Central to the academic life is to investigate and understand reality.
The debate around the nature of reality has raged on in philosophy and science circles for ages. At the center of this discourse are two contrasting perspectives - realism and constructionism - that offer differing viewpoints on what constitutes the fundamental essence of our world.
In the realist camp, the core belief is that an external, objective reality exists independently of our human perceptions and experiences. According to realists, the primary goal of scientific inquiry is to unravel the underlying laws and mechanisms that govern this Reality with a capital R - the one "out there" waiting to be discovered.
A prime example realists point to are the laws of physics. Gravity, motion, electromagnetism - realists assert that these are not mere conceptual models conjured by the human mind. Rather, they represent tangible forces and principles that exert their influence over matter and energy in the cosmos. Through painstaking observation, experimentation, and mathematical formulations, scientists have managed to quantify and elucidate these laws that operate irrespective of whether we perceive them or not.
Opposing this viewpoint are the constructionists, who vehemently reject the notion of an objective, predetermined reality. Instead, they posit that our understanding of the world is an ongoing construction, molded by the interplay of human experiences, social contexts, and shared cultural understandings within communities.
Constructionists often cite the concept of gender identity as a compelling illustration of their perspective. The idea that gender is an innate, biologically hardwired trait is actively challenged. For constructionists, gender is a fluid, socially constructed phenomenon where notions of masculinity, femininity, and non-binary identities are heavily influenced by the norms, expectations, and power dynamics that pervade a given society or historical period.
Thus, the realist perspective maintains that there exists a reality "out there," and the role of science is to progressively unveil its intrinsic truths. Constructionists, on the other hand, emphasize that our perceived reality is continuously built, negotiated, and reframed through inherently human lenses and contexts.
But hold on, there is gradations of these viewpoints, such as one proposed by Blumer (1969). He suggests that while reality is seen through human conceptions of it, there is still an empirical world that "talks back" to our conceptions. There is also hypothetical realism. Here reality is thought of as a heuristic device, where we make certain assumptions to enable us to organise our thoughts about the issue to accomplish certain goals in the world.
As this philosophical tug-of-war rages on, some thinkers have sought to reconcile the two perspectives, proposing a nuanced stance that acknowledges the existence of an external reality that can be studied scientifically, while also recognizing that our perception and framing of that reality is inextricably shaped by our unique human circumstances, cognitive frameworks, and sociocultural contexts.
The debate promises to continue, inviting diverse perspectives and challenging conventional notions of what constitutes the essence of our world and our place within it.
Inspired from reading Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills:
A Practical Guide for Social Scientists by James Jaccard and Jacob Jacoby.
