Social constructs are real and they matter

[Hygro]

Owen and I are talking in fiftychat and he said

02:07:23 <OwenGlyndwr>: that's always the funny thing to me
02:07:33 <OwenGlyndwr>: when people say things like "x is a social construct"
02:07:40 <OwenGlyndwr>: I mean yeah, but that doesn't make it any less real

And I think this is a very important point. So when we remind folk that race or money is a social construct, that doesn't mean race or money isn't real, it's a real social thing. And social things are very, very real.

 

[schlaufuchs]

[02:08.46] <OwenGlyndwr> it goes back to that appeal to nature
[02:08.57] <OwenGlyndwr> that things from nature or that are natural
are inherently good
[02:09.08] <Hygro> and ahistorical theorizing, the death of many
people
[02:09.09] <OwenGlyndwr> while things from humanity, things that
are built are inherently bad
[02:09.17] <Hygro> yeah
[02:09.57] <OwenGlyndwr> so when you say "that's a social
construct" what you're really saying is "it's not real, it's something we built
and therefore less meaningful"
[02:10.10] <OwenGlyndwr> which is unhelpful

This is the rest of what I said

 

[Leoreth]

Isn't the usual thrust of an argument along the lines of "X is a social construct" not that X is less meaningful, but that there exists the possibility for society to decide to abandon X and replace it with Y instead? At least that is how I usual use that phrase.

If someone says "the gender binary is natural" then it's usually an attempt to end the discussion there. Something is natural, therefore there is no point in questioning or discussing it. On the other hand, when I say: "the gender binary is a social construct", it becomes open to discussion. What society has constructed, it can potentially deconstruct and replace with something else. It's not even about the eventual conclusion, but more the fact that discussion can happen in the first place.

 

[luiz]

The other side of the argument is that some people argue that racism is worse than many other forms of discrimination because it's at least in part based on physical characteristics.

I don't agree with it, but I've seen many people argue (even here on CFC) that racism is worse than, say, religious discrimination because one can always pretend to belong to a different religion, but not to a different "race".

[The flaw in the above argument of course is that frequently religion and ethnicity / culture are quite connected, and passing for something different can be nearly impossible. Additionally, in many cases people have indeed pretended to be of a different "race" to avoid discrimination, so it's all very confusing - because indeed it's all about social constructs].

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, I think the point is that social constructs are arbitrary - so rather than sticking to them because they're natural and immutable, it's our fault that they're how they are and our responsibility to change them if they don't suit. It's also a warning against claiming that they're unchanging over time.

 

[warpus]

We are a social species - our entire civilization is sort of built around social constructs.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, I think the point is that social constructs are arbitrary - so rather than sticking to them because they're natural and immutable, it's our fault that they're how they are and our responsibility to change them if they don't suit. It's also a warning against claiming that they're unchanging over time.

Yup yup. It's a framing of the scope of something's power.

"Well, it's a social construct" says to me that yes, this is real, but it's only real because we continue to make it so. If it's a problem, let's stop making it so. It makes whatever is being talked about distinct from things such as, say, gravity.

 

[Borachio]

How do we know that gravity isn't just a super strong social construct, though?

So strong, that any deviation from it just gets ignored completely.

I think I'm going to patent this idea before SpaceX does, and substantially reduce the cost of space travel.

 

[Farm Boy]

Actually, it's just that I don't want to let you go Sir. B. I'm pullling super hard from under the ground over here.

 

[Borachio]

I'm floating awaaaaaaay!

 

[Farm Boy]

Turn the damned propeller on that hat off for a minute. My arms are getting tired.

 

[Borachio]

Yeah. OK.

 

[Lohrenswald]

How do we know that gravity isn't just a super strong social construct, though?

The Patriarchy is pushing us all down.

But I agree with the responses. What I think about social constructs is that they are made by humans, and, though maybe hard, humans can change them to something else.

Another thing is that they're subject change. For thousands of years people thought that the sun revolved around the Earth, but it was infact the Earth that revolved around the sun all along.
However, what we experience of or are thaught about human behavior changes our view of it and our actual behavior. For example, humans aren't naturally greedy, but some people are thaught that, and then become more greedy themselves (yes I'm looking at you economists). And there you have a construct that can be changed for the better.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How do we know that gravity isn't just a super strong social construct, though?

So strong, that any deviation from it just gets ignored completely.

I think I'm going to patent this idea before SpaceX does, and substantially reduce the cost of space travel.

This goes to the idea that everything is dependent upon the agreement of the observers. What we consider 'natural laws' would just be things that have (thus far) universal agreement and have shown no opportunity within the human experience for any disagreement. The social construct may have less than universal agreement, and also has demonstrable opportunity for disagreement, so while it is just as 'real' it is not immutable. It can be modified, or even destroyed, by sufficient persuasion.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The Patriarchy is pushing us all down.

But I agree with the responses. What I think about social constructs is that they are made by humans, and, though maybe hard, humans can change them to something else.

Another thing is that they're subject change. For thousands of years people thought that the sun revolved around the Earth, but it was infact the Earth that revolved around the sun all along.
However, what we experience of or are thaught about human behavior changes our view of it and our actual behavior. For example, humans aren't naturally greedy, but some people are thaught that, and then become more greedy themselves (yes I'm looking at you economists). And there you have a construct that can be changed for the better.

It should be noted that the sun, the earth, and all other objects in the solar system are actually following intertwined curving paths through the galaxy. These paths, taken as a group, would form something best represented by a braided rope. Given that perspective it is not really accurate to describe any one object in the system as 'revolving around' any other. "The sun is the center" is merely a social construct with wide agreement.

 

[Gori the Grey]

^Heck, for that matter, "sun" is just a social contract. And I don't mean just the word, though I mean that too. The idea that we should split that bright shiny thing off from the blue background against which we see it and regard it as a thing, but not regard any sub-portion of it as a separate thing, this idea, too, is not given by nature, but is just an conceptualization found agreeable most people's minds. Nothing, in the extreme version of the view, has existence independently of social contracting.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Do the people who say social constructs aren't real and don't matter exist like the social constructs?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nothing, in the extreme version of the view, has existence independently of social contracting.

Restatement of the idea that everything is dependent on the agreement of the observers, though exactly where nothing fits in is an interesting question. Is it also dependent on the agreement of the observers, or is it what exists even in the absence of agreement...or observers for that matter?

 

[Borachio]

Well.

Are we asking whether the individual is a social construct now?

 

[Lohrenswald]

It should be noted that the sun, the earth, and all other objects in the solar system are actually following intertwined curving paths through the galaxy. These paths, taken as a group, would form something best represented by a braided rope. Given that perspective it is not really accurate to describe any one object in the system as 'revolving around' any other. "The sun is the center" is merely a social construct with wide agreement.

I did not say that the sun is in the center. The moon orbits the sun in a wavy pattern, yes, but how does that make it not revolve around the earth?
It's the same with the solar system with reference to the galaxy.