The feminists thinkers despise the idea of gender, supposing that it is simply a "repressive social construct". But what does it mean to be a social construct? As I have reflected on it, gender being a social construct is irrelevant to its worth or grounding in reality. Indeed, most things are "socially constructed". The question to ask the concepts we are given is how well they reflect the way things are.
I see two senses of the idea of a social construct. First sense is the idea of a thing given to us by society - by such things as direct teaching, books, advertising etc. One can argue that this is a categorically bad thing as per the fashionable enlightenment ideal of knowing things for yourself, but I argue that is not the case. The enlightenment ideal is critical thinking - hardly a bad thing. But to critically think supposes knowledge. And given that our minds are to a large extent tabula rasa(blank slates) at birth, we learn not in isolation, but communally, socially. And so, it follows that most of our knowledge is socially constructed. This hardly means that all our knowledge is automatically false. We are taught proper use of our senses and reason, and so, language, to be able to think clearly about what is. The point is that all of our knowledge is initially socially constructed. Indeed, it depends on this construction for its existence. A baby untaught, unhelped by by other people, will not learn very much. We cannot exist as islands. It is only after the "social construction" of knowledge and understanding takes place that we can apply the enlightenment ideal of "knowing thyself".
This is a second sense of social construct, one which I think is closer to understanding the feminist claim that gender is simply socially constructed. As discussed before, most of our knowledge is socially constructed. It comes from various means of social input. We cannot easily learn in isolation. The first sense of social construction concerns the understanding of what is. The second sense is teleological, or goal based, concerning what ought to be. A social construct as a teleology is a recommended or demanded way of thinking or behaving which is conducive to a specific goal. In this way, social constructs in this sense is not arbitrary. They depend on the purpose that brings them into existence. Law is socially constructed in this sense. We follow it to be able to live harmoniously together in society. The value of the goals these constructs exist in service of are what are critical to always evaluate. Some examples: The social construct is the law to drive on the left side of the road in Australia. This is aligned to the telos of safety and order on the roads. This, arguably is a good goal, and so, is a reasonable social construct. Another example: the social construct is the custom of hitting every black woman one meets. The telos of this is to "punish inferiors". Are they inferior? I would argue at great lengths that of course they are not inferior. Hence, the telos is unreasonable, and so the socially constructed custom is also unreasonable. Gender behavior seems to be within this second category I have been analysing. As I have been trying to establish , social constructs are not inherently a bad thing. In the second sense of the word, they are teleological. To evaluate any socially constructed behavior , the telos that gives it form must be analysed. If it is a good telos , then the construct is at least reasonable.
In writing what I have, it means I in part agree with the feminist claims. Gender in terms of behavior is a social construct - a "second sense" social construct. It is teleological. And people can choose whether or not to conform. But, as I have been writing to establish, this does not automatically mean that traditional ideas of gender are therefore a bad thing. The purpose gender behavior serves as a social construct is what must be analysed. The feminists tend to attack the feminists tend to attack the very idea of gender, as they see it as a curtailment of freedom. To some extent this is true. But to subordinate oneself to any goal is to sacrifice some freedom. One's freedom is given to the goal in question. So, gender being a curtailment of freedom is is in this aspect an irrelevant point as to whether it has any degree of value in terms of human flourishing. But one may also object that gender is an attack on freedom , as it is a set of proscribed behaviors that one must conform to. Fair enough. Coercion is not fair. But is it coercion? People can choose one way or another. There is no law that one must be masculine or feminine. One may argue that it is, in a Millsian sense, a tyranny of the majority. But, the fact remains that one is still free to choose one way or another. And part of being a rational adult means providing sound reasons for ones behavior. One can do whatever one likes. To cry that one is a prisoner of the majority is Sartrean bad faith. In summary of this section of the essay, gender may limit freedom. But all actions towards a goal do that. The question is whether the goal is worthy enough to limit ones freedom for it, to give it as currency so to speak in a currency of freedom and action. And the idea that people are forced to act in these confines is mistaken. One is free to choose. Now the question is: is the social construct of gender good or bad? Does it have a worthy goal to give ones freedom to or not? Is it, therefore, something of societal value?
As an axiom, I observe that men and women are clearly different. It has become fashionable to deny this. But I find it difficult to believe that one can be completely wrong about what one sees in the people one meets everyday. That is not to say all men are all the same, and all women are completely the same. But there are aspects that set the sexes apart. There are clear biological differences, some very important ones psychological. Why do they exist? Although it is politically incorrect to point this out, these differences are ordered to the procreation of the species. We depend on each other for such a thing to happen. And we also critically depend on the continued love and relationship between our parents to be able to flourish. We do not last on our own. We humans take a long time to mature. The point is, our differences are ordered towards a particular good - the survival and flourishing of our species. Without this good being actualised, we cannot possibly enjoy any other goods. Where are we without life?
This may sound as if I am simply defining gender as as the physical differences between men and women. Not so. I am using these differences as a foundation for the goal of gender. Gender behavior itself arises from these differences. I think they are a two way process of acting out the defining features of ones gender as stamped into the body, and playing the game of attraction with the opposite sex, which makes the reason for gender in the first place actual. The behavior is the manifestation of ones sex in the world.
I will give an example. Again, this is politicall incorrect - in writing this, I am challenging an entire system. Let's take the example of strength. Men, most of the time are built physically stronger than women. It sets them apart, and so gives them a way to be attractive. I think, by and large, we respond to those differences. And so, a bloke my volunteer to take the bins out for the girls he works with, and so, maintains his honour as a potential husband. A man who whinges and whines, by contrast, will not be attractive. My point is that behavior affects the differences, differences that draw men and women together.
So there are a class of behaviors that reflect the differences between men and women. They are not as such bad things, given they are conducive to the foundations of families. Without attraction, there is no sex, and certainly no family. Sex without bonding is either an empty hook up or rape, neither good for the flourishing of human beings. However, one could object that this is all just a generalisation - and it is wrong to generalise. I think this is mistaken. Generalisation is a way of finding out about people, what they do, how they behave typically. It is finding the mean of human behaviors, to so be able to understand people better. That there are exceptions does not prove that there are no general behaviors that the sexes exhibit to play the game of attraction. Rather, that there are some people that differ a little. And that's OK. That does not diminish the purpose gender behavior has. It is, as I am arguing, healthy if not forced.
I forsee another objection. There is a problem with gender behavior, given that some of it is detrimental to the people involved. Is it really right for women to dress half naked to please men? Is it really right for men to punch eachother to a pulp in pursuit of women? This is a reasonable objection, and highlights that although gender behavior in principle is a good thing, ordered towards love, in practice it can be warped. Instead of expressing the good differences, sometimes such behavior can be perverted, either warping the differences in one way or another, or being harmful to other goods. Men, being mostly stronger than women, are attractive if they can defend their families. But fighting and brawling is a perverse exaggeration of this. It is wrong given it harms other goods such as health and social cohesion. In the example of women dressing half naked to please men, , this is a case of taking the male attraction to the female body to an extreme, in this case, encouraging lust, which is not conducive to the love that gender behavior should help promote. My point is that gender behaviors can and should be critiqued. Indeed some are not consistent with the goal of gender behaviors, but instead cause great harm. One should never do evil, even if it is socially acceptable.
One may also object on these grounds: that gender behavior is oppressive and unjust as it means people must suppress some aspects of their behavior and fit a specific model to be attractive. My response is yes, that is true. And so what? We must conform to certain specific standards all the time in order to achieve the good goals we set ourselves. As discussed, to do anything, freedom is the currency. To be a great philosopher, one must study and philosophise. Those are the conditions. To be attractive, one must play the social game, and do what it takes, within reason and without evil, to encourage attractiveness. One must conform to reality to achieve goals. It is narcissistic and futile to expect the world to change for ones desires. It is a hard reality that one must work at attraction. But it must be done. Reality will not change because one wants it to change.
In summary, it is true that gender is a social construct - but it is a rational one ordered to the good of marriage and family by helping to facilitate attraction between men and women. It can be distorted, so it is critical to critique gender behavior to ensure it is consistent with its end and the flourishing of other goods. Not all socially acceptable actions are good. Yes, it means a certain curtailment of freedom. But all actions towards a goal mean that to some extent. And yes, the reality that gender behavior means the need for behavioral adaptation in order to facilitate attraction means one has to conform and limit ones individuality. But, we do that in achieving any goal. To seek something means to subordinate ones abilities and inclinations towards that end. Like an Olympic athlete giving themselves to their sport in order to win a medal. Gender is a social construct. But it is hardly a bad one if attraction marriage and family are a good thing. It is fair enough to choose not to live the behaviors. But it is another thing again to complain of lack of attraction when one scorns how and why people are attracted.
Aaron Carlin, January 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment