Lucas D. Sayre

CORE211- McCabe

November 14, 2001

 

The Error of ‘Societal Constructionism’

                        When one sets upon the task of analyzing a particular society’s general strengths and weaknesses, two extreme positions limit the scope of possible conclusions. The first position is the view that society has totally strayed from a healthy and positive path, leading to its mediocrity. The second position holds that society is nearly perfect and that it is in all ways fundamentally sound. Most people’s opinions will fall somewhere in between these two extreme positions. Furthermore, placing a value on society in general is a relative endeavor. Each person’s values will be specific (to some degree) to that individual. Therefore, an important goal in any analysis of society is to declare these values based on some objective reasoning.

                        In The Politics of Scarcity by William Ophuls and The Spell of the Sensuous by David Abram, the first position of society at large is presented. (Society in this context refers to the European/American society in which we live). Each author argues to some extent that our society is fundamentally flawed and needs dramatic correction. I contend that their view is incorrect. It is based on an analytical method I deem ‘societal constructionism.’ That is, society is so far askew from its correct tract that it must be constructed in a new form.

Contrarily, my view is closer to the second aforementioned position. It holds that natural, innate forces guide society’s underlying fundamentals in the right direction. While society does have problems, it does not have any basic flaws that would warrant the construction of completely new foundational principles, as Ophuls and Abram tend to suggest.

To understand the guiding forces behind society’s progression, one must look at the motivation behind the actions of the individual. At the root of any human’s motivation is his or her will to survive. This is apparent in an infant as well as an adult in most cases. Once a young infant has touched a hot stove, he will learn not to touch it again because of the pain that was inflicted. This feeling of pain, and resulting emotion, are built into the child in his biological make-up. Also, when a parent tells a child to stay away from strangers because they may cause harm, the parent does not have to explain why harm to oneself is a negative thing. In almost every child exists the urge to resist harm and protect his own life.

Adults, not including suicidal individuals, also have this will to survive. However, the will encompasses greater aspects of the adult’s life and takes on a more complex nature. The will to survive surpasses the simple protection from harm, such as the act of jumping from the path of a speeding car. An adult must also worry about providing sustenance and shelter for herself. She takes on an occupation to provide such sustenance and avails herself of the necessary resources. Further, an adult will make important decisions to maintain survival. She will move to another area if her land was ruined by draught or create a new tool to utilize in some fashion.

Society may be defined as simply a multitude of people connected in some fashion. It may consist of only a few people, but in most contexts refers to a large number of people (i.e. thousands, millions). It is shaped by the characteristics of its constituent members as well as the manner in which the members interact. As a result, society’s progression is not only influenced by the motivation of its comprising individuals, but also by the nature of the interactions thereof.

The processes that occur within a society are largely shaped by each person’s will to survive, as previously discussed. Take the following example. One man is a farmer. All he has is his fields. He knows how to plant crops and reap the harvest. He has abundance in grain and corn, but no meat or dairy products. A second man does not live on very flat land but is quite experienced at raising cattle including dairy cows. Each man, in the general interest of survival, decides to trade with the other. For the proper balanced nutrition needed for the health of their families, each man needs the products that the other is able to produce. The preceding was an example of an elementary societal relationship.

Over time, the population of the earth has dramatically increased. Although, current studies show that it will reach a natural cap. This fact combined with improved transportation and communication technology has “shrunk the world.” This is to say that interactions between different people have increased a significant amount. While this reality may aid such endeavors as the simple trading relationship between the two farmers, it may also lead to conflict. People are bound to disagree on certain matters as property, fair value for a product, etc. Over time, laws have replaced anarchy in many societies, including the European/American one. Wars, uprisings, and duels have been replaced by laws, police, and courts. Consensus, compromise, and democracy have led to the creation of governments within our society. The Constitutional Convention is a fine example. At this undertaking a consensus was reached that the Articles of Confederation were insufficient to properly govern the United States. This consensus led to the convention in the first place. Second, compromise was needed. The members disagreed on important issues such as slavery and representation. They formed compromises that benefited each side to some extent. Finally, democracy was important. The founders eventually took votes on different plans, and included a democratic system into the Constitution itself.

Consensus, compromise, and democracy (or some variation thereof) facilitate the collective will of the people. Of course, no system is perfect, however, members in such a society do have input and influence the actions of their government and the direction of the society in general. The process is sloppy, sometimes involving revolts and riots, but nonetheless exists. So, what conclusion may be made? The following natural forces have guided the construction of our society: the individual will to survive, the social interaction between people in the form of trade and services, and the replacement of anarchy with democratic government. These forces must be considered along with the fact that our society represents the collective will of the people. The following conclusion may be made: society reflects the collective will to ensure the survival of each person.

While negative aspects such as greed, hate, and crime exist within individuals as well as society, they are contrary to the public good and are resisted via laws and government. Hitler, in Nazi Germany, embodied many of these negative aspects. Yet, he did not triumph. The world fought a war to regain normalcy. Ophuls fails to realize this ability. His example of the common pasture (Ophuls, 98) is flawed in that it does not grant individuals enough intellectual credit. It also does not recognize the power of the collective will of people in a democratic society. In his example, the people will realize the imminent destruction of the pasture given the increasing number of cattle. They will make an agreement with each other to limit the number of cattle each contributes. In essence, they formed consensus and made a compromise.

This also occurs today when we perform scientific studies, make laws, and punish offenders. Therefore, when Ophuls calls for the construction of a brand new society, with different governmental and economic structures, he is in error. He provides no evidence that modern society would be incapable of handling collective problems regarding scarcity of resources. Rather, he just focuses on an example in which he has placed unnatural limits on the abilities of the people involved. Based on his reasoning, he suggests that future society will have to have a dramatically different socio-political landscape. In doing so, he commits the error of ‘social constructionism.’

David Abram also commits this error. In his Spell of the Sensuous he provides a poetic discourse on the beauty of nature. He describes the wonders of the animals, plants, and landscape, and how they communicate messages to each other and to us. The grandeur of a mountain, the grace of an eagle, and the efficient function of a plant all give us deep insight into the majesty and enormity of the creation in which we coexist. He is right in pointing this out, however he oversteps his argument when he says that modern society is ‘radically detached’ from non-human nature. He fails to mention several activities that people undertake to gain proximity with nature. Such activities including mountain field studies trips, hiking vacations, and the simple act of watching a nature show. Transcendental literature and cubist painting both show an appreciation in European/American society for the unique aspect of nature. Both include the idea of non-linear time and a holistic perspective of our world. Abram also puts unreal expectations on the interaction between people and non-human nature:

For since the other animals themselves speak, they can also hear and understand our own talking. We must be careful what we say about animals, especially when they are nearby. (Abram, 151).

 

By saying our society is ‘radically detached’ from nature he implies that some radical change is needed to reattach ourselves. By setting unreal expectations and failing to recognize our endeavors at being close to nature, his call for radical change is unwarranted. He also commits the error of ‘social constructionism.’

                        While ‘social constructionism’ often has sincere motivations, it is misguided because it does not correctly interpret the current social situation or it calls for another social system based on non-realities. The task of criticizing society is important. It leads to reform in areas that may currently have problems. However, when taken to an extreme, such ideas materialize as ‘social constructionism’ and may only serve to mislead. The effect of any social program is difficult to determine. Therefore, any social change must be based on a lengthy examination of history, the will of the people at large, and a thorough line of reasoning, not social constructionism.