Call/WhatsApp: +1 914 416 5343

Berger’s theory of externalization

Berger’s theory of externalization

In your own words** what does Berger’s theory of externalization, objectification, and internalization mean? Can you summarize this in 1-2 sentences to show that you understand the basic point?

2-What was your favorite example from the Garfinkel reading?

3-Describe an experience you’ve had where you have to manage your “front stage” and “back stage” as Goffman described? Was it tiring, as Hochschild describes?

4-Which of the ideas from the critical theories resonated with you the most and why?

5-Thinking about all of the theories that we explored in the 2nd half of the semester for contemporary theory, which include:

1) functionalism, 2) conflict, 3) exchange theory and rational choice, 4) globalization, 5) symbolic interactionism, 6) critical theories

Which theory(theories) resonated with you the most and why?

6-Thinking about everything that we have covered in the semester since the first day of class… Do you think sociological theory will inform your perspective after this class? Why or why not? And how?

7- One great thing about Symbolic Interactionism is the way it sheds light on our every day interactions and illuminates the social performances that we cultivate (often unconsciously!).

What “scripts” or schemas do you find yourself performing in your daily life? In other words, what did this branch of theory illuminate about YOUR daily “staged” behavior?

We all do it! Share examples that you feel comfortable sharing with the group here.

8- In your minds–what are some of the most pressing topics/concepts/ideas/perspectives that Sociology should “deconstruct” in the future?

As a element of societal fact – particularly that element of societal actuality that legitimizes anomy (see below) – religious beliefs, based on Peter Berger, is actually a “dialectical phenomenon.” As a result, whilst religion emerges from people included in an bought and important interpersonal actuality, mankind – with the exact same time – arise out of this socially-created world and, indeed, are merely human as a consequence of such appearance. This dialectical phenomenon is parsed out by Berger in terms of not two, but rather three ideas: externalization, objectivation and internalization.

Externalization of a meaningfully requested worldview is “an anthropological need,” compelled with the “unfinished” the outdoors of human being biological constitution. Drawing upon the task of sociologist Arnold Gehlen, Berger insists the weakened instinctual mother nature of human beings necessitates the externalization of your societal planet. This social world provides order, meaning and security, thereby completing that which remained “naturally” incomplete – human nature. One might say in the matter of human beings that the unnatural will be the natural. It really is organic for human beings to make an artificial world. Tradition is it artificially normal community – humanly-produced, thereby artificial, but made as the organic need for individual biological incompleteness.

If externalization is the process whereby sociable the truth is created, objectivation respect this socially created actuality as being a facticity, i.e., as an issue that is not really “merely” created. Vocabulary, for instance, is undoubtedly a human design, yet additionally, it is available outside of its human designers and is available in this particular approach that everybody may respect it in fundamentally the very same way, as basically the very same language. This “double meaning” of objectivation stipulates not only that societal the fact is “there,” but that interpersonal the truth is “there for everybody.” This top quality of there-ness presents customs the appearance of facticity. Traditions is “taken-for-granted” as normal, imposing “itself back upon the reluctance of individuals” like a brute fact.

This imposition comprises the very last sector in Berger’s dialectical technique of entire world developing – internalization. By the procedure of internalization the socially-built community that is regarded as “there” and “there for everyone” gets to be “there in me.” In Berger’s words and phrases, “the goal facticity around the world gets to be a subjective facticity also.” The bought composition of tradition will become the requested framework of person man awareness. The spoken languages, beliefs, connotations, institutions, and many others. of culture become the dialects, principles, definitions, organizations, and many others. of the individual. You should take into account, nonetheless, that “the person is not shaped as being a unaggressive, inert issue.” The individual’s continuing exercise of externalization and energetic appropriation of sociable reality precludes tough-core determinism.

Because socialization is an active, on-going dialectical approach, the person is rarely completely socialized. Difference always exists between your “out there” and also the “in here.” Once this variation will get too wonderful, anomy (a sense of orderlessness) rears its unsightly brain. However, if this distinction will get not big enough, or moves completely unrecognized by the individual actor, alienation outcomes. To deal with the second of those two ideas first, alienation occurs when human beings reverence sociable reality as facticity without having the measurement of externalization, i.e., when people forget social the truth is actually produced from the beginning and, consequently, may be altered. Through the use of conditions like “alienation” (Marx) and “bad faith” (Satre), even so, Berger seems to shift from descriptive sociology to normative sociology, betraying an existentialist orientation: a persons who projects his or her very own options within the face of death is most authentic the human who forgets to do this, failing to realize they are in charge of their own future, is inauthentic.

To talk about anomy is to return to Berger’s initial presupposition that interpersonal reality is built in order to full human being mother nature. Humans want which means and, consequently, instinctually make significance culturally. Social reality, therefore, gives order, meaning and security to a human existence that is naturally bereft of such qualities. Social fact, consequently, presents order, significance and stability to a human being presence that may be naturally bereft of these features. Splitting up with this well-shielded planet leads to anomy, the threat “par excellence” of individual living. The person having become separated from societal actuality “loses his orientation in experience” and, in extreme cases, “loses his experience of actuality and identity.” This type of specific “becomes anomic within the sense of getting community-significantly less.”

Religion’s part in a socially-built planet is the one about theodicy – the legitimation of anomic phenomena. With the expression legitimation, Berger describes “socially objectivated ‘knowledge’ that serves to spell out and warrant the interpersonal get.” Legitimations are “cognitive” and “normative” in figure. They address not only query of “what needs to be,” but also question of “what is.” Therefore, legitimations are usually frequently prethematic – terminology, actions, routinized interpersonal behavior and identities, ethical maxims, well-known myths – but might also include very difficult ideas explicitly developed just for justification. All of these legitimations, from the most implicit towards the most explicit, serve to maintain socially built actuality. Therefore, legitimations work best once they “hide, as much as possible,” their “constructed character” (along with once they engender plausability constructions that soil legitimations in the fabric of societal construction, and thus, generating specific legitimation unnecessary). In Berger’s words: “Let that which is stamped out of the terrain ex nihilo show up as the manifestation of some thing that has been existent from the beginning of energy or otherwise right away on this team.” Religious legitimations provide this function greatest by grounding themselves the divinely-ordained, sacred get of your cosmos, most often by isometrically identifying a persons cosmos “down here” and divine fact “up there.” Consequently they may be greatest prepared to handle the issue of theodicy, warding-off the anomy that constantly threatens to destroy in upon the sheltered nomos by appealing to the deepest get of culture – the sacred cosmos as sacred canopy. Berger typologizes faith based theodicies with regards to a rational-irrational continuum. Indic karma-samsara theodicies constitute the realistic pole primitive, Chinese and mystical microcosm/macrocosm theodicies make up the irrational pole and, other assorted theodicies – long term payment, dualism, inscrutability, etc. – write the middle of the continuum. Berger causes it to be very clear, nonetheless, that irrationalism underlies all of the theodicies insofar as theodicy, in its very essence, necessitates “the surrender of personal to the purchasing energy of culture.” All theodicies need a little bit of “masochism” insofar because the personal must refuse herself so that you can subsume herself beneath the ordered and important sacred cover. In Berger’s terms: “It will not be joy that theodicy primarily gives, but significance.” As a result, and then in summing up, religious beliefs emerges in just a socially-constructed nomos as that part of the nomos which serves to reputable anomy through providing a nicely-ordered, meaningful “sacred canopy”