Now let's look closer at how an individual's sexual orientation and race further illustrate the means by which the reality of the individual is defined.
Sexual orientation is defined by a certain perpetuation of convention. The assumption that heterosexuality is a product of an innate or inborn sex drive, was, for a long time, accepted as reality, as a scientific truth. But as a direct result of the development of the field of sociology, the sexual orientation of an individual is no longer considered natural, nor are the conventions of sexuality related to an empirical truth.
Rather, they are now perceived as a product of the perception of the individual. This demonstrates the shift from scientific empirical evidence to sociological evidence as the means by which to define reality. The reality is not only a heterosexual objective reality anymore.
In other words, in society today, the early scientific convention has disappeared, largely due to the rise of the encompassing social science that sociology is. What was once called a “heterosexual mystique" in the first third of the century, is now considered by sociology to be a myth, because an individual defines his reality and reacts to the aspects of objective reality, which he deems relevant to him. The relevance is a product of the social conventions which man chooses both unconsciously and consciously, to adopt.
In a more general sense, the function of race and racism within society, illustrates the means by which the reality of the individual is defined, whether ethical or not, through the conventions which he adapts.
Racism is the most clear and visible illustration of the means by which man can define a reality, which is inaccurate or unjust. Yet, even though the reality is inaccurate, the individual chooses to adopt it rendering himself ignorant or bigoted.
Labeling occurs within all walks of society, and this labeling occurs as an outgrowth of the tracking we talked about in the previous section, which is institutionalized within society. The resultant categorizations, illustrate not only the means in which reality has been distorted so often by man, but also serves to demonstrate how fallible in character man truly is. Yet, it is through this fallibility, this subjectivity emanating from convention, that man does define himself. The purpose of sociology is to study and record this phenomenon, and maintain the distinctions therein, so that the conventions of society do not obscure the fact that individuals are bonded by their humanity, not their individual categorical physical characteristic.
In conclusion, as participants in society, individuals tend to construct reality according to their conventions. The consequences of these conventions are defined through the relevance and reality, which the individual finds in the concrete situation. This process represents the significance to sociologist by which they can differentiate between social myth and human, universal perception.
Comments