Peter Berger’sThe Sacred Canopyutilizes a version of societal constructivism as the foundational model of its statement. In conformity with his old work.The Social Construction of Reality.Berger’s version of societal constructivism provinces that human cognition is interpretable in societal footings since it is causally determined by assorted societal factors. Social world. in this sense. is seen as generated by the existent and through empirical observation discoverable fixed wonts of thought prevalent in a given society which are fixed since they are considered as the causal merchandise of certain facets of societal world.
In this instance. its “determinacy is derived from certain Torahs stipulating the causal. societal finding of cognitive processes” ( Berger and Luckmann 12 ) . This implies that human cognition is non dependent for its determinate content upon some infinite hierarchy of negotiated understandings. nor is it fixed by criterions of reason that are themselves comparative to the societal scene in which cognition evolves.
Harmonizing to Berger and Luckmann. “society is an nonsubjective world ( and ) adult male is a societal product” ( 23 ) . In other words. societal world is a human building since adult male and his wonts of idea are shaped by societal factors. Worlds create societal establishments. as they are iterated and typified. In this sense. societal world determines adult male but adult male besides determines societal world. Within this strategy. societal world is non a societal fact but it is something produced and communicated. Society is thereby a merchandise of worlds and worlds are merchandises of society.
However. it should be noted that. humanly constructed universes are invariably threatened by their creators’ “self involvement and stupidity” ( Berger 29 ) . If such is the instance. in order for society to keep order there is the necessity to explicate [ and in a sense concept ] internal supporting constructions. In Berger’sThe Sacred Canopy.he argues that legitimation stands as the most of import internal supporting construction ( 29 ) . Berger notes that legitimation stands as the principle for the creative activity of institutional agreements ( 29 ) .
This can be farther understood if one considers that legitimations belong to the nonsubjective side of our dialectic societal relationship. Through repeat and their nonsubjective position. legitimations continually reinforce the institutional agreements prevalent within a given society. Such a procedure stands as the ground tackle for the new [ the kids ] and the forgetful every bit good as for the periods of collective or single crisis where the head covering between intending and chaos grows peculiarly thin.
In the same mode that legitimations reinforce societal establishments. plausibleness constructions may besides be considered as upholding such legitimations. Plausibility structures refer to the specific societal procedures that continually reinforce and reconstruct both the legitimating universe every bit good as the consequence of such a universe [ the legitimated universe ] ( Berger 45 ) .
The correlativity between the plausibleness construction every bit good as the procedure of legitimations are apparent if one considers that when the plausibleness constructions are strong. the legitimations are simple and when plausibleness constructions are weak. the legitimations are stronger. Berger notes that faith [ as a societal establishment ] has been shown to take consequence in both state of affairss [ cases wherein the plausibleness constructions are strong and weak ] .
It is within the aforesaid context that Berger considers the strength of spiritual establishments. Berger notes. “Religion is the human endeavor by which a sacred universe is established” ( 25 ) . Such a statement can be understood if one considers that the staunchness of spiritual establishments lies in its ability to turn up human phenomena within a cosmogonic model thereby supplying the support for spiritual establishments a cosmopolitan [ in the sense of cosmic ] position. Such a position. due to its cosmopolitan cosmic character thereby has the capableness to exceed the mundane experiences of life thereby supplying a new dimension for the analysis of human experience ( Berger 35 ) .
Harmonizing to Berger. the importance of such is apparent if one considers that by supplying human being with assorted dimensions [ e. g. physical as opposed to the religious ] . the socialised person is given a model of understanding world [ in its different degrees ] that enables the premise of the possibility of the being of peace and security within his function in society. In line with this. Berger notes that to turn up an single outside the protective domains of a sacredly legitimated universe is equivalent to doing him “deal with the devil” ( 39 ) .
In conformity with the aforesaid map of faith. Berger notes that one of the grounds that religion serves. as a prevalent [ and effectual ] method of legitimation lies in its map as a powerful bureau of disaffection ( 87 ) . Alienation refers to a status wherein an single forgets that he is co-creator of his universe ( Berger 85 ) .
It is of import to observe that disaffection stands as “an overextension of the procedure of objectivation” in the dialectic relationship between ego and society ( Berger 85 ) . Berger notes that through the objectivation of legitimations. disaffection renders them virtually impregnable every bit long as an anomic witting can be maintained. Within such a context. de-alienation may merely happen as a consequence of the death of a peculiar institutional model.
In relation to this. Berger notes that the map of spiritual legitimation is that of enabling theodicy wherein theodicy refers to the accounts of the human status [ e. g. life and decease ] . Theodicy. in this sense. is extremely irrational since it necessitates a resignation of the ego to the ordering construction of society ( Berger 54 ) . See for illustration the most prevailing signifier of theodicy: Christian theodicy. Within the model of Christian theodicy. an omnipotent. omniscient. and ubiquitous entity [ God ] is depicted as enduring for humanity.
Such a theodicy is questionable in relation to the being and prevalence of assorted signifiers of catastrophes [ both natural and unnatural ] . In add-on to external attackers of spiritual plausibleness constructions. Berger argues that Protestantism itself carried the seeds for its ain devastation ( 129 ) . In its review of Catholicism. Protestantism enabled a more rational. individualistic universe divided into secular and sacred domains ( Berger 123 ) . As the layman sphere expanded to embrace everything outside of the church. Christianity became marginalized in a pluralistic society. It is within this context that the construct of pluralism arises.
Harmonizing to Berger. pluralism refers to “a social-structural correlative of the secularisation of consciousness” ( 127 ) . In add-on to Protestantism. industrialisation tends to take the political order off from the influences of faith ( Berger 130 ) . This procedure compartmentalized faith into the private universe making a pluralistic market state of affairs. Such a state of affairs thereby fails to enable the continuation of the cosmopolitan cosmogonic telling map of faith. This is apparent if one considers that within pluralistic conditions. assorted [ and different and sometimes contradictory ] conditions of truth exists. Such a status. harmonizing to Berger. leads to a relativistic construct of world which leads to a relativized theodicy and hence an unstable construct of world.
As was mentioned at the oncoming of this paper. the aforesaid construct of societal world rests upon the model of a socially constructed world. It is within the context of this model that I will measure the viability of Berger’s aforementioned claims as specified in his bookThe Sacred Canopy.Within the aforesaid context. a socially constructed construct of world fails on the evidences that it accounts for all organic structures of philosophy in a non-discriminatory manner. This is possible since Berger perceives “‘reality’ and cognition as ab initio justified by the fact of their societal relativity” . Schutz’s influence here is evident since such a construct is based upon an pictured being of “multiple realities” .
Rationality so is perceived as comparative in so far as the system allows the limit of persons into societal groups. which are seen as holding different constructs of reason “on a form of a orderly one to one correspondence” . However. if such a one to one corresponds occurs. how is it possible to see the conflicting frames of mention [ in relation to understanding world ] as different persons converge within a societal domain. In the aforesaid context. the persons specified may be specifically construed as persons who belong within different spiritual groups.
In a sense. the job with the above construct of world fails on the evidences that. in the same mode that a peculiar theodicy fails within a pluralistic society. such a construct of world fails within a pluralistic society itself since in order to presume the being of spiritual establishment as a institutional construction which enables legitimation. it is of import to account how such is possible within a society with changing [ yet conflicting ] theodicies.
This can be best understood if one considers that. the aforesaid construct of world fails on the evidences that even if it seems “to supply us with the fixed Torahs in footings of which the result of conjectural cognitive procedures can be determined” . these Torahs are fixed by the societal context of the cognitive procedure. This nevertheless leans towards a signifier of epistemological hierarchy since the Torahs will besides be constructed via a peculiar society’s presupposed impression of the being of societal building. In Collin’s words. “we can non specify societal fact as the merchandise of a conjectural social treatment ( since ) …the laws…would rely for this conjectural anticipation are themselves societal buildings. the result of social consensus” ( 23 ) . This thereby leads to the job of reasoning backward.
Plants Cited
Berger. Peter.The Sacred Canopy: Elementss of a Sociological Theory of Religion.New York: Anchor Press. 1990.
Berger. Peter and Thomas Luckmann.The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise of the Sociology of Knowledge.California: University of California Press. 1967.
Collin. Finn.Social Reality.London: Routledge. 1997.
