What does 'The Social Construction of Reality' Mean? – by Dr. Dennis Hiebert

43 thoughts on “What does 'The Social Construction of Reality' Mean? – by Dr. Dennis Hiebert

  1. I just don't understand why so many commenters below have a problem with what this guy is saying. It is so plainly obvious to me. So much of the world and society/culture around us is obviously created by humans. So much of our own views about reality are constructs coming from others, individually and collectively. Might it be that critics of his thesis have a political/religious agenda in opposition to his and simply cannot see the wood for trees because of it? I think anyone who honestly cannot get what he is saying is either asleep or blind or wilfully trolling from some ideological standpoint.

  2. Such concepts should be taught in schools (at a suitable level of curriculum) from the earliest possible age to inculcate awareness and wariness of cultural/social propaganda and the mainstream false narratives. If children learned this early on (instead if jyst swallowing everything tbeir eldets told them), and if high schoolers studied it properly as a tool for growing into adulthood — instead of if it being taught only as a university degree in sociology — then there would be far fewer moronic sheeple in the world. Bravo to the speaker and the poster.

  3. Social Construction of Reality is a BOOK by Berger and Luckmann both Austrians, Jews, from Vienna and best of friends, wrote this book together. I find it insulting that Hiebert did not start this lecture with the FACTS. Therefore garbage in, garbage out. Listen to Peter Berger and get a better synopsis . Killing for God has never stopped since we told that story. Virtual reality starts with blind faith in god concepts. Poor Dennis wants all the credit, shame.

  4. I don't think I've heard so much platitude expressed as such deep original ideas before.

    I mean who really has "lost consciousness" of the fact that a hammer is a tool produced by humans for humans? Who believes that a hammer is a brute fact of the natural world? Literally nobody.

    Talk about strawmanning the obvious to sound deep.

  5. "the social world (…) is made up by people".
    "the physical world (…) is given to humans"

    Question: are humans a physical entity? Are our brains? Where's the "dependency" line between the physical and the social, exactly?

  6. not, made nor made up, it accretes over time. that accretion is actually natural as it is built up by natural beings – humans. language games, do not create a "new reality." sociology is now built on frankfurt school critical theory, that is a social construct that they chose. we should be extremely suspicious of these language games.

  7. “The sociological question is not what is real nor even how do we know what is real but how does anything come to be accepted as real.” – Dr. Dennis Hebert. Since I was not educated under the social construction reality, which based on this lecture would have us reject the scientific methodology of understanding the natural world, I question this methodology of understanding nature/reality. Sure you can create and indoctrinate followers into believing an interpretation of nature/reality but is it real? A scientific process or scientific method requires observations of nature and formulating and testing the hypothesis. What is this scientific methodology of understanding the natural world? 1. Observe something and ask questions about a natural phenomenon (scientific observation). 2. Make your hypothesis. 3. Make predictions about logical consequences of the hypothesis. 4. Test your predictions by controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study or a field experiment. 5. Create your conclusion on the basis of data or information gathered in your experiment. As explained by this professor, the social construct methodology of understanding the natural world requires you deny there is an observable fixed natural world (Take for example the periodic table of elements. This is an accepted reality but not static we have added elements to this table but it does not negate scientific observation. Regardless of whether people are aware of the periodic table of elements, it does not change the reality that these elements exist. You can’t make up whatever reality you want. It does not matter if you convince large numbers of people to “believe” your vision of reality. We know the earth travels around the sun because of gravity. In the past, the majority of society believed the sun traveled around the earth. This was a social construct that was not scientific and proved to be incorrect. Popular belief does not equate to reality.) The problem with the social construct theory is that it promotes a pseudo reality. It constructs a definition of nature that is subjective which can be redefined as it suits the culture. This is the definition of a cult mentality and is not based in reality. The fact that human beings can be manipulated and can collectively hold false beliefs does not make this reality factual. What a shame that this pseudo reality is being taught in our schools of higher education. We are producing a generation(s) of students who have been indoctrinated into “creating” a cultish false reality. The fact that human beings have a history of cult inspired belief systems and ignorance of science is obvious. This is evidence that humans do not think critically, are easily manipulated on a mass level and are subject to a cult mentality.

  8. LOL…if reality is itself just a "social construction", then you can't "construct" anything inherently meaningful…all you can do is bullcrap yourself until you die.

  9. This, is a non starter philosophy. He's critiquing a socially constructed world taken as "real" , using a socially constructed language to tell us so. Why should i believe a "word" of anything he's saying? Language is a social construct right ? But this cat, wants me to take his words has "real" ? Massive own goal, methinks. G

  10. Excellent articulation of the basic ideas of Berger and Luckman. Human beings create social reality.

  11. I cannot find almost anything of interest in this talk. A salad of hyperbolic statements without much grounding, reaching nowhere and mysteriously insisting on god and religion. Or is this maybe a religious university?

  12. I didn't realize that as more things become more dependent on us they existence they become more meaningfully to us… that's really true

  13. The theory of "social construction" was also socially constructed correct? if something is or may not be objective truth simply because it was socially constructed (and is dependent on people for its own existence) wouldn't this in turn diminish the objective validity of social construction as a theory in the first place.

  14. Society and its culture is always – in any time, in any place, expression of natural laws. Sociologists are most useless people in our society. Sociology is superficial layer that doesnt need to exist, if you want to really understand society go to evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.

  15. What is he saying at 9:35? "In other words the human main lane made world is explained in terms that deny its human production."

    What does that mean?

  16. To believe this stuff, you also have to believe some other things such as the supremacy of the mental to the spiritual, that reality is essentially physical, that the activity of the brain generates consciousness, etc. This is essentally Marxist.

  17. Thank you …….. You helped me enormously to write a comprehensive presentation on Social Construction. Bless you

  18. I just had the difference explained to me by a lecturer at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia – Social constructionism and social constructivism are similar terms, but the former originates in sociology and the latter in psychology. Both refer to the theory that our world is socially constructed rather than objective.
    The psych term, when used properly refers to the cognitive processes involved in the social construction of our understanding and experience of the world. Given the similarity of meanings, the terms are often used interchangeably. Strictly speaking, students of sociology should stick to using the term social constructionism.

  19. Excellent overview of this some what complex theory. The final question for me to resolve, is what the difference is between the construction -ism and -vism? And to what extend moderate constructions are the be understood as the same as sosial construtions?

    Øyvind Pedersen, University of Tromsø, Norway

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *