The Social Construction of Reality

Our view of reality may not be entirely, or even mainly, "Rational" but may rather be a Human / Social Construction of Reality that is itself based on the promptings and cues provided by innate Human Nature.

We are only Human and it would seem that arising out of that Humanity we can enjoy several major areas of Felicity.

There seems to be an "honesty" related Felicity that can arise from feeling that you live your life Honestly before God.

There seems to be a "good-fellowship" related Felicity that can arise from Friendships, Relationships and Material comforts.

There seems to be a "manhood" related Felicity that can arise from feeling that the groups with whom we immediately identify enjoy a respected position in the scheme of things.

There seems to be an "intellectually" related Felicity that can arise from feeling that the world view we hold is inherently credible.

These areas of Felicity may well be based on innate Human Nature and may well have been open to being experienced by successive generations of individual Human Beings over tens of thousands of years.

Early peoples probably lived in tribes rather than in "Open" societies.

Intergroup Discrimination

It seems that also arising out of our tribal past there is a tendency to favour our "own" group and to discriminate against "out" groups. This tendency towards Intergroup Discrimation would presumably have given the in-group some advantage in survival terms.

The Unfolding of History

As members of tribes across historic time individual human beings may have needed inherent functionality that would allow the tribe to be internally harmonious (spirituality), self-regenerating (desire), and self preserving (manhood).

Over time tribes became larger and fell under the sway of Kings, Emperors and Churchmen. Dynastic marriages amongst "God's Anointed" dynastic houses (and also conflicts and the seeking of protection by peoples who felt themselves to be threatened) commonly lead to the inclusion of peoples from diverse ethnic traditions under the same dynastic ruler. In theory King and Emperors sought to exercise their sovereign powers justly under God and were charged with seeking to promote the welfare of their subjects.

As societies became more sophisticated, educated, and wealthy there were "Liberalistic" demands made by the rising middle classes for a share of influence over policy. This Liberalism enjoyed a heyday in Western Europe over several decades before and after 1800 but was increasingly displaced in political significance by such forces as Nationalism and Socialism.

As notions of Sovereignty moved away from accepting that God's anointed rulers were Sovereign and towards an acceptance that Peoples should be Sovereign there was scope for turbulence as communities and peoples were called upon to reflect upon their position on the Earth. The pan-national "Classical" perspectives of the European Enlightenment were increasingly displaced by more particularist "Romantic" perspectives.

Perhaps the most revealing phase of this whole interplay between monarchical Europe, the more longstanding claims of Liberal constitutionalism and the emergent claims of nationalism and socialism was played out in the revolutions of 1848-9. The early phase of this revolution where traditional monarchical rule was variously challenged has been depicted by some as a "springtime of the nations."

Although monarchical Europe was largely re-established after this period of revolution it was tested across subsequent decades by a number of powerful nationalistic movements. That being said there were two notable instances of Dynastic houses supporting policies whereby national sentiment was exploited in achieving extensions of their realms. These instances being that of Sardinia-Piedmont (Cavour) and Prussia (Bismarck).

The shift in sentiment away from Monarchical Sovereignty towards Popular Sovereignty was fraught with consequences. Where several communities had lived in relative harmony under the pre-existing monarchical sovereignty there was scope for dire disputations arising out of divergent identifications with emergent sovereign nations. Whilst a monarchical state may have been somewhat, and possibly reluctantly, prepared to function as an "Open" society it often happened that peoples who had been variously brought into association with Kingdoms and Empires aspired to seek to establish themselves in political independence.

Possibly the most dramatic adaption towards Popular Sovereignty occured in association with the settlement to the First World War. The diplomacy of that agonised period featured a serious battle for hearts and minds. Lenin and the American President Wilson both tending to champion the "self-determination of peoples." (This war itself having largely originated out of the aspirations and fears of states and peoples about their "place in the World.")

Human history has featured many instances of turmoil and injustice in the past and, if Peace on Earth between People of Goodwill is to be our goal, we may ask whether this goal may be better achieved in the future if we attempt to facilitate ALL the majorities and minorities of the Earth in enjoying the basic forms of Felicity. There is a general acceptance in today's world that minorities should be protected and accommodated rather than persecuted and assimilated.

We would suggest that it is in "Open" societies that the Peoples of the Earth may hope to very largely experience the several main types of Felicity for themselves without effectively denying them to any minorities that may be domiciled within their frontiers.

Several communities could perhaps co-exist together in mutual respect and consideration in "Open" societies wheras in "National" or "Confessional" states minority peoples could well feel themselves to be disvalued or excluded.