the agreement of
others before you. In a sense, it exists by consensus, both prior and current. This is an example of
the process of institutionalization, the act of implanting a convention or norm into society. Bear
in mind that the institution, while socially constructed, is still quite real.
Another way of looking at this concept is through W.I. Thomas’s notable Thomas
theorem which states, “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”
(Thomas and Thomas 1928). That is, people’s behavior can be determined by their subjective
construction of reality rather than by objective reality. For example, a teenager who is repeatedly
given a label—overachiever, player, bum—might live up to the term even though it initially
wasn’t a part of his character.

Like Berger and Luckmann in their description of habitualization, Thomas states that our moral
codes and social norms are created by “successive definitions of the situation.” This concept is
defined by sociologist Robert K. Merton as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Merton explains that with
a self-fulfilling prophecy, even a false idea can become true if it is acted upon. One example he
gives is of a “bank run.” Say for some reason, a number of people falsely fear that their bank is
soon to be bankrupt. Because of this false notion, people run to their bank and demand all of
their cash at once. As banks rarely, if ever, have that much money on hand, the bank does indeed
run out of money, fulfilling the customers’ prophecy. Here, reality is constructed by an idea.

Symbolic interactionists offer another lens through which to analyze the social construction of
reality. With a theoretical perspective focused on the symbols (like language, gestures, and
artifacts) that people use to interact, this approach is interested in how people interpret those
symbols in daily interactions. For example, we might feel fright at seeing a person holding a gun,
unless, of course, it turns out to be a police officer. Interactionists also recognize that language
and body language reflect our values. One has only to learn a foreign tongue to know that not
every English word can be easily translated into another language. The same is true for gestures.
While Americans might recognize a “thumbs up” as meaning “great,” in Germany it would mean
“one” and in Japan it would mean “five.” Thus, our construction of reality is influenced by our
symbolic interactions.

Roles and Status

As you can imagine, people employ many types of behaviors in day-to-day life. Roles are
patterns of behavior that we recognize in each other that are representative of a person’s social
status. Currently, while reading this text, you are playing the role of a student. However, you also
play other roles in your life, such as “daughter,” “neighbor,” or “employee.” These various roles
are each associated with a different status.

Sociologists use the term status to describe the responsibilities and benefits that a person
experiences according to their rank and role in society. Some statuses are ascribed—those you
do not select, such as son, elderly person, or female. Others, called achieved statuses, are
obtained by choice, such as a high school dropout, self-made millionaire, or nurse. As a daughter
or son, you occupy a different status than as a neighbor or employee. One person can be
associated with a multitude of roles and statuses. Even a single status such as “student” has a
complex role-set, or array of roles, attached to it (Merton 1957).

If too much is required of a single role, individuals can experience role strain. Consider the
duties of a parent: cooking, cleaning, driving, problem-solving, acting as a source of moral
guidance—the list goes on. Similarly, a person can experience role conflict when one or more
roles are contradictory. A parent who also has a full-time career can experience role conflict on a
daily basis. When there is a deadline at the office but a sick child needs to be picked up from
school, which comes first? When you are working toward a promotion but your children want
you to come to their school play, which do you choose? Being a college student can conflict with
being an employee, being an athlete, or even being a friend. Our roles in life have a great effect
on our decisions and who we become.

Presentation of Self

Of course, it is impossible to look inside a person’s head and study what role they are playing.
All we can observe is behavior, or role performance. Role performance is how a person
expresses his or her role. Sociologist Erving Goffman presented the idea that a person is like an
actor on a stage. Calling his theory dramaturgy, Goffman believed that we use “impression
management” to present ourselves to others as we hope to be perceived. Each situation is a new
scene, and individuals perform different roles depending on who is present (Goffman 1959).
Think about the way you behave around your coworkers versus the way you behave around your
grandparents versus the way you behave with a blind date. Even if you’re not consciously trying
to alter your personality, your grandparents, coworkers, and date probably see different sides of
you.

As in a play, the setting matters as well. If you have a group of friends over to your house for
dinner, you are playing the role of a host. It is agreed upon that you will provide food and seating
and probably be stuck with a lot of the cleanup at the end of the night. Similarly, your friends are
playing the roles of guests, and they are expected to respect your property and any rules you may
set forth (“Don’t leave the door open or the cat will get out.”). In any scene, there needs to be a
shared reality between players. In this case, if you view yourself as a guest and others view you
as a host, there are likely to be problems.

Impression management is a critical component of symbolic interactionism. For example, a

judge in a courtroom has many “props” to create an impression of fairness, gravity, and control
—like her robe and gavel. Those entering the courtroom are expected to adhere to the scene
being set. Just imagine the “impression” that can be made by how a person dresses. This is the
reason that attorneys frequently select the hairstyle and apparel for witnesses and defendants in
courtroom proceedings.

Goffman’s dramaturgy ideas expand on the ideas of Charles Cooley and the looking-glass self.
According to Cooley, we base our image on what we think other people see (Cooley 1902). We
imagine how we must appear to others, then react to this speculation. We don certain clothes,
prepare our hair in a particular manner, wear makeup, use cologne, and the like—all with the
notion that our presentation of ourselves is going to affect how others perceive us. We expect a
certain reaction, and, if lucky, we get the one we desire and feel good about it. But more than
that, Cooley believed that our sense of self is based upon this idea: we imagine how we look to
others, draw conclusions based upon their reactions to us, and then we develop our personal
sense of self. In other words, people’s reactions to us are like a mirror in which we are reflected.

SUMMARY

Society is based on the social construction of reality. How we define society influences how society
actually is. Likewise, how we see other people influences their actions as well as our actions toward them.
We all take on various roles throughout our lives, and our social interactions depend on what types of
roles we assume, who we assume them with, and the scene where interaction takes place.

What Is Ethnomethodology?
Ethnomethodology, literally meaning people’s methodology, is the method by which people
study the social order in which they live. The term when broken down into three parts can be
explained as ethno, which means a specific socio-cultural group, method, which refers to those
methods, and techniques that this group uses to negotiate everyday life situations,
and ology, which refers to the orderly account of those methods and techniques. It tries to
identify the procedures through which the social order develops. It describes the strategies people
use in their actual descriptions of the social settings.
Ethnomethodology is a theoretical approach in sociology based on the belief that you can
discover the normal social order of a society by disrupting it. Ethnomethodologists
explore the question of how people account for their behaviors. To answer this question,
they may deliberately disrupt social norms to see how people respond and how they try to
restore social order.

Ethnomethodology was first developed during the 1960's by a sociologist named Harold

Garfinkel. It is not an especially popular method, but it has become an accepted
approach.

What Is the Theoretical Basis for Ethnomethodology?

One way of thinking about ethnomethodology is built around the belief that human
interaction takes place within a consensus and interaction is not possible without this
consensus. The consensus is part of what holds society together and is made up of the
norms for behavior that people carry around with them. It is assumed that people in a
society share the same norms and expectations for behavior and so by breaking these
norms, we can study more about that society and how they react to broken normal social
behavior.
Ethnomethodologists argue that you cannot simply ask a person what norms he or she
uses because most people are not able to articulate or describe them. People are generally
not wholly conscious of what norms they use and so ethnomethodology is designed to
uncover these norms and behaviors.

Examples of Ethnomethodology
Ethnomethodologists often use ingenious procedures for uncovering social norms by
thinking of clever ways to disrupt normal social interaction. In a famous series
of ethnomethodology experiments, college students were asked to pretend that they were
guests in their own home without telling their families what they were doing. They were
instructed to be polite, impersonal, use terms of formal address (Mr. and Mrs.), and to
only speak after being spoken to. When the experiment was over, several students
reported that their families treated the episode as a joke. One family thought their
daughter was being extra nice because she wanted something, while another’s believed
their son was hiding something serious. Other parents reacted with anger, shock, and
bewilderment, accusing their children of being impolite, mean, and inconsiderate. This
experiment allowed the students to see that even the informal norms that govern our
behavior inside our own homes are carefully structured. By violating the norms of the
household, the norms become clearly visible.
Learning from Ethnomethodology

Ethnomethological research teaches us that many people have a hard time recognizing
their own social norms. Usually people go along with what is expected of them and the
existence of norms only becomes apparent when they are violated. In the experiment
described above, it became clear that "normal" behavior was well understood and agreed
upon despite the fact that it had never been discussed or described.

Dramaturgical Analysis

Please consult J.J.Macionis for this concept

GLOSSARY

achieved status
the status a person chooses, such as a level of education or income
ascribed status
the status outside of an individual’s control, such as sex or race
habitualization
the idea that society is constructed by us and those before us, and it is followed like a habit
institutionalization
the act of implanting a convention or norm into society
looking-glass self
our reflection of how we think we appear to others
roles
patterns of behavior that are representative of a person’s social status
role-set
an array of roles attached to a particular status
role conflict
a situation when one or more of an individual’s roles clash
role performance
the expression of a role
role strain
stress that occurs when too much is required of a single role
self-fulfilling prophecy
an idea that becomes true when acted upon
status
the responsibilities and benefits that a person experiences according to his or her rank and role in
society
Thomas theorem
how a subjective reality can drive events to develop in accordance with that reality, despite being
originally unsupported by objective reality

References
Berger, P. L., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Cooley, Charles H. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner’s.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self In Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.

Merton, Robert K. 1957. “The Role-Set: Problems in Sociological Theory.” British Journal of

Sociology 8(2):110–113.

Thomas, W.I., and D.S. Thomas. 1928. The Child in America: Behavior Problems and
Programs. New York: Knopf.