That is exactly what is taking place. As a pastoral counselor and family consultant, I studied "narrative therapy" and became acquainted with its philosophical base, constructionism. The bottom line with both is that "reality is the story you tell" and it is not some objective truth that can be studied. (In counseling, it actually is valid to understand how a couple sees the history of their relationship and the "story/narrative" they tell about it.)
One hears often about the power of the narrative being told in politics, of changing narratives, and of creating narratives. Same base on all of it.
As wikipedia explains it:
"In social constructionist terms, "taken-for-granted realities" are cultivated from "interactions between and among social agents;" furthermore, reality is not some objective truth "waiting to be uncovered through positivist scientific inquiry."[4] Rather, there can be "multiple realities that compete for truth and legitimacy."[4] Social constructionism understands the "fundamental role of language and communication" and this understanding has "contributed to the linguistic turn" and more recently the "turn to discourse theory."[4][5] The majority of social constructionists abide by the belief that "language does not mirror reality; rather, it constitutes [creates] it."[4]
"In social constructionist terms, "taken-for-granted realities" are cultivated from "interactions between and among social agents;"Wiki gives a nod to “taken-for-granted realities,” thereby denoting them as having real empirical existence. But wiki is silent about how they can be humanly observed realities and why they are taken for granted. Then they toss in a total abstraction, the “social agent.” What on earth is that? It seems the term conceals more than it reveals. I mean, it’s possible to classify mothers, fathers, pastors and priests, policemen, politicians, academics, etc., etc., and Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, etc., etc., as members of the “social agent” category. To me, the above passage is total drivel -- unless it is understood as an invitation to expunge, erase all moral distinctions; e.g., as between mothers and Hitler.
Idle question: Do “social agents” have to be human?
…[F]urthermore, reality is not some objective truth "waiting to be uncovered through positivist scientific inquiry. "Rather, there can be "multiple realities that compete for truth and legitimacy."This would be news to Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, et al. It is the very inversion of the fundamental insight and motivation of the physical sciences, the continuous fundamental premise of scientific inquiry from its historical inception in the ancient world. So now wiki comes along, and spreads a rumor about multiple realities competing for truth and legitimacy – on whose say-so? On what evidence? If there are “multiple realities,” how many of them do such bloviators live in, such that they can compare them in order to establish which one of them is legitimate? By what objective standard or criterion do they use to establish this legitimacy?
Social constructionism understands the "fundamental role of language and communication" and this understanding has "contributed to the linguistic turn" and more recently the "turn to discourse theory.” The majority of social constructionists abide by the belief that "language does not mirror reality; rather, it constitutes [creates] it."Again, it seems to me the social constructionists are trying to invert/subvert, not only reality, but language as well. Historically, words have had stable meanings over time. If they did not, human communication would be impossible. In human languages, words always have external referrents: E.g., the word “dog” describes a particular type of biological being. This relation of word and object is how we know a word validly “means” what it says. But above words, language itself has certain logical properties or “rules of the road” – its syntax – which guides us in structuring our thoughts.
To allow words and language itself to become the playthings of influential “agents of change” -- nihilistic abstractionists with a will-to-power – is to advance the speedy reconstruction of the Tower of Babel. Which signifies the total breakdown of civil society and the descent into personal and social chaos.
Or theologically speaking, a descent into Hell.