eclecticspectrum replied to your post: eclecticspectrum replied to your post: sometimes,…
Oh sweetie that can be fixed. I really need to make my Unamused/Stern Faces classes a real thing. Make the face and it’ll seep into your soul.
lol but for real though white people can be soooo manipulative
Social constructionist claims are made about so many different objects that it is perhaps not surprising to find that such claims have different implications depending upon the different objects at which they are directed. Most uses of “construction”-talk […] are directed at three very different sorts of entities: representations (e.g. ideas, theories, concepts, accounts, taxonomies, and so forth), (non-representational) facts quite generally, and a special sort of non-representational fact: facts about human traits.
“Construction” talk has a more or less independent, but equally contentious life in the “human nature wars” where it labels the position that human traits (for example the emotions) or human kinds (which we can think of categories whose members share traits or clusters of traits, including, especially, dispositions to think and behave) are produced by culture rather than by biology or nature. This view is typically allied with classic empiricism and contrasts with the view that human traits are to be explained in terms of non-cultural mechanisms - especially internal, biological or natural states of the organism. The most pronounced disputes are prima facie concerned with whether the clustering of behavioral dispositions in, for example, sex difference, emotional behavior, or mental illness, are caused by a cultural practice of differentiating persons or are instead caused by natural processes operating in relative independence from culture.
Local constructionist claims can be interesting to the extent that they try to show some object may be produced by unacknowledged social practices—when they are covert constructions. This is the role that they play in the philosophy of psychiatry (Hacking 1995b, Scheff 1984, Showalter 1996, cf. Murphy 2006), the philosophy of the emotions (Averill 1980a, 1980b, Armon-Jones 1986, Harré 1986, cf. Griffiths 1997), the philosophy of race (e.g. Outlaw 1990, 1995; Mills 1998; Taylor 2003), and the philosophy of gender (see Feminist Theories of Sex and Gender: Gender as Socially Constructed). Here the claim that some kind (for example mental illness,emotion, race, or gender) is explained by received culture or practice retains its interest because it offers a metaphysical alternative to other explanations (biological, religious, etc.) of the differential features of the kind members.
Many of the agents in social constructionist claims can be neatly divided into two groups: those that view the agents as primarily impersonal agents, and those that view the agents as personal agents (i.e., persons or groups).
Work in the first group emphasizes a causal role for impersonal causes like cultures, conventions, or institutions in producing some phenomenon. For example, the claim that what we perceive is determined by our background theories emphasizes an impersonal causal agent—culture—in determining some phenomena. Perhaps the most influential version of this claim came in Thomas Kuhn’s suggestion that, “what a man sees depends both upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see” (1962/1970, 113), a suggestion with some foundation in “New Look ” psychology (e.g. Briner, Postman, and Rodrigues 1951). This view was subsequently taken up by a range of other authors including the historian Thomas Laqueur who writes that, “powerful prior notions of difference or sameness determine what one sees and reports about the body” (1990, 21). Provocative claims like Kuhn’s and Laqueur’s suggest that perception is so dependent upon the background theories that the observational data becomes compromised as an independent constraint on empirical inquiry. […]
A second group of constructionist claims emphasizes personal social agents that construct through their choices. For example, Andrew Pickering’s (1984) influential work Constructing Quarks emphasizes the role of scientists’ judgments in a variety of roles in scientific process including, e.g., theory selection, experiment evaluation, assessments of research fecundity, and so forth, and such an emphasis on apparently highly contingent choices by researchers and scientific institutions is a mainstay of the social studies of knowledge literature. In emphasizing personal choices, some constructionist work (including some of Pickering’s) seems primarily aimed at emphasizing the contingency of the scientific theory that we come to accept (cf. Hacking 1999). Other constructionists—those we might call critical constructionists—emphasize personal choices not just to establish the contingency of the acceptance of some representation as to emphasize the role of an agent’s interests or power relations in determining the content of an accepted representation. For example, Charles Mills suggests that the borders of American racial categories were determined in such a way as to “establish and maintain the privileges of different groups. So, for example, the motivation for using the one-drop rule to determine black racial membership is to maintain the subordination of the products of ‘miscegenation’” (1998, 48). And a range of constructionist research, especially research on human classifications like “race” and “gender,” documents shifts in human classification in response to shifts of interests or power.
Social “construction,” “constructionism” and “constructivism” are terms in wide use in the humanities and social sciences, and are applied to a diverse range of objects including the emotions, gender, race, sex, homo- and hetero-sexuality, mental illness, technology, quarks, facts, reality, and truth. This sort of terminology plays a number of different roles in different discourses, only some of which are philosophically interesting, and fewer of which admit of a “naturalistic” approach—an approach that treats science as a central and successful (if sometimes fallible) source of knowledge about the world. If there is any core idea of social constructionism, it is that some object or objects are caused or controlled by social or cultural factors rather than natural factors, and if there is any core motivation of such research, it is the aim of showing that such objects are or were under our control: they could be, or might have been, otherwise.
sometimes, I tell myself ”Wait, am I being too harsh with white people? :/” Their crying and sob stories almost get at me. Then I turn on my TV, read the papers, talk to my loved ones, remember life under Biya dictatorship … and realise that these tears poured by white people are not tears of revolt, shame, disgust or even remorse at the appalling state THEY have put the world in. NO, NO, NO!! They are simply lamenting the discomfort, the uneasiness that come with having their asses exposed and that’s it!! That is all that matter for them!! They are not concerned at the fucking least about the deplorable living conditions most have to endure on this planet so that they can live comfortably NO, NO, NO!! Their tears are poured for their EGOS and their egos only that they place well above my fucking existence and the existence of BILLIONS like me. These tears taste of self-centeredness, arrogance, egocentrism, total lack of compassion, total inability to relate to anybody else but themselves. These tears are made of the entitlement juice that has been feeding their imperialism for centuries! And this makes me realise that I do not go at them as hard as I should! Even a million time harder would still not be hard enough!
Mixed messages 4
Prude vs whore
“A lady in the streets, a freak in the sheets”!?!?!??!!?! The truth is that women are never forgiven their sexual freedom and their agency on their bodies because we are denied the right to explore our sexuality and bodies at whatever pace that fulfils our individual needs best!
Mixed messages are debilitating. It is mentally and physically exhausting and draining to keep up with them which is why they foster a whole bunch of mental illness and disorder. Which is why they are so important to patriarchy which as being perpetrating the ableist dismissal, silencing and policing of women as crazy bitches or witches!!