Institutionalization vs. internalization

Vygotsky’s theory of internalization does not seem to be far removed from Berger and Luckman’s thoughts on institutionalization. Both rely on the fundamental assumption that man is social by nature. Neither theory relies solely on the nature or nurture argument, instead both seek a way to bridge a biological and psychological explanation of man’s predisposition to social behaviors and how they socially construct shared patterns of knowledge. In reading Berger and Luckman, I was prone to think of everything about how knowledge becomes institutionalized and passed down in the context of a classroom. They state that “only with the transmission of the social world to a new generation… does the fundamental social dialectic appear in its totality.” Vygotsky’s makes similar suggestions when he says that something “becomes a true gesture only after it objectively manifests all the functions of pointing for others and is understood by others as such a gesture.” Both rely on social, or interpersonal, interactions between people to cement meanings between specific individuals. However, when meaning is created between two individuals, it will eventually create a shared meaning for the rest of society. This process is invariably inevitable. More importantly, however, it must be noted that none of the authors believe that this formation of meaning can be instantaneous. They both rely on the continuity of shared historical experience. Not only must the social interaction occur between two people, but it must occur between two people over time. By outwardly expressing meaning over a period of time, eventually, “the product will act back upon the producer” (Berger and Luckman) and “the process being transformed [will] continue to exist and to change as an external form of activity for a long time before definitively turning inward.” These situations are positive feedback cycles, which not only continuously reinforce meaning, but have room to shape and reshape what they are while further drilling their presence deeper into objective knowledge. So then, in the context of a classroom, what does this mean as to how individuals form knowledge? On a surface level, we could examine the relationships between teachers and students as mutual reinforcers of signs and knowledge, but on a larger historical level, we could see both as actors in a social system where neither have much freedom of movement. Both actors seem to be controlled by an institutionalization that neither can break free from its specific productions of meaning. If both of these are true, then the real question I want to raise is how can we then implement flexibility and creativity in our creation and production of shared meanings? Must we always be subject to the shared meanings of societies? Or can an individual actor have enough power to impose a new, creative, and spontaneous meaning on something, with our without the acquiescence of another individual?