Reality as a Social and Linguistic Construction

Reality can be viewed as both linguistically constructed and socially constructed, despite the fact the two concepts are markedly different. Although the linguistic and social elements of life, and therefore a human being's reality, intertwine and affect one another, the two cannot be said to be one and the same. The linguistic construction of words, from the very inception of language, has given meaning to what would otherwise merely be abstract concepts. Words also enable the delineation of emotion, complex ideas and theories thereby defining humanity's perception of reality. Language serves as a type of filter for reality, allowing communication and thought, while providing meaningless answers to deep questions, to stop people from being overwhelmed by reality. Socially, the rituals, regulations and taboos that guide human reality, while differing from group to group, exist in common throughout all races of people. The relationships formed by a person throughout their life, give meaning to their existence, and on a more basic level, confirm an individuals own reality. The need for human interaction, to form complex social groups, can be simply described as an attempt to socially construct our own reality.

It is overly simplistic to describe reality as being either linguistically constructed or socially constructed, because the truth lies somewhere in between the two. The fact that reality cannot be clearly defined can cause the misconception that linguistic construction and social construction are the same thing. This is simply not the case. The linguistic construction of reality refers to the effect language has on our perception of reality, whereas social construction refers to how relationships with others impact on an individuals reality. (DeVito, 1994). This means that since the discussion at hand relates to the construction of reality, and not the perception of reality, the social and linguistic aspects must be viewed as separate entities in said construction. An example of the aforementioned linguistic construction, to further illustrate this point, is the instant mental connection and clarity of communication one can receive upon hearing the word "seven". This word is a description of a number of objects, and for anyone with even a basic understanding of the english language, this word conveys meaning from one completely separate mind to another. This example, while perfectly illustrating one aspect of linguistic construction, does not aid in the understanding of social construction, thus once again underlining the fact that the two are completely separate concepts. An example of social construction of reality is the bond that exists between biologically unrelated friends. There is no genetic link between this these types of friends to explain the connection. Nor, in the case of platonic friends, can biological reproductive urges explain this relationship. This relationship exists because of the human desire to socially construct their reality. These examples make it clear, that while the two might overlap on occasion, linguistic and social construction are two different and separate concepts.

When examining linguistic construction of reality, it is necessary to consider the history of language, rather than merely the etymology of certain words. The evolution of language is a development that is unique to humanity amongst all animal species, which naturally arouses curiosity as to why this is the case. All other animal species manage to communicate without the benefit of language. This is because human beings are of a higher order of intelligence than every other species. Thus the need to communicate complex thoughts and ideas developed. From this point, it was an obvious and logical step, toward the forming of a language. As this language developed, so did the ability to define thought and emotion, through language. (Farrell, 1979). This definition allowed greater understanding of reality, through words which held a shared meaning. This, of course, relates back to semiotics. To more clearly show this point, take the example of the events collectively referred to as the Cronulla Riots. The event that caused the simmering racial tensions to explode into outright violence was the physical beating of a lifeguard. It is important to remember that this type of violence had occurred before, between all races, on the Cronulla beaches. What made this attack different was the fact that the man was a lifeguard. In Australian society, the word "lifeguard" has extremely strong, positive semiotic value. Upon hearing that men of Middle Eastern appearance had beaten a lifeguard, hundreds of people gathered to make their disapproval known. From this point on the violence was inevitable. This example shows us how the history of language causes words to take on a deeper, symbolic meaning, which in turn controls how we construct our reality.

Language allows the crystallisation of thought and emotion. Philosophy would not be possible without language. Questions of ethics and morality could not be comprehended, let alone answered, without words. Language allows a broader range of thought, with more depth. One great proponent of this theory was George Orwell, famous science fiction novelist. In his novel 1984, Orwell suggested that thought was made possible by language, as was emotion. (Orwell, 1949). If language was pared down to nouns and verbs, getting rid of all adjectives and other unnecessary words, people would not be able to emote or think. For example, a person could not feel sad when they did not know any words to describe that feeling. A person, who was unfamiliar with the concept of, or even the word, "justice" or "democracy", could not complain about their government. This idea goes to the very heart of the idea of a linguistically constructed reality. Words are symbolic of ideas that are common to the human experience. Thusly people view reality through the language they choose to use to describe it.