Human nature, according to modern Marxist thinkers is constructed. — Bitter Crank
But it doesn't it seem, StreetlightX, that the term 'social construct' is tinged with a certain sense of arbitrariness? Even more than arbitrariness, actually, but downright calculated maliciousness, especially when paired with typical hierarchical relations of power and domination that characterize almost every social and political configuration? — Erik
the idea that 'the social' constructs anything at all doesn't 'answer' the question of what something is/how something comes about - all it does is shift the answer one step back: what in turn, 'constructs the social' (this is what Darth, I think, was getting at)? In no postmodern-associated text I know (which is not to say all of them!) is 'the social' treated as an explanatory principle - in all cases would 'the social' itself - or at least it's workings - be something to be explained.
This is not to say the phrase can't be used productively, by the way. In fact, it's strongest associations are with the sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, who are anything but 'postmodernists', and their whole idea was to provide precisely a social theory by which to explain 'how society works'. — StreetlightX
"Race is a social construct" for instance is neither accurate nor useful, and it by definition discards the genetic reality that modern science holds as the objective differences between races. While it's true a specific distribution of genetic traits exists on a spectrum (i.e: the genetic trends of characteristics which delineate ethnic groups), to ignore that ethnic gene-pools do have different characteristics is to ignore reality.
— VagabondSpectre
But if I remember correctly, the American Anthropological Association Statement on Race says:
1.) There are no biological races in the human species.
2.) Race is a cultural construct based on arbitrary characteristics.
3.) Race was created to justify imperial/colonial subjugation of people.
4.) The genetic variation within racial groups that we have constructed is greater than the genetic variation between those groups.
The American Anthropological Association is a scientific organization, not a postmodern theorist. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
So to come back to BC's quote at the top, one must surely want to say that there are facts of human nature if only that they are social constructers that are not, or not entirely social constructs. And at the same time, one has to accept that whether a Jew or a Negro is fully human is a matter of constructive dogma. Have the postmoderns won, or is there still a use for the scientific view? Is it worth trying to disentangle the construct from the concrete?
Is it worth trying to disentangle the construct from the concrete? — unenlightened
On the other end of the spectrum, everyone is so afraid that if we discover genetic differences between races it would lead to racism that to even broach the topic might be taken as offensive, likely made more paranoid by the growing movement of race realists obsessed with IQ test scores.
The post-modern dogma which surrounds science isn't so unique in my view.
Saying there are no genetic differences between races is like saying there are no genetic differences between individuals... — VagabondSpectre
There is no post-modern dogma concerning science. To what post-modern thinkers and which of their theories are you referring? — Thanatos Sand
Genetic differences between individuals can loosely be approximated by comparing their shared genetic markers (all races share mostly the same genetic markers) but more importantly by comparing the prevalence of individual genetic markers within a given individual. For instance if we imagine that some "height genetic marker" exists, and we look at two individuals, the shorter individual will have fewer instances of that specific genetic marker repeated in their genome overall, and the taller individual will have more instances of that specific genetic marker.
So if we look at larger groups, what we might do is take the mean prevalence of a certain genetic marker and compare it to the mean prevalence of that genetic marker in another group.
If we compared say, the mean "height gene prevalence" of the Bantu people (very tall) with the mean prevalence of that same gene in the Pygmy people (very short), guess what we would see? A massive difference (if indeed we've identified an actual "height gene").
The reason why certain groups of people share characteristics is because their genes are clustered around the same average, and if that average is very different from that of another group, then overall there can be noticeable differences in the average characteristics of those people. The reality of gene marker prevalence is what makes traits heritable while also having a chance to be pronounced with variable degrees of strength (some offspring may get more repetitions of a specific genetic marker, others might get less, but it will cluster around the same average)
Saying there are no genetic differences between races is like saying there are no genetic differences between individuals...
Thomas Khun's theory that scientific knowledge does not progress, that it instead just shifts from one arbitrary paradigm to another without ever making any objective gains.
I think that racial categories are much more complex than just "black/white/asian/etc...". For instance, the Pygmy people are ethnically different from the Bantu people and the results of those genetic differences are stark and undeniable. Do you deny that there is an observable difference between the average characteristics of the Pygmy and Bantu people which stems from differences in their average genetic makeup?
You erroneously said there are genetic differences between the races. The Pygmies and Bantus are not different races. So, what you wrote doesn't support your claim at all. — Thanatos Sand
They're different ethnic groups, different "racial" groups... If you want call them different sub-groups of the same race go ahead but you're blatantly obfuscating my point...
Some concepts are constructed - 'property' for example - and others are... what? Found, I suppose. 'Gravity' kind of imposes itself on us as inescapable, whether one has the concept or not. — unenlightened
Kuhn never said scientific knowledge didn't progress. You need to read his book again if you ever read it a first time. — Thanatos Sand
↪Thanatos Sand How are they very different? Can you offer some definitions?
You would agree then, there are evident genetic differences between ethnic groups?
Kuhn never said scientific knowledge didn't progress. You need to read his book again if you ever read it a first time.
— Thanatos Sand
What did he say about it then? Care to offer a correction?
As far as I know he said that science doesn't progress toward certainty because each time we have a revolutionary change we just exchange one uncertain paradigm for another.
Some concepts are constructed - 'property' for example - and others are... what? Found, I suppose. 'Gravity' kind of imposes itself on us as inescapable, whether one has the concept or not. — unenlightened
The point being that anything 'socially constructed' has no less reality than anything not. That race is 'socially constructed' does not mean, for example, that the institutional or cultural reality of race is any less felt than the force of gravity. Reality is on the side of the social, not set against or beside it.
I simply mean to complicate the distinction in the OP between that which is 'found' and that which is 'constructed'. To put it in it's terms, that which is 'constructed' may well also be 'found'; even if found as constructed.
If you don't know what it means for anything to have more or less reality than anything else, than you should probably stop using the words "real" or "reality" since you have no definition for them and you refuse the standard ones: — Thanatos Sand
Finally, by 'felt reality', I simply mean that if you're about to be lynched by mob because you're black, it will do little good to plead that 'race is a social construct'. — StreetlightX
I think the primary motivation for understanding something as socially constructed is that it is, by the same methods of being built, capable of being re/un-built. — Moliere
If you don't know what it means for anything to have more or less reality than anything else, than you should probably stop using the words "real" or "reality" since you have no definition for them and you refuse the standard ones:
— Thanatos Sand
As far as I can see, the very standard definition you've cited contrasts the real with the artificial or the illusory, and at no point does it invoke a scale or gradation of realness.
To argue for the reality of the social, is just to argue for the fact that the social is neither 'illusory, artificial, or fraudulent'. Or at least, no more or less so than gravity.
↪Thanatos Sand Establishing a binary does not entail establishing a gradation.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.