She Seems So Foreign To Me

Sat Jul 25, 2026

In a small cottage in a small village in England, Nell sat and looked out the window. She disrupted her own stupor by going to the kitchen and making a cup of tea. She looked out of each window she passed and gave pause at each of them. Each revealed mesmerising details about the world at insect level or the scattering of light or rain drops making canals in the mud.

She reminisced how quickly she had lost Patricia. Everything about it reminded Nell of the two incidents in life where she had been close to death. A dog that had suddenly died long before she had expected it to and her mother’s father who seemed to slip from life itself right when he had a solid grip on everything you need to do when you grow older.

She remembered all the sound and fury in the unbelievable death night, and she remember the hideous silence afterwards devoid of solace, impregnated with prospects of agonising realisations.

One of the last times she spoken with Patricia, she had felt sure their brittle connection would survive and grow strong. The young girl was at that event more exposed to her own peculiar damnation than ever before. She was studying as an exchange student at a Chinese university, but she felt rejected and out of place. She felt stupid amongst bright and younger kids with more promise.

What Nell knew but couldn’t tell was how much she admired Patricia for being innervated with a sensitive nature that transcended her personality. Patricia was a melody, a cry of desperation which when mixed with an ability to voice her pain became volatile.

Nell had in Patricia inspired a desire to reach up from the humdrum of her 26-year life and take courses in philosophy.

On hearing this, Nell knew she had forfeited a rare chance to unite with her own deepest yearning. She knew that starting as a student meant commencing a hectic life with little room for personal feelings, and she could imagine what it felt like being 26 in a room full of juveniles. Initially and for a while Nell thought Patricias trouble fitting in was her lucky break as Patricia called her and asking her to relive their creative and beautiful discourse.

Nobody could take that away, not their magical connection. When they gave way to talking in the middle of the night, it felt like they could talk forever. They brought a magic out in each other that rose over them as a radiant pale moon imbuing a visual timbre on every straw and every branch in the garden of human knowledge.

Together they reached depths that were beyond their limits on their own.

Depths that Nell very well knew were Patricia’s own personal hell.

What better thing to wish for Patricia than to escape that hell. Nell knew she would lose her when she at long last managed to settle in with her fellow students. And she would eventually. She would escape her hell and Nell would have lost a last chance at redemption. Each night Patricia didn’t call was a night exposed to the agonising truth that Patricia was growing distant from Nell’s fantasy of a warm embrace.

If she really loved Patricia, and god she loved her, she would not try to call her or resume dialogue.

The days between each call rapidly grew longer. Soon she received only text messages relaying ever more remote details. “Dear Nell, I switched from philosophy to sociology. I believe it suits me better. Wish me luck! Love you.”

Those last words were all Nell had ever dreamed of hearing, and of course, when they finally arrived, they held no meaning. Patricia was safe now. Safe studying sociology as a sociological insect.

Then finally Nell had admitted defeat and gone home to England.

Final chapters

She walked outside and stood in the rain. It was cold now. Give it a handful of years further, and she would have to be careful not to catch pneumonia.

Where was the angel of clarity? The distant shout in the night that yelled out and warned about an approaching pyroclastic cloud?

“Where are you my God”, she almost whispered there in the encroaching night. The rain soaked her dress and drenched her body and for incomprehensible reasons she felt like hands were touching her. “Sweet night, come and rape me”, she thought. No, she spoke it. “Victimise me as I dream of victimising others. Do unto me as I dream of doing onto others”. She could hear her own half-whispering, half-loud voice.

The rain stopped as a final act of cruelty by providence.

She went inside and took a shower and put on clean clothes. All for nothing, as she sensibly went to bed.

And she was almost, just barely alone. The only witness to the breathing outside her window was the branches scraping against the glass.

She woke up at three in the morning. Wide awake she stared into the ceiling and thought about sociology.

“What a pragmatic turn you took, didn’t you, dear Patricia. Why? Are you enjoying your new self?”

Her laptop had actual dust on the keys that she could blow off.

Subject: Why sociology, dear?

Hello Patricia.

I am sorry we lost contact. I was probably to blame if blame factors in.

I don’t want to disturb you when you are busy with your semester, but I have a few lonely nights and I did wonder why you switched to sociology when it was philosophy that so clearly captured your interest when we talked.

Your friend

N.

It felt futile, and the act did not bring about the expected sleepiness.

Hence she was awake when the answer arrived soon thereafter - China was after all ahead of England on the map of timezones. She stayed in bed and read it on the phone. Months ago she would have gotten up and religiously prepared for reading the message like she was in presence with the divine.

Subject: Re: Why sociology, dear?

You are right that I am busy, but I feel an answer is warranted.

Please don’t apologise. I am happy with my new direction. Sociology is less difficult. We learn so many great tools for understanding the world, and I can participate in the discussions on the same level as my fellow students. You would belittle it on philosophical grounds, and I didn’t want to put you in a situation where you were competing for my attention and certainly not one where you felt animosity towards what I now do in life.

I study hard and it has helped me ground my reality. In “our days” it was coming unhinged. I was more vulnerable than was good for any of us.

Critical Theory was very political and theoretical. Now I read Berger and Luckmann and pragmatic theories.

Rather than those days I wish a life that serves a useful purpose and an aim.

All the best

/Patricia

Remnants of lingering pain resurfaced immediately. Nell didn’t feel betrayed as she was unable to feel any animosity towards Patricia. If not for anything else, then for the sheer memory of what they had.

Instead she peered fearlessly into the pitch black night and spoke firmly: “Tell me your name angel. I have wrestled with you before and I will again. Now tell me your name.”

Nell was next on the list of people to become unhinged. Pain leaves nothing standing in its wake.

She flung the blanket away and got up. That book… pulling out boxes and crates and going through shelves until she found The Social Construction of Reality - 1966. She could hardly call that one modern. Nell sneered at the cover of the book. Here was the culprit that had stolen her happiness. How difficult could it be?

The Social Construction of Reality - Part 1, Part 2 chapter 1

Thomas Luckmann and Peter L. Berger build up their theory using tools from Husserl’s phenomenology and Saussure’s linguistics. The book describes two intermingled traits: The origin of our knowledge and the origin of institutions.

— Origins of knowledge —

Realities

Everyday reality is the paramount reality. Other realities appear as finite provinces of meaning.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY - p.37 - 1.1. THE REALITY OF EVERYDAY LIFE

The reality of everyday life is taken for granted as reality. It does not require additional verification over and beyond its simple presence.

Typification

Typification makes our everyday life cognitively manageable.

Objectivation

Objectivations are the result of intentional activities. They leave a trace in the world which can be detected by others and thus are a step on the way to objective reality.

Language, signs

Signs (language) is one such objectivation. Unlike other objectivations, signs are produced for no other purpose than to relay intentions to others and are detached from the here and now. Language produces knowledge clustered into separate semantic fields which thus becomes stocks of knowledge.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY - p.51 - 1.3. LANGUAGE AND KNOWLEDGE IN EVERYDAY LIFE

Signs and sign systems are objectivations in the sense of being objectively available beyond the expression of subjective intentions ‘here and now’.

Externalisation → objectivity

Objectivity is the result of us rediscovering our own objectivations. Our own creation seems foreign to us.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY - p.78 - 1.2 ORIGINS OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION

The process by which the externalized products of human activity attain the character of objectivity is objectivation.

[…] the relationship between man, the producer, and the social world, his product, is and remains a dialectical one. That is, man (not, of course, in isolation but in his collectivities) and his social world interact with each other. The product acts back upon the producer. Externalization and objectivation are moments in a continuing dialectical process.

— Origins of institutions —

Habitualisation, typification

When we work, we habitualise our actions. When we work with others, we reciprocally typify each others’s habitualised actions. I.e. we invent recognised ideas about what our fellow beings are doing.

Sedimentation

When generations changes, parents will confer habits onto their offspring as humans do. This process oversees the transition of knowledge in a simplified form. Sedimentation takes place. This of course happens with all knowledge, but they discuss it in the context of the lives of institutions.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY - p.86 - 2.1.3 - SEDIMENTATION AND TRADITION

The objectification of the experience in the language (that is, its transformation into a generally available object of knowledge) then allows its incorporation into a larger body of tradition by way of moral instruction, inspirational poetry, religious allegory and whatnot.

Language becomes the depository of a large aggregate of collective sedimentations, which can be acquired monothetically, that is, as cohesive wholes and without reconstructing their original process of formation.

Institutions

This is the origin of institutions.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY - p.72 - 2.1.2 ORIGINS OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION

Institutionalization occurs whenever there is a reciprocal typification of habitualized actions by types of actors. Put differently, any such typification is an institution.

[…]

The institution posits that actions of type X will be performed by actors of type X.

Roles

The book develops the reciprocal typifications of habitualised actions into roles.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY - p.91 - 2.1.4 - ROLES

We can properly begin to speak of roles when this kind of typification occurs in the context of an objectified stock of knowledge common to a collectivity of actors. Roles are types of actors in such a context. It can readily be seen that the construction of role typologies is a necessary correlate of the institutionalization of conduct.

The authors bridges the phenomenological space of experience with the institution as a body of knowledge. Micro level and macro level meets in the role:

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY - p.91 - 2.1.4 - ROLES

Institutions are embodied in individual experience by means of roles. The roles, objectified linguistically, are an essential ingredient of the objectively available world of any society.

By playing roles, the individual participates in a social world.

By internalizing these roles, the same world becomes subjectively real to him.

Thanks to our socialised dances, we not only keep the institution alive, we also live out its actions which are anchored in objectivity. Institutional roles when acted are “inside” us as meaning and understanding while we perform the role.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY - p.92-93 - 2.1.4 - ROLES

The institution, with its assemblage of ‘programmed’ actions, is like the unwritten libretto of a drama. The realization of the drama depends upon the reiterated performances of its prescribed roles by living actors. The actors embody the roles and actualize the drama by representing it on the given stage. Neither drama nor institution exist empirically apart from this recurrent realization.

She looked at the clock.

5 a.m. and she needed sleep before pretending to be able to stand on her own feet tomorrow and drive safely to her part time job. In due time she knew she was going to be fired. She was using up goodwill fast.

At least she got the first half of the book covered in one night. It trailed off into a wilderness of symbolic order discussions which Nell felt was out of place.

She had to email her notes to Patricia even though the roles had clearly been reversed.

Subject: Can you take a peek at my notes on The Social Construction of Reality?

Dear Patricia.

Thank you for explaining your decisions. I am sorry if I gave the impression of conducting an inquiry. I never meant to, and I can only wish for you the best possible life and I am happy that you have found yourself a place amongst people you can talk naturally with. I always suspected you could and I hope I encouraged you enough to try. Otherwise I apologise.

Can you believe that I already had that book they wrote, The Social Construction of Reality. It even contained a bookmark which must have meant I got half into it before putting it down.

I found my notes and was wondering if you could see how far from the mark I am? I consider you the better informed of the two of us now! (♥︎ sweet smile ♥︎)

See attached.

Your friend

N.

Now she could sleep.

New chapters

No new email ticked in from Patricia the next day. That was easy to interpret: Nell was now a point on a list, something that needed to be dealt with, but in prioritised order.

She read the chapters again and the rest of part 2. This was not philosophy, that much was clear. Pragmatic indeed. And if she tried to say anything not in the book’s favour, she was in trouble.

When she woke up the following day, she saw the email. It was sent sometime around 9 p.m. in Patricia’s timezone. Most likely Patricia had found time to answer sometime after dinner.

Subject: Re: Can you take a peek at my notes on The Social Construction of Reality?

The notes are indeed very sketchy, but the definitions seem to be in order. I did ask some of my friends to make sure.

I think it makes a lot more sense than chasing our own tails in some mind game that now has proven to be nothing but confused knowledge. Knowledge is just a product of social processes.

Don’t you think the book makes sense?

/Patricia

Did it make sense?

Nell leaned back and pondered her next move. The girl had not dismissed her outright. She gave a routine answer, but that beat outright unfriendliness towards a stalker anytime. For a very short moment Nell’s heart sent an inaudible message across the globe to all men secretly and unrequited in love via a hitherto unknown sub frequency mind channel. The message was received but remained below the level of consciousness.

Subject: Re: Re: Can you take a peek at my notes on The Social Construction of Reality?

Don’t you think the book makes sense?

Ouch, you got me.

Initially Berger and Luckmann builds a solid foundation for how ordinary cognition of everyday life could plausible evolve. They want to establish this very pragmatic approach to sociology without delving too deep into philosophy. Hence they melt Husserl, Saussure, Lacan and subsequent writers together to follow what happens in the mind of people living on an island.

Why not, it looks like a solid foundation.

All the more reason for me to complain when they go off-script and invent all sorts of explanations which I cannot for my life of it see reasonably grounded in their own basic approach.

One example is the whole related discussion about “representation” which seems to be dangerously close to completely thwart the whole phenomenological project!

Bracketing our nominal ideas about institutions (for instance by ignoring political science and all the “why’s” and “how’s”) we learn to see institutions as emerging typifications coming from a long series of actions, objectivations, self reflection over acts and the acts themselves typified into roles.

Good, let’s keep on progressing like that. Let’s relate everything to something that someone experiences.

Later they start to talk about how a judge sitting half a day adjudicating in conflicts represents the institution of law. Still fine with me. As we just talked about, this sense of “representation” is compatible with phenomenology: It translates into us seeing it and thinking:

“Ah, there goes Gregory again doing what the institution of law does on workdays.”

But when they talk about how a king “represents” the unification of institutions, it is starting to smell like they used phenomenology for a while to lay a foundation, but quickly resorted to good old fashioned calculation.

If the king should “represent” unification of institutions - and we must remain faithful to the phenomenological approach - each individual should be thinking:

“There goes Edward integrating all those institutions again. Boy, he never tires.”

But I probably just overthink it. We both know I am prone to do that.

Can you comment?

Your friend ♥︎

Nell

Were they wrong, those two, Berger and Luckmann, gentlemen sociologists? Did they not after all view humanity from exactly the lofty vantage point required to see through all our philosophising as nothing but legitimation of society as it had evolved?

Did she even disagree? Had she not lectured at some point to Patricia how rationality could theoretically be nothing but varnish shielding the real motives?

No, she hadn’t. She had never denied the existence of both lacquer and underlying wood.

She sent the email.

Nothing next morning.

A debate between a single woman and academia

The morning after an email arrived.

You always ask impertinent questions, don’t you ❋big smile❋

We recognise the king as representing the institution. So that would mean the book describes the reciprocal typification process of the kings habitualised behaviour. We really do think that Edward is up to his old tricks of integrating the kingdom’s institutions, when we look at him. The king experiences something else, but he really does think of himself as embodying the institution of uniting the kingdom’s institutions when he puts on this crown.

That’s how I see it anyway.

I also asked some of my fellow students. One of them offered this answer:

They are no longer describing the pre‑theoretical, taken‑for‑granted routines of everyday action, but the second‑order objectifications (theories, myths, constitutions, theologies) by which a society explains and integrates its own institutions.

“Representation” here is explicitly symbolic, not just “standing in for” a routine. It is part of the machinery of legitimation, not of simple typification.

/Patricia

Nell had not foreseen the possibility of arguing with the entire campus. Patricia was entrenched and in a good position to hold her ground.

And Nell was alone against the world, fighting as a duty bound foot soldier obeying an invisible colonel in the shadows commanding her to relinquish control and thrust herself into the raging battle for love.

And after all, Nell was alone and the books were piling up. She could hold her position against assault for the foreseeable future.

•P•A•R•A•D•O•X•