The Carnival Came To Town
... info on Berger & Luckman "the social construct of reality" 1971
The book The Social Construction of Reality was originally published in 1966, not 1971, by sociologists Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann. It is a foundational text in the sociology of knowledge, arguing that reality is not an objective given but is actively created and maintained through human interaction.
Berger and Luckmann propose that reality emerges through a three-step process:
1. Externalization – Individuals express their subjective experiences into the social world through action and communication.
2. Objectivation – These expressions become institutionalized and take on an independent existence, appearing as objective facts or social structures and,
Internalization – Individuals absorb these social structures through socialization, accepting them as natural and real.
3. This cycle creates a stable social world that feels as real as the natural world, even though it is human-made. The book also emphasizes that social institutions, like schools or laws, are not inherent but are sustained through repeated, routinized behavior.
Although the book was published in 1966, it gained widespread influence in the 1970s and 1980s, contributing to the rise of social constructivism across disciplines. The phrase “social construction of reality” became a widely used concept, though often interpreted more broadly than Berger and Luckmann intended.
... helpful outline, as the library catalog search terminal I am using is off-line and only returns exact matches within the stacks, thus, the complete title found is “The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge”
For library catalog searches requiring exact matches, here is a structured outline based on the full title and standard table of contents:
Preface
- Authors’ intent and scope of the treatise
- Position within sociology of knowledge and phenomenological tradition
Introduction
- Overview of the central thesis: reality as a human product
- Distinction between metaphysical reality and socially constructed knowledge
Part I: Foundations of Knowledge in Everyday Life
- The reality of everyday life as the primary framework
- Social interaction, typifications, and shared assumptions
- Role of language in shaping and transmitting commonsense knowledge
- Temporal structure and consciousness in daily experience
Part II: Society as Objective Reality
- Institutionalization: Habitualization and the formation of social patterns
- Objectivation: Social products becoming independent realities
- Legitimation: Justifying institutions through symbolic universes (e.g., myths, ideologies)
- Reification: Treating social constructs as natural or inevitable
- Sedimentation and the transmission of tradition
Part III: Society as Subjective Reality
- Socialization: Primary (childhood) and secondary (lifelong) processes
- Internalization of roles, norms, and institutional definitions
- The dialectic between individual and society: mutual constitution
Conclusion
- Summary of the reciprocal relationship: society as human product and humans as social products
- Implications for understanding knowledge, identity, and social change
... this study appears is just one of a wider movement in the relativist -or as Berger and Luckmann offer (as a better term) “relationist” construction of reality, which in turn is derived from existential theories of knowledge concerning the dichotomy between the immediate present (dasien), and the theoretical history for example which depends on proofs as it is in the past and no longer present
Berger and Luckmann distinguish relationism from relativism to avoid the "vertigo of relativity"—the idea that all knowledge is equally subjective and no truth claims can be made. Instead, they propose relationism, which acknowledges that all knowledge is situated within a social and historical position, yet remains open to systematic analysis and validation.
They draw from existential phenomenology, particularly Alfred Schutz and indirectly Martin Heidegger (though "das hien" appears to be a misspelling of Dasein), to frame the dichotomy between immediate lived experience (Erlebnis) and theoretical, historically mediated knowledge. The reality of everyday life is grounded in direct, intersubjective experience—what is present "here and now." In contrast, theoretical knowledge (e.g., history, science) deals with what is absent—events not directly experienced, requiring symbolic systems (like writing) and institutionalized transmission.
This absent knowledge depends on proofs, traditions, and legitimating narratives, as it cannot be verified through immediate presence. While everyday reality feels self-evident, historical or theoretical knowledge is objectified and sedimented through language and institutions, making it real despite its lack of immediacy.
Thus, for Berger and Luckmann, knowledge is not merely relative but relationally constructed—shaped by social location, temporal horizon, and institutional mediation.
... lol I seem to be amused by my own misspelling of 'dasien' and 'das hien' -and yet it is fortuitous, as 'hien' is translated by the translating app as German 'here' and 'das hien' as 'that one', alluding to Heidegger's immediate present :)
The word "das hien" does not exist in standard German. The correct term is "Dasein", a philosophical concept coined by Martin Heidegger, meaning "being-there" — referring to human existence as inherently situated in and engaged with the world.
However, your playful reading of "das hien" as a pun is linguistically serendipitous. While "hien" is not a standard German word, some regional dialects (e.g., Upper German or Alemannic) use forms like "hier" (here) with phonetic variations. "Das hien" could be interpreted as a dialectal or humorous blend of "das hier" ("this here") — aligning poetically with Heidegger’s emphasis on presence, situatedness, and the immediacy of lived experience.
Thus, while "das hien" is a misspelling, it fortuitously echoes the existential-phenomenological focus on "here and now" — the concrete, embodied reality that Berger and Luckmann later build upon in The Social Construction of Reality.
... searching the library catalog I noticed another book by Peter L. Berger was listed, on the subject of laughter, or humor; what is a summary of his thoughts on that subject?
Peter L. Berger's book Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human Experience (1997) explores humor as a fundamental, universal aspect of human existence—what he calls an "anthropological constant"—while recognizing its historical and cultural relativity.
Key Ideas
1. Humor as Incongruity: The comic is fundamentally experienced as incongruence—a disruption of expected order or logic in human experience.
2. The Comic as a Separate World: Laughter creates a "finite province of meaning" distinct from ordinary reality, where normal rules are suspended and human limitations are momentarily overcome.
3. Redemption and Transcendence: Berger argues that the comic offers a promise of redemption—a glimpse of a world healed of absurdity and suffering. For Berger, religious faith is the conviction that this promise will be fulfilled.
4. Theology of the Comic: In the final section, he proposes a theology of the comic, suggesting that humor, especially in its ability to undermine pride and pretense, can be a signal of transcendence—a hint of divine grace operating in the world.
5. Jewish and Religious Humor: He highlights Jewish humor as a profound example of laughter emerging from existential precariousness, and defends figures like Oscar Wilde as embodying a comic sensibility that challenges rigid seriousness, especially in religion.
Berger warns against reducing humor to mere social critique or psychological release. Instead, he sees it as a profound existential and even spiritual phenomenon—one that reveals the fragility of human constructs while pointing beyond them.
... I'm searching my own memory trying to recall a Russian critical theorist who took the subject of humor likewise seriously
The Russian critical theorist you are likely recalling is Mikhail Bakhtin.
Bakhtin took humor, laughter, and the comic extremely seriously as profound social and philosophical forces. His key work on the subject is Rabelais and His World (1965), where he develops the concept of the carnivalesque—a cultural phenomenon rooted in medieval folk festivals where social hierarchies were inverted, norms mocked, and the body celebrated in grotesque, humorous forms.
For Bakhtin, laughter is not mere amusement but a collective, liberating force that challenges official seriousness, dogma, and authoritarian structures. Carnival laughter:
- Deconstructs authority by ridiculing sacred institutions and figures.
- Affirms renewal and change through its cyclical, regenerative nature.
- Creates a space of dialogism, where multiple voices and perspectives coexist without closure.
He contrasts the unitary, monologic voice of official culture with the polyphonic, comic world of carnival, where truth emerges through interaction, parody, and satire. Thus, humor for Bakhtin is deeply existential and political—a form of resistance and a vision of human freedom.
... Bakhtin is the one I was thinking of; now, towards a synthesis of the preceding, refer to the context of the publication of The Social Construction of Reality, which, in 1966, was the emerging social turmoil, strikes, protests and demonstrations around the Vietnam war and racial tensions, signalling a breakdown in the established order -a coming relativism of values and indeed of human consciousness
While The Social Construction of Reality (1966) was written during a period of rising social upheaval—Vietnam War protests, civil rights movements, and global unrest—Berger and Luckmann did not frame their work as a response to these events. Instead, their theory focused on the stability and continuity of social order through everyday interaction, institutionalization, and socialization. As critics noted, the book emphasized "reality maintenance" rather than social change, making it appear out of sync with the 1960s zeitgeist of rebellion and transformation. From Berkeley, Ivan H. Light criticized its "conservative implications," arguing it lacked appreciation for the creative potential of disorder, unrest, and mass uncertainty. Thus, while the era was marked by a perceived breakdown of established norms and a drift toward relativism, Berger and Luckmann offered a structural account of how shared realities are built and sustained—providing a theoretical foundation for understanding both order and its fragility, even if not directly engaging the turbulence around them.
... after the Democratic convention of 1968, and the Chicago Seven trial, serious demonstrations morphed into street theater in which it was difficult to decide if the manifestation was social and political or for entertainment or parody
Following the 1968 Democratic National Convention and the Chicago Seven trial, protest evolved into street theater through the actions of the Youth International Party (Yippies)—led by Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. They fused politics with performance, blurring the line between protest and entertainment.
Key examples include:
- The "Festival of Life" in Chicago, intended as a countercultural alternative to the convention.
- The nomination of "Pigasus,"—a pig, as presidential candidate—a satirical act highlighting the absurdity of the political process.
- The "Yip-In" at Grand Central Station, a carnival-esque gathering mixing music, costumes, and chaos.
These events used guerrilla theater, satire, and media spectacle to challenge authority, making it difficult to distinguish political dissent from performance. The Yippies treated protest as symbolic politics, using humor and irony not just to entertain, but to subvert and expose the contradictions of mainstream culture and state power.
... love the Yippies or hate them, their antics were a needed comic relief when zealous protesters such as the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) were pushing the limits of what the political majority would tolerate
The Yippies and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) represented contrasting protest styles during the 1968 Democratic National Convention. While SDS pursued serious, organized political demonstrations, the Yippies—led by Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin—used satirical street theater to expose the absurdity of the political system. Their antics, like nominating a pig (Pigasus) for president and planning a “Festival of Life,” provided comic relief amid rising tensions. This humor disarmed expectations, attracted media attention, and highlighted the rigidity of both the state and more militant protest groups. In doing so, the Yippies offered a subversive yet playful critique that broadened the scope of dissent without escalating confrontation in the same way as more zealous factions.