A blind wanderer in a forest - Constructivism and the limits of knowledge

Recently, I have read two classic texts about constructivism: Berger and Luckmann's book from 1966 and a chapter by Ernst von Glasersfeld from 1985, and I share some ideas here.

Before Socrates, Democritus and Xenophanes were already writing about the limitations of human perception and reason in grasping reality. Their conclusion: humans cannot fully comprehend the true nature of things. This skepticism was echoed later by thinkers like Pyrrho and Sextus Empiricus, who showed that reason alone cannot verify whether our experiences align with an independent reality.

René Descartes attempted to overcome this skepticism with his "cogito ergo sum" but, in the end, he suggested that God might be the only safeguard against our deceptive senses. Berkeley later questioned the reality of qualities like mass and form, and Kant further complicated knowledge by showing that human understanding is bound by subjective forms. This led to 'epistemological skepticism'; objective knowledge is elusive.

Sensory perception has long been considered the way to understanding the world, but scholars like J.J. Gibson pointed at the unsolved issue: how do we compare perceived objects with real ones? Scientific progress is impressive, but it still doesn't provide access to objective reality. Instead, knowledge becomes instrumental, because it helps us to find our way in the world rather than revealing its true nature.

Instrumentalism and Constructivism

Instrumentalism sees knowledge as a tool for achieving goals rather than finding an ultimate truth. Von Glasersfeld writes that knowledge is about constructing useful pathways through experience. Like a blind wanderer finding his way through a forest, our understanding of the world is formed by the obstacles we encounter, not by direct access to reality.

The process of knowing creates the objects we know, wrote Georg Simmel in 1895. What we perceive as objects is defined by our sensory experiences and actions. Jakob von Uexküll supported this: organisms construct their perception of the world based on their specific interactions with their environment.

Our understanding of reality as people, too, is formed by everyday experiences, interactions, and communication. The result is a unique worldview for each individual. Our knowledge adapts as we interact with each other, and our roles and societal norms adapt too. Over time, habits form institutions that influence behavior and structure society. Institutions gain objectivity and legitimacy. A shared narrative that gives order to personal and societal life is the dynamic result. Our identity is socially constructed through interactions and is maintained or transformed over time. Society and identity evolve together in a dynamic relationship, constantly forming one another (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).

Knowledge and Survival

Darwin's theory of evolution reinforces the constructivist view - survival and functionality are prioritized over objective truth. Donald Campbell proposed that knowledge evolves through trial and error, and the most viable ideas are retained. Still, Campbell clung to the belief in an independent reality, while constructivism moves beyond this.

Conclusion

Our knowledge is valuable. Not because it mirrors reality, but because it enables us to function and achieve our goals. We're not speaking here of 'being' in the ontological sense, but about human cognition and its constructive features. This constructivist model is useful, because it gives us a practical approach to understanding human knowledge without relying on unrealistic assumptions about reality.

Sources

Berger, P.L., Luckmann, T. (1966), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, New York: Anchor Books.

Glasersfeld, E. von (2016 [1985]), Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit und des Begriffs der Objektivit?t, in: Gumen, H., Mohler, A. (1985), Einführung in den Konstruktivismus, München: Piper Verlag.