6 ms·

TL;DR — Phillip K. Dick's writing anticipated fake news. :P Alright, that's too much of a simplification, and the article is worth a read—but I'd warn that it

TL;DR — Phillip K. Dick's writing anticipated fake news. :P Alright, that's too much of a simplification, and the article is worth a read—but I'd warn that it's plagued by the annoying (and all too common) use of 'reality' in place of 'belief' or 'theory' or other more appropriate options, which magically makes all kinds of statements sound more interesting than they really are. > ... Yet they were also based on a keen interest in the processes through which reality is socially constructed. Dick believed that we all live in a world where “spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups—and the electronic hardware exists by which to deliver these pseudo-worlds right into heads of the reader.” Now imagine if instead it were simply said that, "the media, governments, big corporations, religious groups, and political groups attempt to conceal the truth and tell their own versions instead." The term 'reality' is kind of useful because 'creating a reality' isn't quite a simple as telling a lie, since it's more like a network of lies used to present an alternate account of the state of things. But, it also carries with it the implication that there isn't any objective reality, and that when a political group 'creates a new reality', that it is somehow ontologically equivalent to any other 'reality' available. I know this is kind of a side rant, but seriously, I can't wait for the day when it's no longer socially acceptable to talk about 'constructing reality' in random contexts, whether the reader is aware of its particular meaning (it's jargon from Sociology and spread to other areas) or not. I can just imagine how it would have felt to read the article if I didn't happen to know the origin of that phrase ('social construction of reality')—it would seem mostly coherent and would appear to be talking about something of the utmost significance, and yet with some kind of vagueness I couldn't quite place (that's my recollection of running into it years ago).

empath75 9y ago
You seem very sure that reality has a precise definition that everyone agrees on.
- westoncb 9y ago
  No, actually, my complaint is that mid 20th century a bunch of people introduced a new definition for it, so clearly not everyone agrees :) Before that, however, the situation was much more clear cut. And even still, 'reality' is mostly just used in the traditional way. For instance, the American Heritage dictionary's entry: n. The quality or state of being actual or true. n. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities” ( Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.) n. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence. n. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality. idiom in reality In fact; actually. Now, if we jump to something like Wiktionary: n. The state of being actual or real. n. A real entity, event or other fact. n. The entirety of all that is real. n. An individual observer's own subjective perception of that which is real. —we can at least find one entry which match's the article's usage (the last one there). My problem with it is that redefining 'reality' to mean nearly the opposite of what it traditionally has meant is an underhanded way of pushing the philosophical viewpoint that no objective reality exists (which was held by the people who introduced this usage of the word).
  - barrkel 9y ago
    > philosophical viewpoint that no objective reality exists I'll only add not to forget the situation of the leader: his perception of reality is that he is the leader, but it is only true because other people's perception of reality is also that he is the leader. There's no reality here outside perceptions, but it's still true: you can still observe who the leader is in a group of social animals from observation. (For philosophical purposes, I believe the quoted definition is true, primarily because every alternative seems to be unsound.)
theoh 9y ago
The origin is this book: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_R... It's probably fair to say that PKD would have found ideas like "consensus reality" (Charles Tart) or "reality tunnels" (Timothy Leary) to be, at least, relevant to his work. I found this article helpful in sketching the developments that you seem to be objecting to: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-ame...
- westoncb 9y ago
  Yep, my understanding is also that Berger and Luckmann is the source of the phrase. That looks like an interesting article—I'll check it out. Here's another (shorter) one that deals with the issue: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/11/post-truth-spawned-by-liberal-left-long-ago-brexit-trump/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/11/post-truth-spawn... (There's a very brief summary in the section "The truth about post-truth")
wjnc 9y ago
I enjoyed both the piece and your comment. I might be somewhat preloaded (both parents sociologists), but the Boston Review might be right to assume that their readers have some background or at least interest in philosophy, sociology, political discours etc. And isn't reality even a somewhat bigger term than you describe, in that (loosely: post-modern) reality is always subjective. Your drilling down ("Now imagine ...") still suggests A truth, while for me 'constructing reality' really drives home that reality is subjective, a construct.
- westoncb 9y ago
  Hey wjnc. That's actually part of the problem I have with it. When you say: > ...for me 'constructing reality' really drives home that reality is subjective, a construct. That is a large part of why I take issue with the phrase: the idea that 'reality is subjective, a construct' is one philosophical stance, but by no means the only one possible (afaik, it's quite uncommon for those outside the humanities and certain social sciences to believe this), so it's problematic to have it assumed as true, and to encode that assumption subtly into the language you're using (it's a phrase made up of common words, so unless you're familiar with it, you won't know it has a special meaning).
  - barrkel 9y ago
    'reality is subjective, a construct' is one philosophical stance, but by no means the only one possible I'm not so sure about that. I find Kant is pretty convincing; scientific realism is pretty vulnerable when faced with the fact that theories change. Science is best viewed with an instrumentalist perspective, that's where it is most solid. We simply don't know if we're brains in vats, or creatures in a simulation. The real reality is unknowable.
  - tigerBL00D 9y ago
    You wrote "afaik, it's quite uncommon for those outside the humanities and certain social sciences to believe this". This is an example of a fragment of your constructed reality. It's something you choose to believe, because it coheres with your other beliefs. It is clearly not a true statement, because the supposed objective reality is constantly updated with new knowledge acquired across all domains of human thought. No single individual possesses the complete view of all the knowledge. In other words any subjective reality is constructed, and the objective reality is not known. A "constructed reality" is not the same as a lie (or incomplete truth). A lie can stand alone in contradiction with facts and proofs, as your statement above does, by definition. A lie can be integrated into a coherent view of the world, a constructed reality, composed of truths and other lies.
Udik 9y ago
While I do understand you rant, note that in the context of Dick's novels what is constructed is actual reality, so this use of the term definitely makes sense here. Dick's characters move in a world where the boundaries between real and unreal have been blurred to the point nobody can be sure anymore of which is which. "Concealing the truth" is a particularly bad substitute for the concept. Creating worldviews might be a better one. But consider that there are even in our world actual realities that are social constructs. Think of social media. Facebook is real, has a part in our lives and what happens in it has real impacts on us; in turn this relevance is determined by the socially agreed value we attribute to it. At its most basic level, because of a network effect: it's real because it's used, and it's used because people think it's used.
- westoncb 9y ago
  > ...note that in the context of Dick's novels what is constructed is actual reality My understanding is that he used that as a metaphor for getting at this social construction of reality idea. Additionally, I take no issue with Dick's usage of 'reality'; I have an issue with the article's. > But consider that there are even in our world actual realities that are social constructs. Think of social media. Social constructs are real—agreed. However, that is a very different statement from 'alternate realities are socially constructed' or even that a single reality is 'socially constructed,' even granting the reality of social constructs.
  - JdeBP 9y ago
    If it is the article, rather than PKD, that you are taking issue with, why is the part that you explicitly quoted in order to take issue with it the part that was written by PKD? It's a quote from his introduction to I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon.
    - westoncb 9y ago
      Half of my quote is from that, the other half is from the article. I'm not a fan of either's usage, but I take no issue with PKD's because he's just sharing his ideas and fiction; the article has set itself up in way like it's going to objectively present information on some things and people in the world. Using 'reality' to mean what has traditionally meant 'not-reality', in that context, is distasteful, imo.
gumby 9y ago
> use of 'reality' in place of 'belief' or 'theory' Which was of course a fundamental subject explored by PKD. Most disappointingly, the Amazon Man in the High Castle adaptation tossed all of that overboard (though it was the primary theme of the book) in favor of the frisson of Nazi porn.
- andybak 9y ago
  That's a shame. I was rather looking forward to watching it but knowing that has rather put me off.
  - gumby 9y ago
    madaxe_again disagrees with me (look at his reply to my comment) so don't make your decision solely on what I say.
- madaxe_again 9y ago
  Not sure how much of it you’ve seen, as while it does diverge substantially from the book, it does go off down a belief-powers reality route.
  - gumby 9y ago
    The book used the I Ching as a gateway between worlds, producing the Man's book as well of course the insights of the trade minister, who starts to doubt the assumptions and foundations of reality early. In the TV show there are mysterious films with no explanation, and though the wonderful Embarcadero freeway scene from the end of the book is shown at the end of the first season, without the slow build up it isn't at all insightful. Admittedly it's just a film, so not expected to be able to express the subtleties possible in text, but I feel they don't even get to the heart of the book at all.
    - madaxe_again 9y ago
      I know - the second season employs the I Ching world interchange too - it's how it concluded. The trade minister becomes pivotal, as written. I'm bearing with it - I think it's hit closer to the mark than electric dreams did - but the only PKD anything which has been faithfully produced was A Scanner Darkly, in my opinion.
madaxe_again 9y ago
I would argue that you are missing a beat, insofar as he’s not so much about constructionism (although he was about that, too) as a level below that. There’s social construction in the format of group consensus and shared narrative, but the “reality” PKD typically picks at is much more basic and fundamental - your perception, your symbol set, your very humanness defining your experience of “objective reality”. He thought that “objective reality” was absolutely inseparable from our perception, that we build a gestalt from fragmented chaos, and that that process can break down. Dick has characters in total isolation lose reality not through divergence with social norms, rather through their perception undergoing some shift - it’s no coincidence that he was into disassociative psychedelics. The article, if anything, misunderstands Dick, as one of the fundamental aspects of his worlds is that more often than not the problem is the protagonist, who is blind to their own corrosive effects on reality, rather than reality being controlled by sinister entities with purpose and direction. All of these so-called “realities” (I do agree with you on that aspect) are simulacra, mounted atop a further simulacra, ultimately possibly (Bostrom among others has dented my confidence in “probably”) mounted upon some physical base reality. But it’s equally likely that we’re a Boltzmann brain having one hell of a hallucination - and that’s far closer to PKD’s ultimate truths than anything as mundane as manufactured “realities”. Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation was directly inspired by PKD’s work, and explores his notions in quite some detail. It’s a light read, and I highly recommend it.

empath75 9y ago

You seem very sure that reality has a precise definition that everyone agrees on.

westoncb 9y ago
No, actually, my complaint is that mid 20th century a bunch of people introduced a new definition for it, so clearly not everyone agrees :) Before that, however, the situation was much more clear cut. And even still, 'reality' is mostly just used in the traditional way. For instance, the American Heritage dictionary's entry: n. The quality or state of being actual or true. n. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities” ( Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.) n. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence. n. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality. idiom in reality In fact; actually. Now, if we jump to something like Wiktionary: n. The state of being actual or real. n. A real entity, event or other fact. n. The entirety of all that is real. n. An individual observer's own subjective perception of that which is real. —we can at least find one entry which match's the article's usage (the last one there). My problem with it is that redefining 'reality' to mean nearly the opposite of what it traditionally has meant is an underhanded way of pushing the philosophical viewpoint that no objective reality exists (which was held by the people who introduced this usage of the word).
- barrkel 9y ago
  > philosophical viewpoint that no objective reality exists I'll only add not to forget the situation of the leader: his perception of reality is that he is the leader, but it is only true because other people's perception of reality is also that he is the leader. There's no reality here outside perceptions, but it's still true: you can still observe who the leader is in a group of social animals from observation. (For philosophical purposes, I believe the quoted definition is true, primarily because every alternative seems to be unsound.)

theoh 9y ago

The origin is this book: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_R... It's probably fair to say that PKD would have found ideas like "consensus reality" (Charles Tart) or "reality tunnels" (Timothy Leary) to be, at least, relevant to his work. I found this article helpful in sketching the developments that you seem to be objecting to: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-ame...

westoncb 9y ago
Yep, my understanding is also that Berger and Luckmann is the source of the phrase. That looks like an interesting article—I'll check it out. Here's another (shorter) one that deals with the issue: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/11/post-truth-spawned-by-liberal-left-long-ago-brexit-trump/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/11/post-truth-spawn... (There's a very brief summary in the section "The truth about post-truth")

wjnc 9y ago

I enjoyed both the piece and your comment. I might be somewhat preloaded (both parents sociologists), but the Boston Review might be right to assume that their readers have some background or at least interest in philosophy, sociology, political discours etc. And isn't reality even a somewhat bigger term than you describe, in that (loosely: post-modern) reality is always subjective. Your drilling down ("Now imagine ...") still suggests A truth, while for me 'constructing reality' really drives home that reality is subjective, a construct.

westoncb 9y ago
Hey wjnc. That's actually part of the problem I have with it. When you say: > ...for me 'constructing reality' really drives home that reality is subjective, a construct. That is a large part of why I take issue with the phrase: the idea that 'reality is subjective, a construct' is one philosophical stance, but by no means the only one possible (afaik, it's quite uncommon for those outside the humanities and certain social sciences to believe this), so it's problematic to have it assumed as true, and to encode that assumption subtly into the language you're using (it's a phrase made up of common words, so unless you're familiar with it, you won't know it has a special meaning).
- barrkel 9y ago
  'reality is subjective, a construct' is one philosophical stance, but by no means the only one possible I'm not so sure about that. I find Kant is pretty convincing; scientific realism is pretty vulnerable when faced with the fact that theories change. Science is best viewed with an instrumentalist perspective, that's where it is most solid. We simply don't know if we're brains in vats, or creatures in a simulation. The real reality is unknowable.
- tigerBL00D 9y ago
  You wrote "afaik, it's quite uncommon for those outside the humanities and certain social sciences to believe this". This is an example of a fragment of your constructed reality. It's something you choose to believe, because it coheres with your other beliefs. It is clearly not a true statement, because the supposed objective reality is constantly updated with new knowledge acquired across all domains of human thought. No single individual possesses the complete view of all the knowledge. In other words any subjective reality is constructed, and the objective reality is not known. A "constructed reality" is not the same as a lie (or incomplete truth). A lie can stand alone in contradiction with facts and proofs, as your statement above does, by definition. A lie can be integrated into a coherent view of the world, a constructed reality, composed of truths and other lies.

Udik 9y ago

While I do understand you rant, note that in the context of Dick's novels what is constructed is actual reality, so this use of the term definitely makes sense here. Dick's characters move in a world where the boundaries between real and unreal have been blurred to the point nobody can be sure anymore of which is which. "Concealing the truth" is a particularly bad substitute for the concept. Creating worldviews might be a better one. But consider that there are even in our world actual realities that are social constructs. Think of social media. Facebook is real, has a part in our lives and what happens in it has real impacts on us; in turn this relevance is determined by the socially agreed value we attribute to it. At its most basic level, because of a network effect: it's real because it's used, and it's used because people think it's used.

westoncb 9y ago
> ...note that in the context of Dick's novels what is constructed is actual reality My understanding is that he used that as a metaphor for getting at this social construction of reality idea. Additionally, I take no issue with Dick's usage of 'reality'; I have an issue with the article's. > But consider that there are even in our world actual realities that are social constructs. Think of social media. Social constructs are real—agreed. However, that is a very different statement from 'alternate realities are socially constructed' or even that a single reality is 'socially constructed,' even granting the reality of social constructs.
- JdeBP 9y ago
  If it is the article, rather than PKD, that you are taking issue with, why is the part that you explicitly quoted in order to take issue with it the part that was written by PKD? It's a quote from his introduction to I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon.
  - westoncb 9y ago
    Half of my quote is from that, the other half is from the article. I'm not a fan of either's usage, but I take no issue with PKD's because he's just sharing his ideas and fiction; the article has set itself up in way like it's going to objectively present information on some things and people in the world. Using 'reality' to mean what has traditionally meant 'not-reality', in that context, is distasteful, imo.

gumby 9y ago

> use of 'reality' in place of 'belief' or 'theory' Which was of course a fundamental subject explored by PKD. Most disappointingly, the Amazon Man in the High Castle adaptation tossed all of that overboard (though it was the primary theme of the book) in favor of the frisson of Nazi porn.

andybak 9y ago
That's a shame. I was rather looking forward to watching it but knowing that has rather put me off.
- gumby 9y ago
  madaxe_again disagrees with me (look at his reply to my comment) so don't make your decision solely on what I say.
madaxe_again 9y ago
Not sure how much of it you’ve seen, as while it does diverge substantially from the book, it does go off down a belief-powers reality route.
- gumby 9y ago
  The book used the I Ching as a gateway between worlds, producing the Man's book as well of course the insights of the trade minister, who starts to doubt the assumptions and foundations of reality early. In the TV show there are mysterious films with no explanation, and though the wonderful Embarcadero freeway scene from the end of the book is shown at the end of the first season, without the slow build up it isn't at all insightful. Admittedly it's just a film, so not expected to be able to express the subtleties possible in text, but I feel they don't even get to the heart of the book at all.
  - madaxe_again 9y ago
    I know - the second season employs the I Ching world interchange too - it's how it concluded. The trade minister becomes pivotal, as written. I'm bearing with it - I think it's hit closer to the mark than electric dreams did - but the only PKD anything which has been faithfully produced was A Scanner Darkly, in my opinion.

madaxe_again 9y ago

I would argue that you are missing a beat, insofar as he’s not so much about constructionism (although he was about that, too) as a level below that. There’s social construction in the format of group consensus and shared narrative, but the “reality” PKD typically picks at is much more basic and fundamental - your perception, your symbol set, your very humanness defining your experience of “objective reality”. He thought that “objective reality” was absolutely inseparable from our perception, that we build a gestalt from fragmented chaos, and that that process can break down. Dick has characters in total isolation lose reality not through divergence with social norms, rather through their perception undergoing some shift - it’s no coincidence that he was into disassociative psychedelics. The article, if anything, misunderstands Dick, as one of the fundamental aspects of his worlds is that more often than not the problem is the protagonist, who is blind to their own corrosive effects on reality, rather than reality being controlled by sinister entities with purpose and direction. All of these so-called “realities” (I do agree with you on that aspect) are simulacra, mounted atop a further simulacra, ultimately possibly (Bostrom among others has dented my confidence in “probably”) mounted upon some physical base reality. But it’s equally likely that we’re a Boltzmann brain having one hell of a hallucination - and that’s far closer to PKD’s ultimate truths than anything as mundane as manufactured “realities”. Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation was directly inspired by PKD’s work, and explores his notions in quite some detail. It’s a light read, and I highly recommend it.