Frank Rich's article by the above name touched upon a topic that I like to discuss. I touched this topic when I dealt with the subject of so called "Hereto-Normativeness" a theory that basically asserts that the dominant society has constructed a social order in which Heterosexuality has been made to be normal (normalized) as opposed to homosexuality, transgender, etc. My position was that normal was not so much socially created but of a biological fact. Heterosexuality is a necessary biological situation that perpetuates mammalian species. If homosexuality was normal than mammalian species (among many others) would cease to exist; a brutal but honest fact.
The typical argument usually follows the form of: Sex is pleasurable and not meant to always cause reproduction. Therefore since not all heterosexual unions result in children (for whatever reason), it stands to figure that same sex coupling is no different. The entire flaw with this argument is that apart from cats for whom sex is painful, the pleasure derived from having sex is part of the biological drive to procreate. If sex causes massive amounts of endorphins to be released, and if the semen of males, contain chemicals that facilitate emotional bonds between males and females, then it is clear that the pleasure involved in sex is to 'nudge" the reproductive cycle. That humans decide to not reproduce is a consequence of our ability to think and go counter to our nature (for better or worse). This is not to say that social constructs do not exist in society that have no basis in fact. For example the idea that women are inherently bad at math and logic is a social construct that even recently has been shown to be a consequence of socialization of women and opportunities open (and closed) to women.
Getting back to Stanley Fish, There were a few things that stood out in his piece that prompted this post. First was this:
the film’s director, Brett Ratner, who said on About.com that the story “has strong racial, political and sexual aspects” and wonders, “What if … African-American[s] could take a pill [that would] ‘cure’ them of being black or if a gay could take something that would alter his sexuality?” That is, what if a condition scorned by the majority but prized by the minority that inhabits it could be eliminated by a simple injection? What would the minority do?
In the case of blacks and gays, the answer has already been given in the mantras “black is beautiful” and “we’re queer; we’re here; get used to it.” In the years since these battle cries were first heard, African-Americans and gay Americans have secured rights, gained in influence and earned respect, however grudging and superficial.
The first problem with this is the equation of gay and black as equal supposed "afflictions." As discussed above, it is clear that homosexuality would, in nature, cause the elimination of whatever species in which it was "normal." So in fact such an "affliction" can rightfully be seen as abnormal or even a disease in the way that Sickle Cell Anemia is a disease. (assuming a genetic component). However; being black or heavily melanated is not a disease and is far from abnormal. The fact of the matter is that not only are the vast majority of people on the planet not white, but it is known that all human life began in Africa, and that those early ancestors were in fact black. All the other shades of skin color are in fact deviations from the "normal" state of blackness with the blond haired, blued eyed European being at the far end of the "abnormal" scale. In fact it has been determined that white skin as an inheritable trait only came to be about 10,000 years ago when the predecessors of the Egyptians were experimenting with pyramids, charting the stars, and creating such things as calendars. And so the words of this director, directly reflects the socially constructed reality of a default of whiteness that many white people think of themselves.
Again, to be sure there are definitely socially constructed concepts that are based on general wishful thinking. Equally though there are those who challenge certain constructs based on their own wishful thinking that thinking usually being that they want to be accepted by everyone else. I have no problem with people wanting to be accepted and accommodated, I do have a problem when the arguments for it are just silly. For example those who are deaf attempting to make the case that there is nothing wrong with them. Clearly the fact that the two things on either side of one's head not working, is clear evidence that something is wrong. That sign language was created to help those persons communicate is beside the point. Again I simply point the reader to the nature test. A deaf person, in humanities birth grounds would be soon dead, as any deaf mammal. Simply put, being unable to hear an approaching predator is a serious problem for survival. I won't even get into what would happen to a blind person.
Of course it would be a fair argument to say that we are not in the bush, desert, arctic or forrest. That observation is true and it is also the reason why certain arguments about certain constructs can even take place. Today a handicap may be an inconvenient, whereas in our past lives, they would be deemed a death sentence. The fact that society accommodates those with handicaps leave some to think that they are somehow not broken. This I think is a mistake. I'm all for accommodating those with disabilities, but I disagree that somehow we ought to act like something isn't wrong. If I lose my legs, I will probably never run again, certainly not at the pace that I do now. I would never be able to ride my bike the way I do now. I would never be able to drive a manual transmission again (and that would really piss me off). Similarly, if I were suddenly blind, I would reach out and slap anyone who told me "everything is going to be alright." No it wont. I know what I'm missing. Similarly if I were to go deaf, I would be missing my piano, my music (which I always have on), the sound of my just tuned engine among other things not fit to print on this blog.
So in the end some social constructs are valid and ought to be defended because they are provably "right" and beneficial. Others ought to be challenged and discarded. In both cases the determination ought to be done carefully and without ego.
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.