Internalisation and Social Structure

Everything in your life and around you is based on knowledge.

You do not simply go against knowledge. It is objectively real, so running against it is like running into a wall to move it. Even who we are ourselves is objectively real. That is why you can talk with the man in the barbershop about your circumstances as a blacksmith.

Of course, throughout human evolution there has never existed an “I”. What animal has ever needed one? Human, the animal gifted with language, can find her own existence objectivated by the community she lives in. Her brain must learn from others what and who this thing called “her” really is. It must also learn somehow what the thing called “I” is.

The “her” and the “I” can be in some kind of harmony, or they can be in incompatible disagreement.

If they disagree, they can do so in two ways: The “I” can be backed by a body of knowledge and a crowd of people who agree, or it can stand alone, unconfirmed and uncorroborated.

If the brain can apprehend this “I” as it is communicated via language and in accordance with objective consensus, then a symmetry can be established between society and individual. If the brain cannot apprehend this person with all that it entails, the subjective and objective reality are not in balance.

An immense struggle between the two can take place.

Socialisation can fail.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY - 3.2 - INTERNALIZATION AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE

By ‘successful socialization’ we mean the establishment of a high degree of symmetry between objective and subjective reality (as well as identity, of course).

Conversely, ‘unsuccessful socialization’ is to be understood in terms of asymmetry between objective and subjective reality.

Homogenous societies with little differentiation of knowledge

In some societies there are simply no competing realities of mention. Craftsmen may have their domains, but a broad understanding of how everybody fits in suffices for all.

Since every individual is confronted with essentially the same institutional programme for his life in the society, the total force of the institutional order is brought to bear with more or less equal weight on each individual, producing a compelling massivity for the objective reality to be internalized.

When do we detect that something is wrong with our reality? Visible dissent that has not been handled makes it clear that there really is another philosophy possible. This is different from the carpenter visiting the blacksmith and learning about his craft. They both know that they belong to the village and contribute something important. If they vanished, the place would suffer.

There is … no problem of identity. The question, ‘Who am I?’ is unlikely to arise in consciousness

This shows the power of objectivity. You cannot deny something real. You can abhor the reality, but you wouldn’t think of saying it isn’t real.

The sense of reality has no off switch. Once the brain recognises anything as “real” it takes on a massiveness that only a competing reality and a subsequent resocialisation (alternation) can challenge.

One was a miserable, perhaps even a rebellious peasant. But one was a peasant.

On the other hand, it means you are allowed to expand the scope of what a peasant does. A peasant can have mood swings and still be a peasant. In our society, a sprawling fabric of labels means you move around in identification on even small changes.

In this chapter, it becomes very clear that the notion of a self is a construction based on knowledge that must mesh with and extend from the society around the individual.

This is interesting, as the individual in question is acting out at least two very different behaviours, but without a conflict between subjective knowledge (his own knowledge of himself) and objective knowledge (the accumulated knowledge in the society under study). The man is being perfectly well the peasant, that we all know he is. The peasant doesn’t struggle against being a peasant. He does not say, “I don’t want them to see me as a peasant”.

This is different from the cripple or village idiot mentioned next.

He is imprisoned in the objective reality of his society, although that reality is subjectively present to him in an alien and truncated manner.

He may indeed say, “I don’t want them to see me as an idiot.” He may also act out in anger, thus fortifying the very communal knowledge about him.

To be sure, he may react to this fate with resentment or rage, but it is qua inferior being that he is resentful or enraged.

[…]

His resentment and rage may even serve as decisive ratifications of his socially defined identity as an inferior being, since his betters, by definition, are above these brutish emotions.

The village idiot is an inferior being. Q.E.D.

The only alternative is a change in reality. Changing reality is a dialectical process. You only acquire a new reality by learning a new reality backed by a different group. You never do it alone (unless you are a reality builder by nature, an intellectual).

That shift can happen if a sufficiently isolated group of people become socially isolated together. If they are poorly socialised (i.e., society’s objective reality is poorly reflected in their subjective reality), there is little stopping them from filling the void and inventing a new reality together. If their intellectual capacity is adequate, they may even start engulfing parts of the surrounding society’s reality.

As interaction with members of the society at large can still occur, a schism in realities can evolve, to pretend “they are right” while knowing that “we secretly know better”. This is a sort of reverse nihilation, a protection against a competing reality.

In other words, a cleavage appears between ‘appearance’ and ‘reality’ in the individual’s self-apprehension. He no longer is what he is supposed to be. He acts the leper — he is a son of god.

Heterogenous societies with higher differentiation of knowledge

If a child can learn from two incompatible realities in such a way that the child is forced to adapt both somehow, even though they are incompatible, an unsuccessful socialisation can result, for the simple reason that the subjective reality cannot possible be in agreement with both, let alone three or more.

Put differently, unsuccessful socialization may be the result of heterogeneity in the socializing personnel.

Children of divorced parents with widely different ideologies or religions are examples. While to both parents their own way of life may be deemed “the only truth”, the child is presented with the strange fact that at least two truths are available.

Note that for this to happen, a schism must also exist in society between the two adults’ realities.

If both men and women function as significant others in primary socialization, they mediate these discrepant realities to the child. This by itself does not raise the threat of unsuccessful socialization.

Both mother and father know that boys should be raised like boys (because boys will always be boys) and girls like girls.

The male and female versions of reality are socially recognized, and this recognition, too, is transmitted in primary socialization.

You can always consult the social bible and know approximately where you stand.

If you are aware that you should choose. What happens for a male boy growing up amongst mother and sister without “a male role model”, as they say? You risk the child adopting an effeminate attitude without being aware of it. Now he is in trouble.

His resulting ‘effeminacy’ may be either ‘visible’ or ‘invisible’. In either case, there will be asymmetry between his social identity assignment and his subjectively real identity.

Confronted with language and claims delivered by visitors in tune with society’s norms, he senses that something is ajar, but cannot put a finger on what it is. He may understand that he is “wrong” somehow, but is unable to articulate what should be changed.

Even something as well-known as fantasy realities and daydreams can be accounted for in this manner. If a primary socialisation is solid, the peasant knows he cannot be a knight.

Then a teacher comes along, who opens up the secrets of knighthood enough that it strikes a chord with the young dreamer. He abstains from trying but secretly develops a fantasy reality in which he uses his own imagination as plausibility structure.

The subjectively chosen identity becomes a fantasy identity, objectified within the individual’s consciousness as his ‘real self’.

Finally, there is pluralism, our world, where every position taken up, every role played, is somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

We are not the role we play. We just act the role. We can all switch jobs and change careers.

Everything becomes complicated in modern societies. It takes a great amount of computational power to track the many realities that penetrate our society and account for all contact surfaces each individual is exposed to on a daily basis.