Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Common Denominator: The Reception and Impact of Berger and Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Reality

  • Theoretical/Philosophical Paper
  • Published:
Human Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses the reception and impact of Berger and Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Reality (SCR). The article will, first, address Berger and Luckmann themselves and their approach to the book (see section 1). In the next part, we will sketch the diffusion of the basic concept of the book (see section 2a). Then we want to show that the reception exhibits a particular open form, which allowed it to disperse into extremely different disciplines not only of the social sciences and the humanities (see section 2b). It is the disciplinary distance in particular that detaches the diffusion of the concept from reference to the book (see section 3). In the next part, we can see that this detachment leads to the variation of approaches to social construction (see section 4). Particularly, it is the misidentification with constructivism (see section 5) that leads to misunderstandings, which will then be clarified in contrast to our reconsideration of the basic thesis of SCR (see section 6). The conclusion (section 7) will state that Berger and Luckmann’s concept therefore constitutes the common denominator of social constructivist approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a more extensive overview on both authors, see Schnettler (2006), Pfadenhauer and Berger (2013).

  2. Except for one book in 1995 on the “crisis of meaning,” which was not relating to SCR at all (see Berger and Luckmann 1995).

  3. Evolution of Social Structures: “A structure is something that has been constructed, and a study of social structure is the study of a process and not a product. Our task, therefore, is […] to inquire into the methods of social construction” (1905: 589).

  4. We use quantitative data here since they allow to back our arguments in a succinct way. We are well aware of the fact that they are but “shorthand” (as Schütz used to say).

  5. Google’s Ngram viewer indicates a constant level of 0.000001–0.0000003 (which is almost insignificant) from 1900 to the 1960s; only by around 1970 there is a significant number of occurrences of the phrase.

  6. In their Handbook for Constructionist Research Holstein and Gubrium (2008) largely neglect the question referring to the varied use of “constructionism” and “constructivism” (without the adjunct “social”): “Rather than inviting a deconstruction of the competing terms and their implied realities or provoking a debate over the utility of the distinction, we simply have asked the contributors to adopt the generic term constructionist whenever possible” (2008: 8). Nevertheless some authors try to clarify the relation of the two terms, such as Samra-Fredericks (2008: 131) who (following Fletcher 2006) sees the major distinction between both in the decisively cognitive bias of “constructivism” (2006: 131). In the same book also Gergen and Gergen (2008: 173)—who know that “the term constructivism is sometimes used interchangeably with constructionism”—maintain that basic distinction (2008: 173). Still they concede that “it [is] increasingly difficult to sustain the distinction between constructivism and constructionism. Constructivists increasingly find mental practices to be reflections or embodiments of social process”. Anyhow, according to the German terminology, we like to stick to “social constructivism” as a general cover term, which in our usage (following Berger and Luckmann) is not meant to be ego- but sociological.

  7. Accordingly Restivo and Croissant contrast the difference between -ionism and -vism: “One final view of social constructionism is that it is opposed to ‘constructivism’ by virtue of being more critically and politically engaged” (2008: 224).

  8. Thus Berger distanced himself from gender studies and argued that SCR “does not call for a gendered perspective” (2001: 193).

  9. Thus number certainly begs the question as to the diffusion of social scientific concepts beyond the boundaries of scientific discourses and the relation between (the sociology of) science and everyday knowledge in knowledge society. This question, which is obvious with respect of the social construction of gender, certainly demands closer attention.

  10. In the Web of Science, articles by new institutionalists (Meyer, Rowan, and DiMaggio) are by far the most cited of those which refer to SCR.

  11. In a recent survey with German university professors of sociology, it was among the first three most important books (Gerhards 2014).

  12. As Endress (2002) shows, “social theory” has been made popular by the sociologist Anthony Giddens as a substitute for sociological theory; moreover, it is also addressed by disciplines outside of sociology, including the humanities.

  13. Berger and Luckmann quite plainly state that the sciences, and particularly the natural sciences contribute to the “universe maintenance” (1966: 130). Like religion, science is a form of legitimation of reality, but it exhibits, however, a “cosmological deficit”: it cannot make sense of many things, including life and death, as opposed to religion.

  14. Kuhn added this category in his postscript to the second edition of his book.

  15. For the argument that the institutionalization of qualitative methods has been prepared and legitimated by interpretive theories, such as SCR, see Knoblauch (2013a, b).

  16. Although referring explicitly to radical constructivism, systems theory in the tradition of Luhmann takes a similar stance (Luhmann 1997: 156). As opposed to philosophical and psychological radical constructivism, in SCR it is neither the brain nor the subject who is in charge of the construction.

  17. As successful as “social constructionism” has been, the data on the diffusion indicate that ‘social constructionism’ reached its peak in the early 2000s and has since slowly declined. This decline one may suspect to be linked to the critique of social constructionism in terms of postmodern “relativism” and “arbitrariness,” as it was voiced by Sokal’s popular hoax. However, as Best rightly argues, “those attacks have largely ignored the sociological origins and uses of constructionism and have characterized the approach as advocating complete relativism, for which it can then be denounced” (2008: 56).

  18. Berger complained that the notion of “construction” falsely suggests that reality may be created ex nihilo (2011: 91), and Luckmann stressed that he should not be considered a constructivist inasmuch as this refers to the theoretical position referred to as radical constructivism (1999: 17).

  19. Berger stresses that the socially constructed objective reality is a “robust reality beyond our wishes” (2011: 95), and Luckmann (1999) calls SCR explicitly “materialist”.

References

  • Abbot, A. (2001). The chaos of discipline. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abels, H. (1998). Einführung in die Soziologie. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L. (1967). The sacred canopy. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L. (1974). Some second thoughts on substantive versus functional definitions of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 13, 125–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L. (2011). Adventures of an accidental sociologist. How to explain the world without becoming a bore. New York: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1963). Sociology of religion and sociology of knowledge. Sociology and Social Research, 47, 61–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1995). Modernity, pluralism and the crisis of man. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. [1966] (1967). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday [Paperback: New York: Anchor Books].

  • Bergmann, J., & Luckmann, T. (Eds.). (1999). Kommunikative Konstruktion von Moral. Bd. 1: Struktur und Dynamik der Formen moralischer Kommunikation. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, J. (2008). Historical development and defining issues of constructionist inquiry. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 41–64). New York, London: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. T., Hughes, P., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (1987). The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le sens pratique. Paris: Editions Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S., & Haste, H. (1987). Making sense. The child’s construction of the world. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London, New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobern, W. W. (1993). Contextual constructivism: The impact of culture on the learning and teaching of science. In K. G. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 51–69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberle, T. S. (1992). A new paradigm for the sociology of knowledge: “The social construction of reality” after 25 years. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 18(2), 493–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, A. (2009). Contemporary social theory. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endress, M. (2002). Formation und Transformation sozialer Wirklichkeit. Tübingen: Eine Untersuchung zur phänomenologisch begründeten Soziologie und Sozialtheorie. Habilitationsschrift.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser, H. (1993). The rationality of everyday behavior: A rational choice reconstruction of the theory of action by Alfred Schütz. Rationality and Society, 5(1), 7–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, D. (2006). Entrepreneurial processes and the social construction of opportunity. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 18(5), 421–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geelan, D. R. (1997). Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Science & Education, 6(1), 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (2008). Social construction and psychological inquiry. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 171–188). New York, London: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhards, J. (2014). Top Ten Soziologie. Welche soziologischen Texte sollten Studierende der Soziologie gelesen haben? Soziologie, 43(3), 313–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of a theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?. Cambridge: Hardvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. (1986). An outline of a social constructionist viewpoint. In R. Harré (Ed.), The social construction of emotions (pp. 2–15). London: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjelm, T. (2014). Social constructionisms. Approaches to the study of the human worlds. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F. (Eds.). (2008). The constructionist mosaic. In Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 3–10). New York, London: Guilford Press.

  • Kamlah, W., & Lorenzen, P. (1967). Logische Propädeutik. Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens. Mannheim: B.I. Wissenschaftsverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, R. (2012). Doing discourse analysis. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, R., Knoblauch, H., & Reichertz, J. (Eds.). (2012). Kommunikativer Konstruktivismus. Theoretische und empirische Arbeiten zu einem neuen wissenssoziologischen Ansatz. Wiesbaden: VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoblauch, H. (1995). Kommunikationskultur. Die kommunikative Konstruktion kultureller Kontexte. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoblauch, H. (2001). Communication, contexts and culture. A communicative constructivist approach to intercultural communication. In A. di Luzio, S. Günthner, & F. Orletti (Eds.), Culture in communication. Analyses of intercultural situations (pp. 3–33). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Knoblauch, H. (2013). Qualitative methods at the crossroads: Recent developments in interpretive social research. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 14(3). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2063. Accessed February 13, 2016.

  • Knoblauch, H. (2013b). Communicative constructivism and mediatization. Communication Theory, 23(3), 297–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoblauch, H., Tuma, R., & Schnettler, B. (2014). Videography. Introduction to interpretive video analysis of social situations. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1989). Spielarten des Konstruktivismus. Soziale Welt, 40(1/2), 86–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1969). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2010). On the cult of the factish gods. In B. Latour (Ed.), On the modern cult of the factish gods (pp. 1–67). Durham, London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Light, D. (1967). Review “The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge” by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. Sociological Analysis, 28(1), 55–56f.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luckmann, T. (1970). On the boundaries of the social world. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Phenomenology and social reality. Essays in memory of Alfred Schutz (pp. 73–100). The Hague: Nijhoff.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Luckmann, T. (1975). The sociology of language. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckmann, T. (1985). The analysis of communicative genres. In B. F. Nell, R. Singh, & W. M. Venter (Eds.), Focus on quality. Selected proceedings of a conference on qualitative research methodology in the social sciences (pp. 48–61). Durban: Institute for Social and Economic Research.

  • Luckmann, T. (1990). Towards a science of the subjective paradigm: Protosociology. Critique and Humanism. Special issue, 9–15.

  • Luckmann, T. (1999). Wirklichkeiten: Individuelle Konstitution und gesellschaftliche Konstruktion. In R. Hitzler, J. Reichertz, & N. Schröer (Eds.), Hermeneutische Wissenssoziologie (pp. 17–28). Konstanz: UVK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckmann, T. (2013). The communicative construction of reality and sequential analysis. Qualitative Sociology Review, 9(2), 40–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (1998). Towards a constructivist genealogy of social constructivism. In I. Velody & R. Williams (Eds.), The politics of constructionism (pp. 13–32). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (2001). The contingencies of social constructionism. Economy and Society, 30(2), 240–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maquet, J. (1968). Review “The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge” by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. American Anthropologist, 70(4), 836–837f.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R. (1970). Biology of cognition. Biological computer laboratory research report. BCL 9.0. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.

  • Panasuk, R., & Lewis, S. (2012). Constructivism: Constructing meaning or making sense. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(20). http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_20_Special_Issue_October_2012/1.pdf. Accessed February 13, 2016.

  • Parker, L. (1998). Social construction, discourse and realism. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perspectives. (1992). The theory section newsletter. The American Sociological Association. Chair G. Calhoun. Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the “Social Construction of Reality social construction of reality”. Perspectives 15(2).

  • Pfadenhauer, M., & Berger, P. L. (2013). The new sociology of knowledge. New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1950). La construction du réel chez l’enfant. Neuchâtel, Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organisational analysis. Chicago: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raskin, J. D. (2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism. American Communication Journal, 5(3), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, K. (2001). Konstruktivistische Ansätze in den Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften. In T. Hug (Ed.), Wie kommt die Wissenschaft zu ihrem Wissen? (Vol. 4, pp. 356–376). Baltmanssweiler: Schneider.

    Google Scholar 

  • Restivo, S., & Croissant, J. (2008). Social constructionism in science and technology studies. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 213–229). New York, London: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samra-Fredericks, D. (2008). Social constructionism in management and organization Studies. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 129–151). New York, London: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnettler, B. (2006). Thomas Luckmann. Konstanz: UVK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütz, A. & Luckmann, T. [1973] (1975). Strukturen der Lebenswelt (Vol. 1). Neuwied: Luchterhand [The structures of the lifeworld structures of the lifeworld (Vol. 1). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press].

  • Schütz, A. & Luckmann, T. [1989] (1984). Strukturen der Lebenswelt (Vol. 2). Frankfurt, Main: Suhrkamp [The structures of the lifeworld structures of the lifeworld (Vol. 2). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press].

  • Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidman, S. (2004). Contested knowledge. Social theory today. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotter, J. (1989). Conversational reality. Constructing life through language reality. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. (1967). Review “The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge” by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. American Sociological Review, 32(1), 137f.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soeffner, H.-G. (1997). The order of rituals. The interpretation of everyday life order of rituals. New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, M., & Kitsutse, J. J. (1977). Constructing social problems. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stam, H. J. (2001). Introduction: Social constructionism and its critics. Theory and Psychology, 11(3), 291–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velody, I., & Williams, R. (Eds.). (1998). The politics of constructionism. London, New York, New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1974). Piaget and the radical constructivist epistemology. In C. D. Smock & E. von Glasersfeld (Eds.), Epistemology and education. Follow through publications (pp. 1–24). Athens, GA: University of Georgia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, L. F. (1905). Evolution of social structures. American Journal of Sociology, 10(5), 589–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick, P. (Ed.). (1984). The invented reality: How do we know what we believe we know? (Contributions to constructivism). New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(1), 391–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. P. (1970). Conceptions of interaction and forms of sociological explanation. American Sociological Review, 35(4), 697–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Hubert Knoblauch & René Wilke

Authors
  1. Hubert Knoblauch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. René Wilke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hubert Knoblauch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knoblauch, H., Wilke, R. The Common Denominator: The Reception and Impact of Berger and Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Reality . Hum Stud 39, 51–69 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-016-9387-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-016-9387-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation