![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | ||||||
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Queer, trans guy, butch Preferred Pronoun?:
Male pronouns Relationship Status:
Relationship Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 4,090
Thanked 3,878 Times in 1,022 Posts
Rep Power: 21474853 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
Again, I would argue that is entirely incorrect and does not at all encompass the argument against essentialism. The argument against essentialism is against the meaning and implications of essentialism (essentialism is ideological, as is everything, it does not represent any kind of defense of "biological fact," but the production of knowledge and its representation as objective "fact"), not an argument against biology. You cannot divorce any aspect of humanity from its interaction with the world around it. Quote:
Looking at it within its context of other of Nietzsche's works helps with perception of what precisely he is saying. If we jump to his premise in Beyond Good and Evil, that "good" and "bad" can only exist within particular social contexts, that they do not exist otherwise. Linking this to his premise expanded upon in Will to Power: Quote:
Essentialism is an understanding of certain facets of supposed "human nature" that claims to be absolute. It holds the same problem as any absolutist ideology. The challenging of any absolutist ideology results in a similar response described by Nietzsche when he discusses the reaction of humans to the idea that their value systems, previously believed to be absolute and inherent, are a matter of perception and social construction. People then defer to the belief that, because something is based upon perception or is partially the product of social interaction, that the argument is that these things are "meaningless" or that they do not exist. This is entirely incorrect. Constructivism, on the other hand, is not limited to an absolutist idea that certain human traits are solely socially constructed. It does not absolutely contest the possibility of a partial biological contribution to human traits, but, instead, seeks to examine the ways in which identity and the essentialist concept of "innate" identities in relation to certain bodies is, itself, an issue of social actualisation through repetition. Essentialism denies any possibility beyond innateness. Constructivism, despite perhaps being poorly named, does not. As such, your shih-tzu analogy does not really directly correlate with the debate. Both the shih-tzu and the other dogs in your example are trying to assert the absolute existence or inexistence of something. The debate, if we relate it back to Butler, is about the essentialist belief that gender is purely a biological construction that is fixed/unchangeable and, thusly, "natural" via its limited definition of "natural." Essentialism does not allow any other option and takes a simplistic view of gender construction. Butler's perspective is not the exact opposite (again, if you look at the quotes I've provided throughout this thread) - meaning that she is not denying the possibility that gender may be influenced somehow by some biological component, but that gender is developed within the child within the first year of birth...not as a result of being voluntarily constructed, not as a construct that can be controlled in any way, not even as pure construction at all, but as a factor that is influenced by the complex intersections of the child's interaction with the world around it. In fact, there she does not even exclude it as "natural," since natural must not be simply defined by biological fixedness. In fact, there is nothing that says certain intersections between biology and early social interaction do not result in what we understand as "gender." Otherwise, one would be able to argue for "masculine" and "feminine" animals, when animals do not bear gender presentations nor sexualities. Humans might place their own understandings of what "masculine" and "feminine" constitute upon the animals, but that has little to do with some innate animal "gender" or "sexuality." Quote:
From the OP: Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | ||
Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?:
jenny Preferred Pronoun?:
babygirl Relationship Status:
First Lady of the United SMH Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 5,445
Thanks: 1,532
Thanked 26,550 Times in 4,688 Posts
Rep Power: 21474856 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
I felt like it was absolutist. I am willing to take your word for it if it is not, though, as I am not likely to go much deeper into theory after this semester Quote:
__________________
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|