Introduction
Szostak (2003) defines world view as an individual’s frame work of ideas and beliefs through which the individuals interacts with the world, and the perception that the individuals has about the world. My world view was shaped during my early childhood days. I grew up in a poor background in Chicago, where my parents were store workers in a local supermarket. My early life was thus coupled with problems of childhood which included lack of decent meals and shelter. To add to the endless list, my parents were in constant wrangles. Later my father passed away after being shot down by gangsters who tried to break into the supermarket in one memorable evening. Therefore a good part of my childhood was spent with my mother who taught me that the world was unfair, and one had to work hard in order to earn a living. This formed the focal point in, my life. I grew determined to save my family from the manacles of poverty.
Psychological perspective’s explanation
The psychological perspective advances that the human experience is uniquely different and particular to each individual (The AE CT, 2001). The level of interaction of human beings is determinative of the construction that pone has of the society of existence. This is manifested in their lives and the behaviour that they portray. Burr (2006) argues that the interaction between human beings and their environment will determine how the cognitive faculties will develop the belief about something. This will often be manifested in the behaviour adopted by the individual. The behaviour in this case will be based on the internal constructions that have been adopted by the parties involved. This will have emanated from the experience that one is exposed to. Therefore my world belief is direct consequence of the nature of childhood I was exposed to, and the events occurring in my life at the time. This seems to be the default model that explains my world view, because my experience at that tender age determined my belief in life and the adaption of the view of the world undertaken.
Social constructionist perspective
The social constructionists hold that people are exposed to different people who deal with the same surroundings but of different cultures (Burr, 2006). The cultures of different people are responsible for the construction of foundations that these cultures live by. The foundation will be based on the four elements of the social constructionist theory i.e. symbolic codes, sets of roles and rules, cultural traditions and cultural customs. Therefore, the experience I had in a multicultural background at my childhood is responsible for the constructions I have about life. To the cultural inclination of the time, success would only be achieved through hard work, determination, honesty and shrewdness in whatever one worked at. This influenced the world view adopted, hence the overall behaviour and perspective about life.
Pragmatic Perspective explanation
The pragmatics theorists advance that the occurrence of an action or event is the sole reason behind the adaptations that one has about similar occurrences (Benetatou, 2011). To some extent the events that unfolded in the first instance may lead to a number of life constructions. For instance, in the event that took place in my childhood was responsible for the fear of failure in life. Due to the poor nature of my parents, I was forced to adopt a different understanding of poverty and life. To me poverty as earlier advanced in this paper is implicative of those members who do not work with dedication at whatever they do. This therefore means that the context and time of happening of events, plus their impacts developed are responsible for the changed perceptions that one has about life. This therefore will go a long way in shaping the thinking and eventual adaptation about a world view by an individual (Benetatou, 2011).
Cultural studies perspective explanation
Cultural studies involve the inquiry into the life and culture of a people (Boston, 1996). The life of a people revolves around the activities that that particular group engages in as a source of livelihood, their culture, roles and rules governing the interactions existing between the different members if society. These studies will incorporate the shared norms that and prejudices that are reminiscent of a particular community. Boston (1996) asserts that for the cultural understanding to be comprehensively analyzed there must be an understanding of the cultural seedbed of the origins of the culture developed by the people under investigations. The cultural seedbeds here are the world view that is adopted by the people of concern. Therefore as the world view determines the cultural affiliations and standing of a community, the construction adopted by a group of people will always be based on the point of view. This therefore means that the world view that I have developed over time is also a manifestation of the people of Chicago at the time.
It is evident that the people believe in hard work and determination in succeeding in ones life. The lazy are usually seen as the failures in society and some of the reasons behind the cracks and normative crevices in society. Therefore the study shows that one’s construction of a world belief may be a collective belief that is upheld by the entire society since they form the building block into the social culture of the people (Boston, 1996).
The pragmatic schema and script of relations of interactions seem to be one that is best suited for the change in references in life. This model as it advances that whatever one does has direct consequences on the results-action reaction theory; will have more benefits to my take on life. Actions taken for example, knowing and understanding that if I work hard under the circumstances of poverty (which am currently in) I will definitely succeed .I will therefore understand that whatever action I take will repay me in equal measures that it is undertaken. Therefore hard work on the field I have chosen will lead to more success, and likewise if I don’t work hard I will fail to achieve the targets. Therefore my stand and adoption of world view will be greatly be influenced by the adoption of this model and disbanding the psychological model which put more emphasis on experience and cognitive processing.
References
Benetatou, M. (2011). Confucian pragmatism as the art of contextualizing personal experience and world. China Review,11(1), 186-190. http://search.proquest.com/docview/872350783?accountid=45049
Boston, T. D. (1996). Race and culture: A world view. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(1), 163-163. http://search.proquest.com/docview/213180863?accountid=45049
Burr,V.,(2006).An introduction to Social Constructionism. Routledge, USA: Taylor FrancisGroup.Retrieved from http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=7du5229Pc4EC&pg=PA66&dq=social+constructionist+perspective+of+world+view&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5fJ5T7vhOsmA8wOzwICRDQ&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=social%20constructionist%20perspective%20of%20world%20view&f=false
Habermas, J., & Russill, C. (2003). On the pragmatics of social interaction: Preliminary studies in the theory of communicative action. Canadian Journal of Communication, 28(1), 128-130. http://search.proquest.com/docview/219607933?accountid=45049
The AE CT (2001).Learning by any other name: Communication Research Traditions in Learning and Media, A Psychological Perspective. Retrieved from http://www.aect.org/edtech/ed1/04/04-04.html
Szostak, R., (2003). .A schema for unifying human science: interdisciplinary perspectives on culture. London, England: Rosemont Publishing &Printing Corp .Retrieved from http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=Ak7WMVnikSEC&pg=PA176&dq=schema+and+world+view&hl=en&ei=SfZ5T7ONOYWZ8gPliNGXDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q=schema%20and%20world%20view&f=false
