College Essay: The Social Construction of Reality by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann

The Rwandans could not see the transparency of their world because they did not construct it historically, unlike the A & B example provided by Berger and Luckmann. Typifications placed by the Germans and later the Belgians of the Hutu and Tutsi were so rigidly defined that wavering from them was nearly impossible, as is to not see them as wholly legitimate. If the peoples of Rwanda had some authorship, in recent past, of their lives they would not have played out the roles left to them by the Germans and later the Belgians. This transparency is useful to look at your society and see it not for the institution it is and search for fact in justification.

Burger and Luckmann feel that through perception we define the world. Being creatures of habit habitualization happens, this makes us easy to predict. Such definitions and predictions become typifications through language we share these senses of reality with others. We all have different realities be this one common "waking world" we share. Typifications are passed to us and become an institution to themselves. Thus authorship is lost to us and granted to a "higher power." A good example would be the role of god or fate. God decides a lot for us and we take it for granted. Our reality no longer seems of our construct and is reified, no debate on the common sense of things.

"A and B alone are responsible for having constructed this world. They remain capable of changing or abolishing it...the world thus shaped appears transparent to them." (Berger and Luckmann. 59) Berger and Luckmann place two strangers on an island together and they are not from the same culture. Thus their typifications are not the same. The process I laid out in the last paragraph must happen again if they are to successfully cohabitate this island. Watching each others habits they predict the other persons actions, or make typifications. They will begin to see each other through typifications, unless there is a swift change, this is reciprocal typification.

In this benevolent context this seems like the way something like this would work, meaning people aren't this nice. Two people would meet on an island and learn to work together. This is idealistic at best and I feel is totally unreal. Berger and Luckmann do not take into account human emotions. The people could be afraid of each other, this could result in violence. One could take food from the other, possibly a limited resource, that could lead to survival issues. The entire side of the negative human experience is not taken into account.

In the case of Rwanda their original typifications were exaggerated and expanded upon by the colonizers, "...Hutu and Tutsi became clearly defined as opposing 'ethnic' identities, and the Belgians made this polarization the cornerstone of their colonial policy." (Gourevitch. 54) They were given new identities under the guise of old names they were used to using, thus taking authorship of their typifications and replacing the meaning, not the words. The view of a object reality places strain on society, but in a society with direct or limited authorship reality is still open to question and not a burden.

In the movie Hotel Rwanda Paul is constantly adjusting because he has no typification for the genocide. Everything becomes surreal and he is less and less connected to it. Not only does he no longer have authorship of his reality he does not even have typifications for it. He is making it up as he goes. His face to face reality of having a wife who is Tutsi probably prevented him from playing the role of a good Hutu. In addition I feel that reification made him a noble exception, "I have no choice in the matter, I have to act this way because of my position...as a husband, father." (Berger and Luckmann. 91) "This means that the reification of roles narrows the subjective distance that the individual may establish between himself and his role-playing." (Berger and Luckmann. 91)

Like Paul everyone had a role placed on them before they were even born by the Germans and Belgians. Paul just felt stronger as a father and businessman than he did a Hutu. The major problem was the legitimation, "Legitimation is the process of explaining and justifying." (Berger and Luckmann. 93) This institution is in place separating people then placing value on one group over the other. The colonizers giving power to the Tutsi was legitimation enough for a while, but when the Hutu gained power there was no longer this force justifying why things are the way the are. Instead of taking authorship, and remaking their identities, they worked within the construction place on them and just flipped it over. A good example is the word cockroach in the movie Hotel Rwanda used to place the Tutsi as subhuman and increase the divide. We cannot blame them for not taking authorship because common sense and reification had taken hold. The chances that bought groups could fight against something as strong as common sense and reification is slim.

When things are no longer examined for their factual value and become reified it becomes a big working machine. Taking in people as typifications with preordained settings, easily predictable. When it becomes that black and white authorship is lost and reciprocal behavior is automatic, thus creating a chain of evens that is hard to derail. When the institution is questioned the justifications are no longer routed in fact, but in habitualization.

Works Citied Page

Berger, Peter & Luckmann, Thomas. "The Foundations of Knowledge in Everyday Life,"

The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor Books. 1990: 59,91,91.

Gourevitch, Philip. "Chapter 4." We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families: Stories From Rwanda. New York. Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. 1998: 54.