Social constructs are real and they matter

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

Also, race isn't a social construct

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

I would say the opposite. Saying that something is natural* in no way precludes the possibility of changing it or ignoring it. Smallpox is natural, as is dying of old age at 35. On the other hand, in my experience, anyone who says "X is a social construct" only ever says that when they are making it very clear that X is a bad thing and they think it should be changed. It's not just about the possibility of change, it's almost a demand.


(* don't mix up someone saying something is "natural", with someone saying something is "as God intended it" though, which are entirely different mindsets )

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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.

The earth also orbits the sun in a wavy pattern. Does that make it revolve around the moon?

If life had originated on the moon instead of earth the social construct "the larger mass is the primary and the smaller is the satellite" would lack agreement.

 

[Borachio]

Also, race isn't a social construct

Isn't it?? I'm very surprised you say so. I rather thought it was.

 

[uppi]

Also, race isn't a social construct

Of course it is in the current form. The current notion of "race" has no biological basis.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Of course it is in the current form. The current notion of "race" has no biological basis.

When did it?

I read an excerpt from a text used in anthropology courses at Oxford a few centuries back. It very clearly laid out the distinguishing biological characteristics of the nine races...all of which were caucasian by the current notion of race. Race has always been a social construct dressed up with false notions of a biological basis, and it still is.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading...

 

[schlaufuchs]

Also, race isn't a social construct

It absolutely is. How we decide to categorize people is entirely arbitrarily. Europeans opted to do so on the basis of skin color, but there's no indication that this is how it has always been. If you read through Roman sources you'll notice they remark very little on skin color despite existing in a region with a great diversity of skin tones. This is because whether the skin color was black or white was largely irrelevant to them, what did matter was whether you were a citizen or not.

My point is: skin tone is not a social construct, but deciding to categorize/distinguish on the basis of skin tone is.

As to...Farm Boy(?) Leoreth I agree that the upside of declaring something to be a social construct is an argument for its mutability. But I most often hear it used as an appeal to irrelevancy. It doesn't matter because it's not a real thing. It's something that exists in the minds of people, not in the people themselves. Which belittles the very real effects OF the social construct.

 

[uppi]

When did it?

I read an excerpt from a text used in anthropology courses at Oxford a few centuries back. It very clearly laid out the distinguishing biological characteristics of the nine races...all of which were caucasian by the current notion of race. Race has always been a social construct dressed up with false notions of a biological basis, and it still is.

Never.

The disclaimer was there, because there are biological differences between humans that could be used to define (very fuzzy) population groups. But the distinctions would fall along very different lines than just using race as a synonym for skin color, which is just stupid.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Never.

The disclaimer was there, because there are biological differences between humans that could be used to define (very fuzzy) population groups. But the distinctions would fall along very different lines than just using race as a synonym for skin color, which is just stupid.

"Race" has always been just some sort of expansion on the deeply rooted concept of 'us and not us'. Since that 'us and not us' concept expresses itself emotionally as fear racism is an inherently powerful motivator that is very hard to weed out.

 

[cardgame]

Race is social, but also biological. How would you describe the natural differences between them otherwise? Not just stereotypes (born in truth) but facts like black people being more susceptible to certain diseases.

 

[Flying Pig]

'Black people' aren't more susceptible to certain diseases, though - people with certain genes, which correlate with traits which we've assigned to this group called 'black', are susceptible to certain diseases. At any rate, you can group people by physical characteristics without defining race. I can say that tall people are more prone to concussion or ginger people are more prone to sunburn without saying that either are a race.

 

[cardgame]

physical characteristics like melanin content?

It's simpler. I do get what you're saying... but like the OP said just because they're SC doesn't make them less real. And if these genes correlates 99% to "traits assigned to 'blacks'" then you can just say blacks are more susceptible. Or, I mean, you could say African descent, but then you get confused Carib-Americans wondering why they have this African disease.

 

[Zack]

Also, race isn't a social construct

Barack Obama's mother is as white as can be, yet I doubt you blink an eye when someone refers to him as an African-American.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Race is social, but also biological. How would you describe the natural differences between them otherwise? Not just stereotypes (born in truth) but facts like black people being more susceptible to certain diseases.

Blood type also carries variation in resistance to certain diseases. So am I part of the O positive race? Which is more resistant to malaria by the way and thus clearly superior.

 

[Flying Pig]

physical characteristics like melanin content?

It's simpler. I do get what you're saying... but like the OP said just because they're SC doesn't make them less real. And if these genes correlates 99% to "traits assigned to 'blacks'" then you can just say blacks are more susceptible. Or, I mean, you could say African descent, but then you get confused Carib-Americans wondering why they have this African disease.

Or, more to the point, white Africans or Egyptian Arabs wondering why they don't! That's not quite what is meant. Yes, melanin content is real, and yes, it correlates with certain other attributes. But the decision to use certain attributes, with certain error bars on them, to describe 'race' and to ignore others is entirely a social and an arbitrary one. I mean, people native to Mexico and people native to Argentina are usually lumped together, as are people from Kazakhstan and people from China, while people from Spain are kept apart from those in Morocco, and people from France are occasionally separated from those from Poland. To say that these concepts are socially constructed is not to say that they have no meaning, only to say that they could just as well be configured in totally different ways given the 'objective' evidence available.

 

[uppi]

Race is social, but also biological. How would you describe the natural differences between them otherwise? Not just stereotypes (born in truth) but facts like black people being more susceptible to certain diseases.

This exactly the nonsense that makes race a social construct. The genetic variability in Africa is much larger than in the rest of the world. Putting them all in the "black race" and making sweeping statements like this reflects racist legacy that needs to die.

Any sensible subdivisions of humans (and I am not sure there is such a thing) would have to create more subdivisions than just "black".

 

[cardgame]

I think we're quite in agreement, FP.

@uppi ethnicities

 

[schlaufuchs]

physical characteristics like melanin content?

It's simpler. I do get what you're saying... but like the OP said just because they're SC doesn't make them less real. And if these genes correlates 99% to "traits assigned to 'blacks'" then you can just say blacks are more susceptible. Or, I mean, you could say African descent, but then you get confused Carib-Americans wondering why they have this African disease.

Yeah, please don't misconstrue my original point. I wasn't pointing to any kind scientific basis/validity to stereotypes, but rather that dismissing something as a "social construct" doesn't change that it's a real-world thing with real-world effects that impact actual people on a daily basis. Just because the fact that whether we distinguish on the basis of someone's skin being dark enough, or someone having freckles or which side of the Pyrenees someone happens to live on are arbitrarily defined distinctions doesn't make them any less real to the people experiencing them. Saying something like "it's a social construct" belittles people affected by the Thing because it puts the realness of the Thing into question. It's not natural, it's man-made, arbitrary. It can be changed at any time. The impact is thereby marginalized in the mind of the declarer.

 

[Narz]

Social constructs are real and they matter but at the end of the day you don't really know whats going on in other people's minds.

If you use social constructs as an excuse though you're lame & don't deserve to succeed. Smart people use social constructs & sterotypes to their advantage.