Social constuction of reality and history

[Anahita]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

History is all about perspectives. As such, there are some versions that are more true than others, and yet some versions that simply reak of mindlessness of court historians. What history is taught is important as it is what molds the minds of the individual elements within that society. A society that is ignorant not only of its own history, but history in general, is a society that is lost. What do you want to know about history? It's relation to reality? That is too vague and somewhat incoherent. You need to specify your question.

I think what you are saying was said, or part of that, by Egoyan with Ararat.

PERSPECTIVES. Who is telling the truth? (Lots of Armenians were mad, more Turks were, with that movie... Many Armenians love the movie...etc)

But the mountain couldn't be seen from this place, in reality.

Yes, but it makes for the impact of the movie (and the reason I bring up the moutain, and the movie, here, too). But what makes for the movie for impact might really be irrelavant for some kid in Brazil who doesn't even know where Armenia is, let alone anything about some genocide (while literally millions of people are dying out of polically-imposed HUNGER>....

The bigger truth (much more than if the mountain could 'really' have been seen from that place at that time) matters lots, in big ways. History is about perspectives. History is ALSO about FACTS. I say teach facts and let people tell themsleves stories. Not tell stories and let people try to find (hope to figure out) the facts...

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

Reality ends at the end of your nose. Beyond that point everything is subjective.
Though with G. W. Bush, reality ends somewhere deep inside his brain.

[jgk3]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

the whole subjectivity and objectivity thing... How can you prove that your notions of things that are objective are not subjective, and vice versa!

Chose your system of faith or trust, or embrace multiple outlooks, so you can perceive all notions of what is true to yourself and what is not.

We try to express what really happens in our experience through history, but how can you possibly do so in a way that brings justice to an alternate outlook? Everyone has a mind of their own, everyone has their own psychological tendancies concerning memory and recovery of memory, thought patterns... If we somehow created a machine that could write history "accurately", perhaps we humans still wouldn't be satisfied with the result! We'd feel uneasy about it because it's so inhumanly accurate!

Is it fair that history must decide the outcome of the lives of innocent people (whether or not it is a good outcome or not is aside from the case)? Is it fair that the ideas of a selective few must decide their outcome?

Well, that's the dilemma, we can't escape this injustice, but it just seems to get worse with globalization as more and more people become involved in this grand book of history and knowledge.

All this philosophizing doesn't take you very far either, just as Anonymouse would suspect... My father would say, "If that's an open mind, then CLOSE IT!".

[Anonymouse]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

I think what you are saying was said, or part of that, by Egoyan with Ararat.

PERSPECTIVES. Who is telling the truth? (Lots of Armenians were mad, more Turks were, with that movie... Many Armenians love the movie...etc)

But the mountain couldn't be seen from this place, in reality.

Yes, but it makes for the impact of the movie (and the reason I bring up the moutain, and the movie, here, too). But what makes for the movie for impact might really be irrelavant for some kid in Brazil who doesn't even know where Armenia is, let alone anything about some genocide (while literally millions of people are dying out of polically-imposed HUNGER>....

The bigger truth (much more than if the mountain could 'really' have been seen from that place at that time) matters lots, in big ways. History is about perspectives. History is ALSO about FACTS. I say teach facts and let people tell themsleves stories. Not tell stories and let people try to find (hope to figure out) the facts...

Facts in and of themselves are meaningless. It is only when placed in narratives and perspectives, stories and interpretations, consciousness and the psychology of peoples that history even remotely begins to make sense. The sentence "I say teach facts and let people tell themsleves stories. Not tell stories and let people try to find (hope to figure out) the facts..." is misinformed at least, arrogant at best. History is not, never was, and never will be about "facts". You want facts? Watch Jeopardy.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

the whole subjectivity and objectivity thing... How can you prove that your notions of things that are objective are not subjective, and vice versa!

Chose your system of faith or trust, or embrace multiple outlooks, so you can perceive all notions of what is true to yourself and what is not.

We try to express what really happens in our experience through history, but how can you possibly do so in a way that brings justice to an alternate outlook? Everyone has a mind of their own, everyone has their own psychological tendancies concerning memory and recovery of memory, thought patterns... If we somehow created a machine that could write history "accurately", perhaps we humans still wouldn't be satisfied with the result! We'd feel uneasy about it because it's so inhumanly accurate!

Is it fair that history must decide the outcome of the lives of innocent people (whether or not it is a good outcome or not is aside from the case)? Is it fair that the ideas of a selective few must decide their outcome?

Well, that's the dilemma, we can't escape this injustice, but it just seems to get worse with globalization as more and more people become involved in this grand book of history and knowledge.

All this philosophizing doesn't take you very far either, just as Anonymouse would suspect... My father would say, "If that's an open mind, then CLOSE IT!".

My thoughts exactly.

I would furthermore add, there is no such thing as history that has no bias, or for that matter journalism that is supposedly "objective".

[jgk3]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

yeah, definately, and if we had non-biased history or journalism (pumped out from some kind of machine), god knows if humans are ready for it.

[Anahita]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

Facts in and of themselves are meaningless. It is only when placed in narratives and perspectives, stories and interpretations, consciousness and the psychology of peoples that history even remotely begins to make sense. The sentence "I say teach facts and let people tell themsleves stories. Not tell stories and let people try to find (hope to figure out) the facts..." is misinformed at least, arrogant at best. History is not, never was, and never will be about "facts". You want facts? Watch Jeopardy.

I understand. History is all about storytelling around a set of facts. You and I might have identical facts, but come up with very different narratives based on those. e.g., Did Columbus ‘discover’ or ‘invade’ the Americas?

I tried to locate one of my favorite journal articles, “Dragnet Ecology,” but I didn’t find it (only the abstract) on the web. That article talks about how scientific storytelling (though few scientists are aware, or will admit, that they do much more that simply ‘state the facts.’) The quality of a historical, or scientific, narrative is based first on quality factual information (accurate data) and then on the narrative told about that data. So, whether in history or science, the story told based on the facts has various characteristics that may (or may not) qualify the perspective as a quality (powerful/reasonable) perspective.

Allen, T.; Tainter, J. et al. Dragnet Ecology: "Just the Facts, Ma'am": The Privilege of Science in a Postmodern World. BioScience. 2001; 51(6):475-485.

ABSTRACT: During the past few years, a few outspoken scientists have taken it upon themselves to defend science from postmodern critics on the "academic left." The irony is that these opponents of the "flight from reason" often use the same kind of overblown, simplistic rhetoric they so strongly condemn in others. Although we certainly do not agree with every postmodern critique of science, we invite scientists to move beyond bickering and explore the literature of science studies for themselves.

[I found this short article in the google search for Dragnet Ecology. I thought it was somewhat interesting:
Just the facts, Ma'am: empirical vs. rationalist approaches to understanding
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...93072#continue ]

there is no such thing as history that has no bias, or for that matter journalism that is supposedly "objective".

Reality ends at the end of your nose. Beyond that point everything is subjective.

There is an objective reality. People do not have direct access to that reality, though. Everything anyone sees and thinks is filtered through experience, words, prior knowledge, and so on. There is no such thing as an observer-free observation (and all observers have different kinds and levels of bias.)

[jgk3]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

I really know what they mean about post-modernists using the same techniques that they so vehemently attack... That's a dilemma for post modernists... Their only alternative to reason is irrationality, and when people act irrationally, they'll suffer criticism from the rational community! Way to go!

[Anahita]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

Oh, Lilly likes Beatles songs
The words are off, but they don't feel that wrong

Hey, Little Lilly, don't believe everything you see.
It’s only real if you believe. (Widespread Panic)

And, I also understand this odd issue of 'objective journalism.' I was the editor for a college newspaper in Tennessee. There was a campus that had a 'sculpture' at the administrative building of four people being hung. Many students and faculty, through the years, expressed disgust at a ‘lynching as art’ being displayed on campus. I decided to run material (articles, op ed, etc) on the issue. A couple of students were upset with the paper because my editorial decision was NOT to give EQUAL time to the ‘lynching is a part of history’ perspectives. (I did, though, offer to let them do an op ed of their own, if they wanted their perspectives heard. They never did.) Several thousand campus members disgusted by the sculpture and about two very vocal people were not (they didn’t argue for free speech (this wasn’t the issue in this case), but just were upset because they ‘liked’ the sculpture. Those two were upset because I didn’t give ‘equal weight’ to ‘both sides’ of the issue. The sculpture was removed. There are almost never only two sides to any issue.

[Sidenote, I feel this is, in some ways, similar to the major problem I see with PBS panel discussion.]

[Anonymouse]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

I really know what they mean about post-modernists using the same techniques that they so vehemently attack... That's a dilemma for post modernists... Their only alternative to reason is irrationality, and when people act irrationally, they'll suffer criticism from the rational community! Way to go!

It looks like the post-modernists dug themselves in a grave.

With that said, the question of irrationality is a case in point. In the modern world from science, to academia, from atheists to public speakers and pundits, the idea of rationalism, is ipso facto accepted as the way, and the only interpretation of coming up with correct answers. Little do these advocates of the rational and the logical realize, their claim to truth is merely a perspective in a world perspectives.

I do not have problems so much with rationality, but rationalism is entirely a different creature; it is the dogma of reason and that through reason alone can anyone possibly reach answers. As you may be aware, the entire bedrock of science and philosophy rests on this assumption. It was only Nietzsche's Dionysian waves that briefly came and formed a dent in philosophy's Apollonian rhythm with its obsession on the rational and the logical.

So anything that claims faith and belief in something that cannot be explained through the prism of rationalism or reason, through the musical notes of logic and 'evidence' is thereby labelled as "irrational". But it is precisely from these irrational forces that society has always received its creative energy, its "will to power". Without it, society is lost and hopeless. Rationalism, or what we call modernity (since rationalism is the touchstone of modernity), believes in nothing. It's god is skepticism and its goddess is doubt. It's satan is faith and it's hell is the irrational. Belief in anything, in other words, is the opposite of rationalism.

This application can be evidenced in the geopolitical world around us. The West is now at war with the "irrational" Muslim world, a "Clash of Civilizations" as Huntington remarked. The Muslim enemy that the West is fighting is an amorphous enemy made up of decentralized pockets. A conventional army cannot defeat and historically has always had difficulty defeating decentralized enemies. Add to that the powerful stimulis that is the rechargeable battery behind the movement - an irrational belief in a world beyond this world, a government not of this earth and a God that is not earthly - then you have a force that is defeating the Western world in any way you can name because people who believe in something will always defeat people who believe in nothing at all. And people who believe in something will always fight with more ardor and faith than people who believe in nothing. And hence, spreading Western "values" and "Democracy" to a people and a culture with a different mentality and belief system, is a fools game.