Most people know the difference
between experiential reality, which is the reality that we experience directly
in everyday life, such as pain, hunger, thirst, fear, poverty, and others, and
agreement reality which is a reality that we recognize as real because everyone
else says that it is real (Szymanski 1975:1). These are competing
paradigms. In 1975, Albert Szymanski
wrote about them in a sociological thesis in which he stated that sociology is
not a theoretically unified discipline. Why? Because for Szymanski, sociology including
other sciences produces differing paradigms of reality due to different sets of
rules and perceptions even of the same phenomenon. How? Scientists are subject to different rules and
perceptions by those who perceive them, by those subjected to different rules.
In reality, Szymanski says that there will always be disagreement and only
agreement if individuals (including scientists) are of the same paradigm and or
social reality (Szymanski 1975).
What does that mean? It means that
agreement reality happens when there is agreement among people who share in the
same world view- a term used by Max
Weber years before Szymanski. Most
people as it is with scientists will agree on reality (normal social objects/behavior)
when they share in a common denominator whether it is cultural or socio-intellectual.
Quite often, in the world of science, there is a social hierarchy that must
also be obeyed. Within structures of higher education and its instructions,
this is necessary to ensure continuity of institutionally supported ideas and
institutional stability which equals a well functioning social system.
Talcott Parsons argued that well
functioning social systems require a fit between the needs and motivations of
the individual and the role requirements of the institution or social unit (S. Seidman
1994/1998: 107) Parsons deemed that there must be a minimal level of shared
understandings and values for social integration to take place because
individuals occupy sharply different worlds of meaning and value; thus social
interaction and institutional functioning would be embroiled in continuous
conflicts… in that case, how does cultural integration translate into social
integration? Parsons a level of understanding could be achieved through what he
called the experience of internalization by which he meant a socialization
process where cultural meanings become part of the self; the individual as it
were, who takes into him/herself the beliefs norms and values of another society…
to the extent that there is a shared culture and to the extent that
socialization is roughly successful… individuals grow up with similar
understandings and motives. Such a process is naïve (Seidman: ibid), Parsons
was well aware that individuals are embedded in their worlds of meaning. The
meaning of those actions is thick. If internalization were a possible solution there
would have to be an intensive programming from the very beginning … either from
birth or from the earliest education. A well functioning system requires the transmission of meaning. In
1957, Radcliffe-Brown gave us the definition of social structure as the network
of connecting human beings, hence a society. We might think today that it is
enough to be linked in or on facebook as our modern society. However, meaning
is not so lucid. Meaning is something that can be attained only over time
because it is embedded by the daily processing that happens in the social imagination
in a place over time. In this mode of daily processing, we could imagine that
people are a simple program and could end up in a strange loop of recursion.
Recursion in
another name was hinted at by Cornelius Castoriadis in his work, The Imaginary Institution
of Society (1987) Castoriadis viewed societies, together with their laws
and legalizations, as being founded upon a basic conception of the world and
man's place in it (1987). In light of Radcliffe-Brown’s social
structure (1957), for him a network of connecting social relations (between
human beings) made real as being directly observable, is a theoretical
construction posited by the scientist on the basis of his or her observation of
social relations. Interestingly, that does not contradict Castoriadis ‘imaginary’ or Szymanski’s view on
sociology’s competing paradigms.
Manuel
Castells (1997) observed how legitimization of society in context of social
thought performed as science as well as social identity came down through
dominant institutions. This activity
causes differing and competing paradigms which in turn cause differing and
competing social realities with objectified outcomes in structure and system
function (1997).
Speaking as a Christian sociologist, the way forward in this fallen world is in God's word. We have free will and we can choose what to say, what to think/do creating our social reality. We fail to acknowledge that God has the best reality for us if we choose His way, His word.