“Language and Knowledge in Everyday Life” in, The Reality of Everyday Life: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Berger and Luckmann, 1966/ 1991

LECTURE: “Language and Knowledge in Everyday Life” in, The Reality of Everyday Life: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Berger and Luckmann, 1966/ 1991 

KEYWORDS: Everyday Life, Language and Knowledge, Peter Ludwing Berger, Reality of Everyday Life, Shared Common Sense Reality, Social Construction of Reality, Sociology of Knowledge, Sociology of Knowledge, Sociology of Language, Thomas Luckmann

University of Delhi
Bachelor of Arts
Sociological Thinkers

READING TO BE COVERED: Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann, 1966/ 1991, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, London: Penguin Books. Chapter 3, Language and Knowledge in Everyday Life, pp. 49-61

Important Points to be Kept in Mind While Studying the Article/ Study Material

What is the relation between language and knowledge?
Meaning of language is beyond the means of communication.
What is the relation between the social constriction of the society and the constriction of the language?
Is language construction reflection the society, or social construction?
Through the language, society is also reflecting the power and position.

Expected Outcome

Students will be able to understate that the stricter of language is the reflection of the structure of society. In general, we are taking the meaning of words in granted because we know the meaning. These meaning are given to society. However, the structure of language and communication has come from the structure of society and we are repeating and practicing the social structure through the language. Students will be able to understand the importance of language to understand society and social structure and function.

Introduction

Human expressively is capable of objectivities, that is, it manifests itself in products of human activity that are available both to their products of human activity that are available both to their products and to other men as elements of a common world.

Languages enable us to communicate beyond the face to face interaction.

FOR EXAMPLE, This lecture is also a means of communication and we are communication beyond the facet-face interaction. This is possible because of the language. Of course, technology is one part but the technology itself not capable to carry the message or we can say that technology itself is not a language.

The face-to-face communication is situating by a verifying of bodily indicates – facial mien, general stance of the body, specific movement or and feet, and so on.

Non-Verbal Communication

PLEASE NOTE: THIS ARTICLE IS DOES NOT USING THE TERMINOLOGY “NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION”. However, whatever the writer is describing is the same things. The meaning of non0verbal communication is communication beyond spoken words. The non-verbal communication is happening during both in face-to-face communication and communication when the two or more people are not present face-to-face together.

Go Beyond Your Study Material

Your book/ Article does not say anything about the importance of the language, in the reference of globalization, power, hegemony and social identity, as well as means of suppression of the society, social identity, and knowledge. Whenever we are saying identity, it cannot complete without language. Every language has own structure of language. FOR EXAMPLE, the entire SYLLABUS of the University of Delhi is based on available literature in English for respective subjects (like Sociology), is it mean that Sociological Knowledge only exists in English? The honest answer is NO. But the University of Delhi is not recognizing the knowledge existing in other than English languages. And further, this is discriminatory to all those who don’t know English. They do have no right to study of Sociology in the University of Delhi? Goods and services are alone capable to change and hegemonies the society and culture but it with the language it becomes easier.

[49] Human expressive is capable of objectivation that is, it manifests itself in products of human activity that are available both to their producers and to another mean as elements of a common world.

Such objectivation and ability serve the possibility of communication beyond face-to-face.

However, subjective attitude can be directly expressed in the face-to-face situation by a variety of bodily indices – facial mien, general stance of the body, specific movements of arms and feet, and so on.

[50-52] Authors are emphasizing on the facial and body expression during the conversation. These movement and expression are adding the meaning in the conversation.

FOR EXAMPLE, you may ask our friends how are s/he over phone message? S/he may reply that s/he is fine or vice versa. Here you have to rely on the text. Sometimes text too can express or reflect the feeling but not every time. However, if the same conversations happen face-to-face with the same quarry and reply then you can also read the tone of the voice and expression. By reading these you have to say the “meaning of fine” mean not the meaning of fine rather s/he is trying to hide her/his emotions.

Nonverbal Communication

Dear students the entire text is not using this terminology but expression apart from the spoken words is called nonverbal communication. This was first observed by non another than the Charles Robert Darwin (1809 to 1882), later on, many researchers have done their work on this topic and enrich the socio-psychological literature.

DEAR STUDENTS, I have done research on “NonVerbal Communication” as Research Associated under Dr Omprakash Kushwaha, funded by Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), at Institute of Social Sciences (ISS). I am surprised that why Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckman neither use the terminology “nonverbal communication” nor they have to give credit to earlier thinkers and researchers. Lead photo of this article is from his research taken by Dr Omprakash Kushwaha and me during the study. Because my participation in this project I am able to relate this article with non-verbal communication.

Note: Nonverbal and Non-Verbal both are correct.

[53] The authors are saying very simple things that meaning of language is given. We have or no have created the language and no one can change it too. The meaning of language is given in society. And we are taking their meaning as granted. We are thinking much about using the language or words of the language. We assume that whatever we are saying the receiver understands in the way, the message was intended to say.

EXAMPLE ONE: If one person is snubbing or abusing to another person then another person is not receiving it as words of appreciation or anything in a good manner. Or we can also say that either second person understand it or they do not understand it if the person so not understand the spoken language of the first person.

EXAMPLE TWO: Many times in the society we are taking the language as garnetted, and we are using the terminology as it been using for a long time. These are also reflecting the social and power structure of society. There is an idiom that “dhobi ka kutta, na khar ka na ghat ka” means the dog of washer-man have neither place at home nor at the workplace because the washer-man has nothing to secure at home nor dog can help him at the workplace. You can find many idioms like this which is depicting the caste structure and power in the society. In general, these idioms are derogatory for the weaker section of the society. They also gender bias.

[54- 55] Language is also playing an important role in society to symbolize meaning. Language is capable not only of constructing symbols that are highly abstracted from everyday experience but also of ‘bringing back’ these symbols and presenting them as objectively real elements in everyday life. In this manner, symbolism and symbolic language become essential constitutes of the reality of everyday life and of the common-sense apprehension of this reality. We live in a world of sign and symbols every day.

PLEASE NOTE: French Sociologist David Emile Durkheim (1858 to 1817) has said these things about language much before Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann but this article does not give any reference to him. Hope you have studied these while studying the Social Fact, in Sociological Thinkers I.

[56-57] The language and meaning of words are coming from the social experience. Also, the language and vocabulary are not the same for the rich and poor, because o their different social structure and experience.

The social stock of knowledge differentiates reality by the degree of familiarity. It provides complex and detailed information concerning those sectors of everyday life with which we must frequently deal.

PLEASE NOTE: The above things about language had said by French thinker Pierre Bourdieu (1930 to 2002) before Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann and in the context of Social Capital. However, Alesis de Tocqueville was the first person who used the terminology of Social Capital.

[58] Our knowledge of our own occupation and its world is very rich and specific, which we have only very sketchy knowledge of the occupational worlds of others. Therefore the language, they come and enrich from the experience and usage.

To quote the authors- In other words, ‘what everybody knows’ has its own logic, and the same logic can be applied to order various things that I know. The validity of knowledge of everyday life is taken for granted by myself and by other until further notice, that is, until a problem arises that cannot be solved in terms of it. As long as my knowledge works satisfactory, I am generally ready to suspend doubts about it.

[59] The social stock of knowledge apprehends the everyday world in an integrated manner, differentiated according to zones of familiarity and remoteness; it leaves the totality of that world opaque (= not transparent). The knowledge of everyday life is structured in terms of relevance. Some of these are determined by immediate pragmatic interests of mine, others by my general situation in society.

[60] Our knowledge is existing in the relevant social structure. The basic relevance structures refereeing to everyday life are presented to me ready-made by the social stock of knowledge itself. We encounter knowledge in everyday life as socially distributed. The social distribution of knowledge of certain elements of everyday reality can become highly complex and even confusing to the outsider. The social distribution of knowledge begins with the simple fact that I do not know everything known to my fellowmen, and vice versa, and culminate in exceeding complex and esoteric systems of expertise. 

===

Image Source and Credit: Police Protection for Horse Riding for Marriage. Credit TOI 2013 07 13

===

Anil Kumar, PhD, Student of Social Sciences

Anil Kumar | Student of Life World 
Stay Social ~ Stay Connected 

Study with Anil 

Lecture, Study Material, and More 

Keep Visiting ~ Stay Curious