|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A theoretical fundamentalism would be the opposite of this recognition. Fundamentalists of any stripe project their consensus into the external world and regard it as an objective truth. Any alternative perspective or social construction is seen as necessarily false. The field of psychoanalysis, for example, has been notorious for it's psychological and therapeutic fundamentalism. It has taken such concepts as id, ego, and superego and elevated them to the status of absolute truths that exist in reality rather than viewing them as ways of conceptualizing the psyche. The many other personality theories that others have contrived are of necessity false. Yet for decades, until recently, the concepts of psychoanalysis were seen as constitutive of fundamental truths from cocktail chatter to the analyst's couch. Now that therapeutic models have proliferated, psychoanalysis is no longer the only culprit of therapeutic fundamentalism. In America, as in other democratic countries, we cling tenaciously to the belief that a person is "Innocent until proven guilty." There is a reason for adopting this belief as a working hypothesis and I am personally glad we have built it into our legal system. Yet it is a social construction and not an absolute fact. After all, if a man is on trial for murdering his wife and if he actually committed the crime in real life, then it is a fact that objectively exists outside the net of our social construction, even if the jury finds him innocent. Yet for the purpose of protecting the accused from a rush to judgment before he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we agree to consider him innocent before a jury decision of guilt is arrived at. Similarly, if the defendant did not actually murder his wife, but is found guilty, then he is so regarded despite his true innocence. That there are violations of this approach in practice, notwithstanding, it is the law of the land and few of us would want to see it abandoned. The concept of money is yet another example of a social construction. Does it really have any value outside of what we as a community agree to ascribe to it? The very way in which we exchange it has evolved over time, starting with bartering. Other means of transaction have evolved that include cash, checks, credit cards, and money can even be transferred on paper electronically without anyone actually touching or exchanging what we once normally agreed upon as "money." Yet the whole system would break down if we did not agree to the value of that which we use to conduct our business. We have seen that happen in our country with Confederate money, when people no longer accepted it as having any value. One of the reasons why it is so important that we appreciate the distinction between a social construction and an independently existing reality is because this will lead to a decrease in a narcissistic brand of nationalism and egocentrism, accompanied by a recognition that other communities, nations, or cultures may have other social constructions than our own, but that doesn't make us right and them wrong. This is not to say that all social customs and constructions are equally pragmatic or moral. In some countries a social construct of honor requires that a woman believed to have had sex with a man other than her husband be stoned to death or immolated to restore the families honor. Some postmodernists have carried the point to an extreme degree, denying any objectivity to science and considering it nothing more than a narrative. Indeed, the development of science can be told in a narrative form. Nevertheless there is an objectivity to it that cuts across all nations and cultures. Take something as simple as the early discovery that when a doctor washes his or her hands thoroughly with water and soap, then infections being passed along in hospitals can be drastically reduced. Today, in addition, physicians and nurses will frequently use disposable rubber gloves when treating different patients. This is no mere social construction, but an objective fact that cuts across all of humanity. Why do some people travel from foreign countries to the United States of America to have certain operations performed rather to remain and take their chances in their own country? This is because of the advanced technology and skill in applying it that America possesses. And yet it must be acknowledged that even in America there are communities of doctors that hold differing views of which treatments are best for certain diseases. At another level, pure science, regardless of field of application, is a method and not an outcome. It is the scientific method of researching hypotheses that is not only a social construction, in some sense, but which has logical validity regardless of community, cultural, or nation, that accords it the status of objective reality. Although we all live in a world of social constructions of our own making, this does not negate the fact that we are equally subject to the existence of an independent reality. Article Source: http://www.articlewheel.com
Hugh Rosen is the author of Silent Battlefields. Visit his Web site www.hughrosen.com to learn more about his novel of second generation Holocaust survivors.
Additional Articles From - Home | News & Society
|
 RSS Feeds by Category |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
