Social Reality
How are we able to constitute social reality? To answer this question, first we have to clarify the definition of social reality. What is "social reality"? While we can list up a number of explanations to define this term, starting from a general definition, the answer would be that "social reality" means that each member of the society share their experiences together. It is a kind of collective experiences among the members of the society. "Reality" is that which we experience and if such "reality" can be shared among each member of the society, this is called "social reality." To make it more precise, when we can say that "reality" is that which we experience, another question is inevitable, that is to say, what is "experience"? When I have my own experience and my experience can be also considered as "our experience," what is the factor that such single experience makes the collective experience? If we explore the definition of "experience" as such and figure out what make can make it collective, then the more detailed explanation on "sociality reality" and how we can constitute it can be provided.
When one thinks of one's experience, it is necessary to see it both externally and internally. The former is an objective point of view. For example, when you are drinking a glass of water, your experience can be described objectively from the other person's point of view. If you are male and that the other person sees that you are drinking a glass of water, the other person (the observer) would say that "a boy is drinking a glass of water." That is to say, this observer perceives a boy's experience (your experience) of drinking a glass of water as an objective fact. And yet, we have to notice the fact that this perceiving is not necessarily an external, objective fact, but an internal, subjective perception that the observer perceives the boy's act of drinking a glass of water (or your act of drinking a glass of water) in the consciousness of the observer. And this is what the observer experiences. While from your own point of view, your experience of drinking a glass of water is internal and subjective, when you are aware of the fact that you are drinking of a glass of water, this is derived from your own sensory physiological experience (feeling and tasting the coldness of water, etc.) and such experience is reflected in your consciousness. You are seeing yourself who is drinking a glass of water in your mind or consciousness together with the feeling and tasting of coldness of water, etc. and if possible with your subtle notice that the other person (the observer) is looking at you.
Let us look at this example more carefully. There is a fact that you are drinking a glass of water and the other person is observing you and your act of drinking a glass of water. From the point of view of the other person (the observer), it seems that your act of drinking a glass of water is an objective fact or something external. As above-mentioned, however, at the very moment when the other person tries to observe, perceive, and describe this fact, she needs to retain such observation, perception and description in her mind or consciousness. What she saw must pass through her brain. Only when what she saw can be retained and reconstructed in her mind or consciousness, her observation can be actualized as an objective description or an experience that she has. And such process of observing, internalizing, and articulating a fact before her can not be done without her intention of seeing a boy's / your act of drinking a glass of water. Her experience can not be made without her intention. One's experience cannot be made without his or her intentionality.
While the other person is observing your act of drinking a glass of water, her observation can be actualized as an experience that she has only when it is accompanied by her "intentionality." And there is the basis of such intentionality, which is language. For, without language we cannot understand the meaning of what we see; we cannot recognize the context in which the meaning of what we see is shared and constructed. One of the typical examples to see such necessity of language is that a baby's inability to reflect upon what he or she saw. For a newborn baby, the external world is almost completely chaotic and uncategorized. Probably a baby can perceive his hand, and yet he cannot recognize that what he perceives is his own hand and of course he has never understood the semantic clusters derived from the meanings of a hand as such – until he can construct the internal social reality in his mind as he grows up. Probably he has a little intention to see his own hand, but this intentionality is not enough for him to understand the reality that the mature member of the society is supposed to have. Thus, his little intention is not yet what is called intentionality; rather it may be one variation of his instinctive acts. Intentionality is based on the recognition that one knows what one sees or that one understands the meaning of what one sees. This means, again, intentionality is based on language, and more generally, the use of symbols.
Perhaps a glass can exist without our attention to it. Water also exists regardless of our interaction with it. Put it bluntly, the planet earth has been existing for a long time before humans appear on this surface. But this fact does not necessarily prove that "reality" can stand without our interaction. For, "reality" can appear only when one can make a certain interaction with his or her environment. While the environment has existed for a long time before the existence of humans, the "reality" can be emerged only when such humans try to make interactions in their perceptions and with their efforts to understand the environment. Such efforts can be called "intentionality" and in this regard "reality" is what is constructed in one's mind or consciousness. A glass exists and yet the perception of the glass can be only constructed in one's mind or consciousness. And to do so, what is necessary is "intentionality" and "symbols." For, in reality a glass can exist only when there is someone who calls it "a glass" with one's intention and language use or symbolization.
Another important factor we have to consider is the collectivity of such intentionality and symbolization. Suppose "reality" is that which is constructed in one's mind or consciousness, this fact alone can not make "reality" social. Rather, when such "reality" can be shared by a number of people or each member of the given society, we can see the emergence of "social reality." For example, when you know that you are drinking a glass of water. This means, you have your own self-awareness that you are drinking a glass of water. Yet, this experience is merely subjective. In this experience alone, while you can understand the "reality" that you are drinking a glass of water in your mind or consciousness, you do not know whether or not this reality (your act and your awareness of your act) has been shared and experienced by someone else. And if you can see that someone else also sees your act of drinking a glass of water and understands its meaning, then the "reality" of your drinking a glass of water is collectively shared, which means, so-called "social reality" is constituted.
It is, however, not merely that someone else and you simply share the objective fact that you are drinking a glass of water. It is not that we watch a single objective act together. For, as above-mentioned, reality is what is internally constructed in one's mind or consciousness even though its primary (physical and sensory) experience is based on the external environment. In the beginning you try to drink a glass of water without thinking anything or without reflecting on your act. This is the first phase. And in the second phase, you have your self awareness that you are drinking a glass of water. This means, you know what you are doing. There is a sort of mental movie in your mind, in which you are drinking a glass of water. You can think of yourself – this can be done only by those creatures that have consciousness or by those who can construct the reality in using the process of intentionality and symbolization. And then the third phase, you notice that the other person is looking at you and your act of drinking a glass of water. And yet in this third phrase, you are not yet sure that the other person can recognize and understand the meaning of your act.
Let's say, if you notice that a cat is looking at you, then you are not sure that a cat can see the meaning of your act. Probably a cat might understand that you are drinking a glass of water just as she does do the same sometimes with a bowl of milk. However, you are not sure if a cat really sees the meaning of your act in her self-awareness. Of course when a cat sees you, she might approach you since she is thirsty. This fact shows that a cat can understand the meaning of your act. In this sense, maybe even you and your pet (cat) can share a certain "reality" in the quite primitive level. This "reality" is so primitive to share the sense of basic desires such as thirst, hunger, and so on. Whereas, if you are checking bills in your wallet, it is impossible that you and your cat can share the monetary "reality" that, for example, you do not have enough money to pay the rent of next month. Or, if you are appreciating the crystal cleanness of water inside the glass when you are drinking the glass of water, then it is also impossible that you and your cat share the aesthetic "reality" for her to understand your sense of appreciation on the crystal cleanness. For both realities can heavily relay on the collective intentionality derived from the so-called institutional knowledge, language, and symbolization.
In the fourth phase, therefore, what is necessary is that when you see someone else is looking at your act of drinking of a glass of water, you should also see this person has her self-awareness that she is looking at your act and can understand the meaning of your act in the higher level. The higher level means that both she and you can construct the reality derived from your act internally. The "scene" of your act of drinking of a glass of water can be constructed in your mind or consciousness; and the same "scene" can be also constructed in her mind or consciousness. And consciously or unconsciously both she and you know that almost the same "scene" has been constituted in each other's mind or consciousness, which is "social reality."
Again, this sense of sharing is not as simple and as primitive as what you and your cat share together on the instinctive desires. Rather, while I just used a simple example of drinking a glass of water, the actual "social reality" is much more sophisticated and complex such as monetary systems, politico-economical, religio-cultural, and ethico-philosophical systems, etc. Thus, it is important to notice that "social reality" is constituted by our collective intentionality and symbolization – especially language. Because of that, we should also recognize such taken-for-granted truth that the "social reality" is what is constructed in our mind or consciousness. Moreover, it is also what is continuously constructed, evolved and updated depending on how we are collectively make use of our institutional knowledge.
When one thinks of one's experience, it is necessary to see it both externally and internally. The former is an objective point of view. For example, when you are drinking a glass of water, your experience can be described objectively from the other person's point of view. If you are male and that the other person sees that you are drinking a glass of water, the other person (the observer) would say that "a boy is drinking a glass of water." That is to say, this observer perceives a boy's experience (your experience) of drinking a glass of water as an objective fact. And yet, we have to notice the fact that this perceiving is not necessarily an external, objective fact, but an internal, subjective perception that the observer perceives the boy's act of drinking a glass of water (or your act of drinking a glass of water) in the consciousness of the observer. And this is what the observer experiences. While from your own point of view, your experience of drinking a glass of water is internal and subjective, when you are aware of the fact that you are drinking of a glass of water, this is derived from your own sensory physiological experience (feeling and tasting the coldness of water, etc.) and such experience is reflected in your consciousness. You are seeing yourself who is drinking a glass of water in your mind or consciousness together with the feeling and tasting of coldness of water, etc. and if possible with your subtle notice that the other person (the observer) is looking at you.
Let us look at this example more carefully. There is a fact that you are drinking a glass of water and the other person is observing you and your act of drinking a glass of water. From the point of view of the other person (the observer), it seems that your act of drinking a glass of water is an objective fact or something external. As above-mentioned, however, at the very moment when the other person tries to observe, perceive, and describe this fact, she needs to retain such observation, perception and description in her mind or consciousness. What she saw must pass through her brain. Only when what she saw can be retained and reconstructed in her mind or consciousness, her observation can be actualized as an objective description or an experience that she has. And such process of observing, internalizing, and articulating a fact before her can not be done without her intention of seeing a boy's / your act of drinking a glass of water. Her experience can not be made without her intention. One's experience cannot be made without his or her intentionality.
While the other person is observing your act of drinking a glass of water, her observation can be actualized as an experience that she has only when it is accompanied by her "intentionality." And there is the basis of such intentionality, which is language. For, without language we cannot understand the meaning of what we see; we cannot recognize the context in which the meaning of what we see is shared and constructed. One of the typical examples to see such necessity of language is that a baby's inability to reflect upon what he or she saw. For a newborn baby, the external world is almost completely chaotic and uncategorized. Probably a baby can perceive his hand, and yet he cannot recognize that what he perceives is his own hand and of course he has never understood the semantic clusters derived from the meanings of a hand as such – until he can construct the internal social reality in his mind as he grows up. Probably he has a little intention to see his own hand, but this intentionality is not enough for him to understand the reality that the mature member of the society is supposed to have. Thus, his little intention is not yet what is called intentionality; rather it may be one variation of his instinctive acts. Intentionality is based on the recognition that one knows what one sees or that one understands the meaning of what one sees. This means, again, intentionality is based on language, and more generally, the use of symbols.
Perhaps a glass can exist without our attention to it. Water also exists regardless of our interaction with it. Put it bluntly, the planet earth has been existing for a long time before humans appear on this surface. But this fact does not necessarily prove that "reality" can stand without our interaction. For, "reality" can appear only when one can make a certain interaction with his or her environment. While the environment has existed for a long time before the existence of humans, the "reality" can be emerged only when such humans try to make interactions in their perceptions and with their efforts to understand the environment. Such efforts can be called "intentionality" and in this regard "reality" is what is constructed in one's mind or consciousness. A glass exists and yet the perception of the glass can be only constructed in one's mind or consciousness. And to do so, what is necessary is "intentionality" and "symbols." For, in reality a glass can exist only when there is someone who calls it "a glass" with one's intention and language use or symbolization.
Another important factor we have to consider is the collectivity of such intentionality and symbolization. Suppose "reality" is that which is constructed in one's mind or consciousness, this fact alone can not make "reality" social. Rather, when such "reality" can be shared by a number of people or each member of the given society, we can see the emergence of "social reality." For example, when you know that you are drinking a glass of water. This means, you have your own self-awareness that you are drinking a glass of water. Yet, this experience is merely subjective. In this experience alone, while you can understand the "reality" that you are drinking a glass of water in your mind or consciousness, you do not know whether or not this reality (your act and your awareness of your act) has been shared and experienced by someone else. And if you can see that someone else also sees your act of drinking a glass of water and understands its meaning, then the "reality" of your drinking a glass of water is collectively shared, which means, so-called "social reality" is constituted.
It is, however, not merely that someone else and you simply share the objective fact that you are drinking a glass of water. It is not that we watch a single objective act together. For, as above-mentioned, reality is what is internally constructed in one's mind or consciousness even though its primary (physical and sensory) experience is based on the external environment. In the beginning you try to drink a glass of water without thinking anything or without reflecting on your act. This is the first phase. And in the second phase, you have your self awareness that you are drinking a glass of water. This means, you know what you are doing. There is a sort of mental movie in your mind, in which you are drinking a glass of water. You can think of yourself – this can be done only by those creatures that have consciousness or by those who can construct the reality in using the process of intentionality and symbolization. And then the third phase, you notice that the other person is looking at you and your act of drinking a glass of water. And yet in this third phrase, you are not yet sure that the other person can recognize and understand the meaning of your act.
Let's say, if you notice that a cat is looking at you, then you are not sure that a cat can see the meaning of your act. Probably a cat might understand that you are drinking a glass of water just as she does do the same sometimes with a bowl of milk. However, you are not sure if a cat really sees the meaning of your act in her self-awareness. Of course when a cat sees you, she might approach you since she is thirsty. This fact shows that a cat can understand the meaning of your act. In this sense, maybe even you and your pet (cat) can share a certain "reality" in the quite primitive level. This "reality" is so primitive to share the sense of basic desires such as thirst, hunger, and so on. Whereas, if you are checking bills in your wallet, it is impossible that you and your cat can share the monetary "reality" that, for example, you do not have enough money to pay the rent of next month. Or, if you are appreciating the crystal cleanness of water inside the glass when you are drinking the glass of water, then it is also impossible that you and your cat share the aesthetic "reality" for her to understand your sense of appreciation on the crystal cleanness. For both realities can heavily relay on the collective intentionality derived from the so-called institutional knowledge, language, and symbolization.
In the fourth phase, therefore, what is necessary is that when you see someone else is looking at your act of drinking of a glass of water, you should also see this person has her self-awareness that she is looking at your act and can understand the meaning of your act in the higher level. The higher level means that both she and you can construct the reality derived from your act internally. The "scene" of your act of drinking of a glass of water can be constructed in your mind or consciousness; and the same "scene" can be also constructed in her mind or consciousness. And consciously or unconsciously both she and you know that almost the same "scene" has been constituted in each other's mind or consciousness, which is "social reality."
Again, this sense of sharing is not as simple and as primitive as what you and your cat share together on the instinctive desires. Rather, while I just used a simple example of drinking a glass of water, the actual "social reality" is much more sophisticated and complex such as monetary systems, politico-economical, religio-cultural, and ethico-philosophical systems, etc. Thus, it is important to notice that "social reality" is constituted by our collective intentionality and symbolization – especially language. Because of that, we should also recognize such taken-for-granted truth that the "social reality" is what is constructed in our mind or consciousness. Moreover, it is also what is continuously constructed, evolved and updated depending on how we are collectively make use of our institutional knowledge.
Comments