The Nature And Development Of Socially Constructed Thoughts
Mankind developed linguistically to explain and harmonize the unknown. To our perspective, everything was already established naturally; we “only” uncovered the pre-existing “laws” of the cosmos and attached names to it simply for human comprehension. However, in succumbing to this “essentialist” thinking, humans have forgotten that their interpretations are unique only to their own species. All evidences that serve as the foundational basis to social functions have been raised by humans, meaning the human attribute of errors and omissions are to be present within those social structures. Our descriptions of the universe have to be socially constructed; the gears of society are entirely developed based upon our own limited understandings of nature and our own specialized applications to those understandings. The cultures are modified and implemented appropriately as additional discoveries are made, but these practices are bound to the social sphere of mankind.
In order to institute any socially constructed “thoughts” into the communal network to become part of human reality, there has to be a unified acceptance. The medium in which civilization functions and allows for communicable thoughts, language, becomes the most important asset to social construction. The construction of any belief first stems from the recognition of that belief through observation, and for the belief to become socially accepted, requires a form of linguistic delivery. The analogy of the theory is applied fittingly based on its assumed benefits towards society. The formations and implementations of these theories normally contain social assumptions; manifested “categories” that intersect with the theories help in unconsciously eliciing social bias that mislead people into thinking the theories are naturally innate. In order for these misinterpretations to occur, an already established set of foundational social categories has to exist. These are usually groups, clusters, and phenomenons in society that people sort and name into categories. Race, class, and intelligence are all prime examples of categories that people perceived to have been naturally constructed and exploited to justify their beliefs. Thus, awareness of the primary thought is necessary for the system of categorical naming to start social construction.
The perceived “ideas, speculations, or theories” are “reified” into our social reality. These thoughts are “named” and brought into our social reality, often due to the logical and evidential aspect of the “named” category. The coherence of the idea persuades the audience to accept the social construction to such far extent that it feels naturally constructed and irrefutable, although a dominant force is also required for a large audience to fully embrace the new ideas. Usually, the authority that implements the ideas believes there are benefits, selfish or altruistic, to its application. The industrial implementation of the ideas are “institutionalized” into the very fabric of society and expectedly become our reality, although the extent to its institutionalization are circumstantial and constantly evolving with time. Interestingly, although the theories and ideas are socially constructed in nature, its consequences are authentic. If the ideas are imperative to social order, there are legal ramifications; if the theories are seemingly controversial, there are social ramifications. Despite the human origins of socially constructed ideas, many of the social constructs (calendar, time. . . etc) are not detrimental, but rather very constructive to social functions, precisely constructive that we deem it essential. It is the social constructs that have been the roots of malignance that demands the reminder of its artificial origins, and thus, its changeable nature.
One notable category that has been revisited due to its negative social undertone is illness. Illness is distinct in its general definition; it encompasses disorders and syndromes that have contentious social derivations and consequential repercussions. Conrad and Barker, in their paper, “The Social Construction of Illness: Key Insights and Policy Implications, ” expound upon the origin of illnesses, specifically in the peculiar feature for illnesses to be shaped by “social interactions, shared cultural traditions, shifting frameworks of knowledge, and relations of power. ” The very fact that some source of illnesses proceeds from the observable distinction between abnormality and normality in terms of reasonable human behavior and cannot be explained with “purely biological reasons” have configured unfavorable social stigmas to “ill” patients. The problem with these social stigmas, Conrad and Barker explains, is its impediment to the social well-beings of patients’ everyday life.
Although the authors somewhat criticizes and raise concerns for the negative stigmas associated with illnesses, they fail to eloquently express the preventive functions of negative stigmas; the major habits that lead to some illnesses are rightfully associated to prevent others from following the same footsteps. The possible psychological impact of illnesses can serve as a motivation to cultivate a healthier lifestyle. These negative stigmas, however, can be antithetical; its functions, while deterrent, may impede upon already ill patients.
The complications of illnesses rises from the feature that being simply diagnosed affects the patient's’ ability to contain their illnesses. The negative connotation attached to some illnesses (even if rightfully placed) forces the patients to reshape their identity that now encompasses the illness. Society justifies the negative stigmas attached to some ill patients. Regardless of its accuracy, these implications are regressive; while being preventive to healthy adults, its detrimental to unhealthy adults. Negative associations may even lead to social pushback, contrary to its intentions, and become discouraging to the self betterment of ill patients. Wrongful methods in deterrence, e. g. , fat shaming, can lead to the acceptance of abnormality, e. g. , fat pride, which, rather than fixing the problem, help normalize it. In order for negative stigmas to be constructive, it requires the sacrifice of the ill; this method of prevention is not wholesome for the improvement of patients and does not seem to offset the benefits. In viewing illnesses as black or white, society completely ignores the social aspect associated with the illnesses; they view it as a biological abnormality that naturally progresses and can be somewhat medically fixed. Some illnesses are too general in its symptoms to be effortlessly explained as a “disorder” that can be solved with over-the-counter pills. Yet, in defining the illnesses broadly, society preserves the negative stigmas and industrializes the temporary medications (ADHD, adderall).
Disregarding other social factors that contribute to illnesses applies immense pressure upon the medical system. Instead of medicalizing every problem, fixing the social environment that fostered the illnesses in the first place can alleviate the medical system. Illness is a form of social construct; people can challenge the dissenting and inherent nature of illnesses by first recognizing its existence is not naturally formed.
