Construction of Reality, Construction of Power

Searle's work on the construction of social reality to incorporate, elucidate and reaffirm human experience and essentially validate human reality resonates with the human need to put the self in in the epicenter of existence. That, I would argue, is my entry point into the discussion. I think both Courtney and Bea did a fantastic job in highlighting the key issues of Searle's work and I appreciate the critiques both provided in the understanding of the relevance of his writing in the construction of not only social realities, but stretched beyond it, to the construction of social identities, selves, others, and in essence providing meanings to all that is essential for human existence and legitimacy of human existence.

I strongly agree with Bea in her analysis of where Searle leaves the readers with more questions than answers. In discussing social realities, the assumption he certainly works with that of social relativity and more so cultural relativity. He does not make a distinction between the use of language as a verbal or written form, and I would stretch this discussion further and add a third category of language that goes beyond both the oral and the written manifestation. The language of the body, the eyes, and in fact the entire world of communication is based on different layers of social realities and beyond it, there is also an element of metaphysical reality, especially when one considers communication to transcend human relationships and extend it to perhaps how individuals tend to relate to the greater universe outside of their immediate worlds. Hence, my interest in Searle's work lies in the assumptions and the limited discussion he highlights on the issues of the metaphysical and that of power.

If social realities are constructed to provide ourselves with a greater meaning and legitimacy for existence, then what can be said about the power we confer to an understanding of a form or an idea greater than ourselves which humbles our very existence? is that kind of understanding of power outside of the construction of social reality? or as Bea pointed out, are there different levels of social realities and we can at best work with the ones that are the most tangible and lends itself most to manipulation for our own adaptation and for maintaining our unique position in the chain of existence? is the conferring of power to a greater Being, or the construction of the social reality of identity groups based on a common spiritual understanding self-defeating in the desire for creating social realities that intend to consolidate power? how would Searle address this conflict of interest where the construction of social realities aims to legitimize the centrality of the human experience, yet in some cases humbles human existence and recreates a very different form of power relationship that cannot be contained or understood within the tangible paradigm within which humans operate?

Bea's point on different levels of social realities also triggered a different line of thinking with regard to power and construction of social realities. Searle was concerned with the existence of realities that are outside and independent of human existence just as much as those that exist and reaffirm legitimacy of the human experience. I would argue that even within these two parallel realities, there is a power relationship and a hierarchy in terms of importance because social realities are, at best relational. There is little importance and relevance to the existence of realities independent of the human experience; realities become realities, whether, social, physical, psychological or emotional, when they engage in highlighting or undermining power relationships between men and women and between societies. To provide an example. the ‘discovery’ that the earth is not the center of the universe was in itself an independent reality devoid of human intervention or existence. Yet the implications of the discovery was more important in the reconstruction of the relationship between man and the church rather than the man and his understanding of the actual universe. It is this link between reality and the conceptualization of the reality and the implication of it in terms of man’s relationship to man, society to society, civilizations to civilizations that becomes more important in designing every aspect of reality and the construction of power than the mere existence of reality itself.