Social constructionism holds that knowledge, be it of self or phenomenon, is socially constructed. In their influential book The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Berger and Luckmann (1966) observe that common knowledge, which is usually not questioned in many social contexts, is a social construct arising from daily social interaction among people. Therefore, knowledge is not a given but a creation of reality based on social interaction and on-going inquiry on what currently is. Of interest to Berger and Luckmann is how knowledge is produced; they stress that:
the theoretical formulations of reality, whether they be scientific or philosophical or even mythological, do not exhaust what is 'real' for the members of a society.
Since this is so, the sociology of knowledge must first of all concern itself with what people 'know' as 'reality' in their everyday, non- or pre-theoretical lives. In other words, common-sense 'knowledge' rather than 'ideas' must be the central focus for the sociology of knowledge. It is precisely this 'knowledge' that constitutes the fabric of meanings without which no society could exist (1966:27).
Knowledge is mainly produced from what people ordinarily regard as ‗reality‘ which in many instances is the normative or popular understanding of ‗reality‘. This commonly held understanding about reality is the common strand which invariably leads to the creation and sustaining of society. Common knowledge is what is usually believed to be the unquestionable reality by a larger section of society. For instance, in the case of this study, common knowledge on the identity and sexuality of a man is generally a masculine heterosexual. Based on common understanding of reality, meanings about life are created and a common thread maintained. Therefore, people‘s daily interactions are based on the assumption that they view reality in similar ways and attach similar meanings to it. Under the perception that people surrounding them also regard reality in the same way as they do, common knowledge is created, established and sustained. Having shown that knowledge is a social construct, I proceed to discuss how the construction of identities and sexualities is both relational and dialectic.
3.2.1. Social Construction as Relational and Dialectic
Knowledge, social beliefs and social reality are never constructed outside social relations and discourse. Therefore, using social constructionism, social relations and discourse as found in
religions and cultures as sites of the construction of identities were of interest in this study. In his work ―The Limits of Social Constructionism‖, Turner points out that:
constructionism enabled one to explain how facts could be constructed as
‗anomalies‘ that gave ground for abandoning fundamental presuppositions, and thus enabled one to explain how fundamental presuppositions came to be established, how novelties came to be established, and how presuppositions came to be replaced. The secret of constructionism, and the source of its power, is that it provides an account of the creation of conceptual practices (1998:112).
Social constructionism questions the ways knowledge is produced and those who participate in its construction. This theory informs practices in social contexts. It questions prevailing practices which it suggests have been constructed in biased ways. Therefore, identities and sexualities are products of practices in a given context. In his article ―Social Construction, Language, and the Authority of Knowledge‖, Bruffee contends that:
social construction understands reality, knowledge, thought, facts, texts, selves, and so on as community-generated and community-maintained linguistic entities – or, more broadly speaking, symbolic entities-that define or "constitute" the communities that generate them (1986:775).
Social constructionism suggests that in as much as notions about identities and notions of sexualities are regarded as common knowledge, they are social constructs informed by social beliefs. ―Common-sense knowledge is the knowledge I share with others in the normal, self- evident routines of everyday life‖ (Berger and Luckmann 1966:37). Therefore, ―all knowledge is generated in a community of speaking subjects and is an aspect of communication within relations and inter-dependencies‖ (Burkett 1998:123). Within social constructionism, agentic community members are portrayed as useful in socially constructing reality because people speak about social beliefs within community settings. Thus, the construction of self-identities is highly relational.
Relational
Knowledge gains authenticity when created in social relationships. ―Knowledge is sustained by social processes…people construct it between them. It is through the daily interaction
between people in the course of social life that our versions of knowledge become fabricated‖ (Burr 2015:4). Although an individual can create knowledge on their own, this knowledge in everyday life gains significance only in relation with what is commonly accepted as knowledge and reality by other members of the society. An individual is both an actor and is acted upon in the creation of knowledge and their self-understanding is also influenced by what is generally regarded as common-knowledge.
The most important experience of others takes place in the face-to-face situation, which is the prototypical case of social interaction. All other cases are derivatives of it. In the face-to-face situation the other is appresented to me in a vivid present shared by both of us. I know that in the same vivid present I am appresented to him [sic]. My and his [sic] 'here and now' continuously impinge on each other as long as the face-to-face situation continues (Berger and Luckmann 1966:43).
Since knowledge is constructed in relational setups, individuals bring to the construction site their own unique individual experiences as they interact with other members of their communities, who too bring along their own experiences. Therefore, these experiences create settings that allow for social interaction, an invaluable site for social construction of identities and sexualities. Such interactions shape people‘s approach towards knowledge creation, self- perception and worldviews. Additionally,
social constructionists argue that there are no ‗essences‘ within people that make them who and what they are. The social world including ourselves as people, is the product of social process, it follows that there cannot be any given, determined nature to the world or people (Burr 2015:6).
Social constructionism refutes claims that people have an essence in themselves; in this regard, that all males should be sexually attracted to females and should behave according to the heterosexual script is questioned. It is for this reason that I used social constructionism because it allowed me to question the very notions of maleness, gender, sexualities and other taken for granted discourses on masculinities and sexualities. Social constructionists go against essentialism which ―is seen as trapping people inside personalities and identities that are restrictive and pathological, rendering psychology an even more oppressive practice‖ (Burr 2015:6). Essentialism does not allow for construction of reality outside the taken for granted social reality. It regards individuals as entities that are essentially who they are and
cannot go against the essentialist grain. Social constructionism refutes these essentialist assertions, insisting that individual identities are formed through social interaction which remains dialectic in nature.
Dialectic
Although there are many daily signifiers of discourse within social relations, such as signs, gestures, and institutions, my study focused on the ―institutions‖ of religion and culture and the language therein as vital entities leading to social construction of knowledge. Language is a useful tool in the construction of social belief and social reality which in turn inform construction of identities and sexualities. In a social context, people that make up the context are speaking beings, thus, everyday life is constructed using language between social beings.
Language originates in and has its primary reference to everyday life; it refers above all to the reality I experience in wide-awake consciousness, which is dominated by pragmatic motive (that is, the cluster of meanings directly pertaining to present or future actions) and which I share with others in a taken-for-granted manner (Berger and Luckmann 1966:53).
Language around gender and sexualities continues to be framed around heterosexuality, and femininities and masculinities in religions and cultures. It is an everyday occurrence in which people speak about everyday events, attach meaning to phenomenon and so, believe such meanings cannot be contested. For social constructionists,
language is not a means of picturing or representing a reality that exists separately and independently of it, but a means of communication that only has meaning in the context of relationships, inter-represent some ontological realm that is unchanging, and which acts as the foundation for linguistic meaning and knowledge: rather, conversations create and sustain everything that the social group takes to be the ontological foundation of life, the taken-for-granted ‗reality‘.
Words do not stand for anything but are elements of the constantly contested meanings in the arena of social life, involving claims, counter-claim and disputation (Burkett 1998:123).
Language only has meaning in so far as it is practiced and undertaken within the context of social relationships. It is through language that religions and cultures construct ideals of maleness as language carries meaning for individuals that make up such social contexts.
Language therefore gives social groups meanings about everyday life and becomes the basis for what is considered as common knowledge. Language remains contested in social life. It is this language determined by heterosexuals about identities and sexualities - in some instances contested by gay Christians in their ―self-construction‖ of their identities and sexualities within the social contexts of religions and cultures - that was interrogated in this study.
Based on the above, social constructionism holds social relations as the starting point for the construction of identities and sexualities. Additionally, knowledge construction is a constant process and is highly relational. As people interact with each other, they create knowledge, create meaning and gain a semblance of common knowledge of reality. This study regarded religions and cultures as points of social interaction and knowledge production about identities and sexualities. I agree with notions that what is largely taken as common knowledge about identities and sexualities is in fact a social construct that can be interrogated and alternative perspectives about reality imagined and sought. Social constructionism as a lens therefore provides an avenue for interrogating understandings on identities and sexualities as it brings to light the social relational avenues through which knowledge is constructed and how participants self-construct their identities and sexualities in relation to other members of their communities. The study participants do not ―self-construct‖ their identities and sexualities outside the social-relational contexts provided by religions and cultures. Since this study was concerned with how participants ―self-construct‖ their identities and sexualities, amidst the backdrop of social relations and discourse found in religions and cultures, I used self-verification as the other socio-psychological theory.