A Justice Site
The Concept Depends on the Context
RESOURCES: Community Building - Visual Sociology - Message Building
RESPOND: Transform-dom: Open Discussion Group on Yahoo
SEARCH: - Site Index - Topics Index - FAQS on Navigating Site
FACULTY ASSISTANCE: Letters of Recommendation - Susan - jeanne
UWP Criminal Justice Dept. - CSUDH Dept. of Sociology
| Merriam-Webster Dictionary Search: |
California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: December 10, 2006
Latest Update: December 30, 2006
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu
Visual Messages: Conceptual ArtWe learn socially. Our parents respond to our needs and teach us their customs when we are very young. Other relatives join in that socialization as we grow. And eventually our peers bring their unique experiences to what we learn. No one ever tells us who "DaDa" is in a text book. We learn that by trial and error and interpretation of what others tell us model for us.
No one ever sits us down and gives us a textbook definition of "truth," even though our courts would seem to think so when they as us what the difference is between "right" and "wrong." Try writing a definition of "right" and "wrong." You'll see how hard it is to do. Try writing that definition for someone who has been held in Guantanamo for 18 months, and who was picked up and sent there just because he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Can you see that his definition of "right" and "wrong" might not fit ours at all at that point in our relatinship to him?
Truth, in other words, is a socially-constructed concept. Our understanding of "truth" depends on the experiences we have had in different contexts that may be unique to us. Our understanding of "truth" may change a little, or a lot, as we have new experiences that add to what we have already learned. The "truth" my parents explained to me may change when a teacher explains the difference between "right" and "wrong," especially if the teacher is focusing on what factors lead us to tell what someone else considers "wrong," or a "lie," or an incorrectly interpretation of authority.
Truth, as told to me by someone else, requires that the someone else have interpreted the message correctly. Truth, when it interprets an authority, is always open to alternative interpretations of that authority and to the interpretations that authority made of any source that it interprets. Remember the game, "rumor," where what is rumored changes a little as each one whispers to the next what they think the rumor is? When truth is passed on from one to another, truth is subject to the same misinterpretations and misheard bits of message as "rumor." Sometimes written words help eliminate some of the errors; but communication is rarely, if ever, perfect.
One way to avoid offering misinterpretations and misheard bits of message in sharing our knowledge is to remind those with whom we share that there are other interpretations, other versions, and leave that ambiguity to the further investigation of those who wish to know more. In the classroom, and in governance discourse, we want always to encourage others to learn as many interpretations, or at the very least, the most common interpretations, so that they can decide for themselves. Educators and those who mean to share their learning in the interest of better community action for the community good offer you choices, and understanding of what those choices actually mean, both in the short term, and in the long term, so that you can choose what matches your own set of values effectively in determining community action.
Most of us spend most of our time and almost all our serious discussion time with a limited cricle of people we "know," work with, went to school with, friends, family. That means that we encounter the "truth," as it is interpreted in social contexts that we share. But our communities in America today are diverse. There are truths out there that we do not hear in the contexts we share with our limited circle. Repositionable stickers present a way to bring those many diverse truths to our attention in a community setting. (Repositionable, so as not to deface the property to which they are stuck.) They convey their message visually, making them quick to grasp, and, hopefully, encouraging us to talk about the issues they identify.
Discussion Questions
- A sociological term for sharing socially-constructed concepts with young children?
Socialization.
- Why don't we just tell people what the concept means?
Consider that our explanation (interpretation) of the concept is socially-constructed, meaning that we have to pull a definition out of the sum total of experiences we have had that have led us to understand that concept. That's hard to put into a defintion, especially if the explanations for the behavior consist of "Don't do that; you're not supposed to do that; I said not to do that." What, then, is that?
- In what sense is "truth" relative?
Consider that our understanding of truth is gathered from the experiences we have had within the limited social context that is made up of our family, school, home, community. The experiences of someone who lives in a very different social context (like an indigenous tribe on a reservation) will have had different experiences and is likely therefore to define the socially-constructed truth differently.
- What about "religious truth?"
Consider that most people believe the tenets of their religion are absolute. Is it true that the religion's truth is absolutely true.? Yes. One of the tenets of religion is that the religion provides "truth," and a sense of "what really matters," absolutely.
- Then, how can their be more than one religion?
Consider that there are many social contexts, even within a given religion. Consider all the different Christian sects, all the different Muslim sects, etc. Each grows out of a different social context. Within any given social context the "religious truth" is absolutely true. But there are many different contexts that insist on a different "truth." Each of them may be absolute within its own context. For the relationship of a given person to his/her given religion, such absolute faith in their religious truth satisfices. They can live comfortably within whatever limitations the religion dictates. But for those who cannot live comfortably with that "religious truth" the answer is alignment with a different religious truth. Consider, for example, the Anglican Episcopalians who have left the English Anglican Church, and affiliated with the African Anglican Church over their disagreement over the absolute exclusion of homosexual practice. Different social contexts; different beliefs and versions or interpretations of truth arise within a single church population. In this case, American Episcopalians.
Recall "cognitive dissonance." When the inner self is disturbed by a conflict like "absolute truth" and "homosexuality," the human moves to relieve that dissonance by choosing a religion that resolves the conflict. The American Episcopalians accepted homosexuality as not between them and the homosexuals, but between God and the homosexuals. They chose not to judge. The African Episcopalians refuse to accept homsexuality as between God and the homosexuals, and insist upon excluding the homosexuals from their church. Best way to resolve that might be to separate, as they have moved to do, since none of us has access to God's belief.
Now, I have chosen to explain this as how each church has chosen to exclude, on the basis of what God believes, or on the basis of what they believe. Some other will choose to explain this as what God "said" in the Bible. For some, that interpretation will make it easier to make the judgment to which I refer instead of leaving the judgment to God. That interpretation, however, fails to deal with the issue that none of us can "know" who said what 2000 years ago.
References:
- Why We Need to Look at Sources Incudes Muslim take on religion and democracy and on politics and the Christian right.
