![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdevianceGod, I hate it when people don't understand this...
Look, I'm a constructionist, generally. I don't believe biology is destiny. I believe that certain biological factors can have an impact on socialization, and I do think that there are some things which contribute to behavior. It's been more than proven, for instance, that hormones do play a part in behavior, especially when they're at particularly high or low levels. (hello-- PMS and Post-partum depression, anyone? Aggressiveness due to steroid use?) I also believe that how a person is put together, depending on their sociocultural circumstances, can affect how they develop. A small kid might get beaten up a lot. A strong, tall kid might be guided into sports. A fat girl might suffer from low self-esteem and depression due to psychological abuse.
But generally speaking, no, I don't think merely being a certain race, or being gay* or any other inherent, unchangeable biological trait is an absolute predictor of personality, behavior or culture.
HOWEVER
Believing that personality, behavior and culture are artificially constructed does NOT mean believing that those things don't exist! A building is not an organic structure, but it still exists. The understanding that the building did not grow there by itself or was put there by God doesn't make the building a figment of one's imagination.
Cultural constructs are very real things, despite the fact that they're constructed. Language, customs, behavior, rituals, etc. are all real, quantifiable hallmarks of sociocultural development. A baby born in Cambodia, but raised in the United States by Anglo parents isn't going to have any Cambodian cultural hallmarks (unless her parents make a point of educating her about the culture she comes from) but a baby (of whatever race) raised in Cambodia certainly will. The culture that we're raised in and the experiences and education we have growing up all contribute to building who we are, how we speak, how we behave. Something as deeply-ingrained as language can be changed, to some degree, but it's not easy, and nearly impossible to completely eradicate.
Immutable factors like race and sex, in and of themselves, are not completely infallible means of assessment of someone's sociocultural status, but given a little more information-- which includes things like body language, manner of dress and speech, occupation, etc.-- you can usually make some rough, meta-level guesses about who a person is and what cultures they belong to. A woman with Middle Easten features wearing a headscarf is likely to be Muslim, for instance. A person with red hair and blue or green eyes who speaks with an Irish accent is very likely to indeed be from Ireland, or at least have immediate Irish ancestry.
The demographic clusters that I linked in my last post are definitely kind of scary, in terms of how they neatly boil everyone down into 66 categories. That said, obviously that categorization has some validity and value, or it wouldn't work for the purposes it's used for. Cultural groups and differences DO exist. People are raised differently, and have different languages and customs. Their life experiences shape who they are, who they socialize with, how they dress and speak. It's not categorization in and of itself that's the problem, it's having too few categories, or assuming bad traits for someone based only on cultural or racial affiliation. Obviously people fall into far more than just binary categories. There is more than male and female, more than straight and gay, more than black and white, more than Democrat and Republican. There are also more categories than 12 zodiac signs, 50 US states, 7 continents. There are undoubtedly more than 66 demographic categories. But so long as we're making meta-level assesments, and not depriving someone of their rights based on what culture or subculture we think they belong to, there shouldn't be a problem.
I think people have taken the concept of taking people as individuals-- which is a very worthy concept indeed-- and run too far with it, and have now assumed that ANY categorization, labeling, cultural identity, etc. is a bad thing. It's not. Cultures and subcultures are very real things. They exist. Acknowledging them is not discriminatory.
I like to think of cultural categorization sort of like zoological classifications. At the top level, you have living organisms then down to things like mammals, bipeds, humans etc Then you break down, branch off, refine, separate out. A given person will likely belong to several different meta-categories, for instance. Race, sex, language, nationality... You have cultures within cultures. You have subcultures. You keep refining until you get down to the individual level, where each person is their own unique patchwork quilt of cultural identity. But recognizing them as an individual does not negate what cultural categories they belong to. And when necessary, as it is every single day, in any animal's life, we sort based on those categories. Friend from foe. Tribe member. Potential mate. Picking out what cultures someone belongs to is the mental butt-sniffing we do every day. Eliminating discrimination based on what cultural categories someone belongs to does not mean eliminating those categories. Yes, it's great when we all recognize our commonalities rather than our differences, and all people should be respected merely for being human. Hell, for that matter, all living creatures should be respected. We all share commonalities. But recognizing that a dog has just as much right to not be abused or exploited as a human doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that he's a dog. Labels are an essential part of navigating through life. We wouldn't survive without them. That's what language is, after all. Nouns are all labels. They're all series of sounds or marks which enable us to identify an object or a concept. Understanding that labels are created and are not biological does not mean that they don't or shouldn't exist. Constructed things are just as valuable as organic ones, so long as they don't cause more damage than the benefit they give. When it is determined that a particular constructed thing does more harm than good, yes it should be dismantled. But the mere fact of it being constructed does not mean it's something evil.
*I should note here that I believe being gay, while having some biological roots, is not an entirely biological phenomenon. I believe that most people are, like our closest primate cousins, bisexual to some degree. A certain percentage are organically 100% straight or gay, but I think that's fairly rare, and I also think a lot of people who identify as straight or gay are not that way biologically, but because of social factors.
I also believe that orientation is a far more complex thing than just what genitals turn you on. I think several other things: gender presentation, sex roles, body type, cultural identity, all factor in to sexual and romantic object choice, leading to far more orientation categories than just straight and gay. However, I do also believe that orientation is one of those root-level building blocks of who a person is-- something as intrinsic as a native language-- and therefore any attempts to change that are very dangerous to the whole structure of who a person is, and are unlikely to be successful. You can't unlearn your orientation any more than you can unlearn your native language. Even if you learn to speak exclusively in another tongue, your original language is always going to be there.
Look, I'm a constructionist, generally. I don't believe biology is destiny. I believe that certain biological factors can have an impact on socialization, and I do think that there are some things which contribute to behavior. It's been more than proven, for instance, that hormones do play a part in behavior, especially when they're at particularly high or low levels. (hello-- PMS and Post-partum depression, anyone? Aggressiveness due to steroid use?) I also believe that how a person is put together, depending on their sociocultural circumstances, can affect how they develop. A small kid might get beaten up a lot. A strong, tall kid might be guided into sports. A fat girl might suffer from low self-esteem and depression due to psychological abuse.
But generally speaking, no, I don't think merely being a certain race, or being gay* or any other inherent, unchangeable biological trait is an absolute predictor of personality, behavior or culture.
HOWEVER
Believing that personality, behavior and culture are artificially constructed does NOT mean believing that those things don't exist! A building is not an organic structure, but it still exists. The understanding that the building did not grow there by itself or was put there by God doesn't make the building a figment of one's imagination.
Cultural constructs are very real things, despite the fact that they're constructed. Language, customs, behavior, rituals, etc. are all real, quantifiable hallmarks of sociocultural development. A baby born in Cambodia, but raised in the United States by Anglo parents isn't going to have any Cambodian cultural hallmarks (unless her parents make a point of educating her about the culture she comes from) but a baby (of whatever race) raised in Cambodia certainly will. The culture that we're raised in and the experiences and education we have growing up all contribute to building who we are, how we speak, how we behave. Something as deeply-ingrained as language can be changed, to some degree, but it's not easy, and nearly impossible to completely eradicate.
Immutable factors like race and sex, in and of themselves, are not completely infallible means of assessment of someone's sociocultural status, but given a little more information-- which includes things like body language, manner of dress and speech, occupation, etc.-- you can usually make some rough, meta-level guesses about who a person is and what cultures they belong to. A woman with Middle Easten features wearing a headscarf is likely to be Muslim, for instance. A person with red hair and blue or green eyes who speaks with an Irish accent is very likely to indeed be from Ireland, or at least have immediate Irish ancestry.
The demographic clusters that I linked in my last post are definitely kind of scary, in terms of how they neatly boil everyone down into 66 categories. That said, obviously that categorization has some validity and value, or it wouldn't work for the purposes it's used for. Cultural groups and differences DO exist. People are raised differently, and have different languages and customs. Their life experiences shape who they are, who they socialize with, how they dress and speak. It's not categorization in and of itself that's the problem, it's having too few categories, or assuming bad traits for someone based only on cultural or racial affiliation. Obviously people fall into far more than just binary categories. There is more than male and female, more than straight and gay, more than black and white, more than Democrat and Republican. There are also more categories than 12 zodiac signs, 50 US states, 7 continents. There are undoubtedly more than 66 demographic categories. But so long as we're making meta-level assesments, and not depriving someone of their rights based on what culture or subculture we think they belong to, there shouldn't be a problem.
I think people have taken the concept of taking people as individuals-- which is a very worthy concept indeed-- and run too far with it, and have now assumed that ANY categorization, labeling, cultural identity, etc. is a bad thing. It's not. Cultures and subcultures are very real things. They exist. Acknowledging them is not discriminatory.
I like to think of cultural categorization sort of like zoological classifications. At the top level, you have living organisms then down to things like mammals, bipeds, humans etc Then you break down, branch off, refine, separate out. A given person will likely belong to several different meta-categories, for instance. Race, sex, language, nationality... You have cultures within cultures. You have subcultures. You keep refining until you get down to the individual level, where each person is their own unique patchwork quilt of cultural identity. But recognizing them as an individual does not negate what cultural categories they belong to. And when necessary, as it is every single day, in any animal's life, we sort based on those categories. Friend from foe. Tribe member. Potential mate. Picking out what cultures someone belongs to is the mental butt-sniffing we do every day. Eliminating discrimination based on what cultural categories someone belongs to does not mean eliminating those categories. Yes, it's great when we all recognize our commonalities rather than our differences, and all people should be respected merely for being human. Hell, for that matter, all living creatures should be respected. We all share commonalities. But recognizing that a dog has just as much right to not be abused or exploited as a human doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that he's a dog. Labels are an essential part of navigating through life. We wouldn't survive without them. That's what language is, after all. Nouns are all labels. They're all series of sounds or marks which enable us to identify an object or a concept. Understanding that labels are created and are not biological does not mean that they don't or shouldn't exist. Constructed things are just as valuable as organic ones, so long as they don't cause more damage than the benefit they give. When it is determined that a particular constructed thing does more harm than good, yes it should be dismantled. But the mere fact of it being constructed does not mean it's something evil.
*I should note here that I believe being gay, while having some biological roots, is not an entirely biological phenomenon. I believe that most people are, like our closest primate cousins, bisexual to some degree. A certain percentage are organically 100% straight or gay, but I think that's fairly rare, and I also think a lot of people who identify as straight or gay are not that way biologically, but because of social factors.
I also believe that orientation is a far more complex thing than just what genitals turn you on. I think several other things: gender presentation, sex roles, body type, cultural identity, all factor in to sexual and romantic object choice, leading to far more orientation categories than just straight and gay. However, I do also believe that orientation is one of those root-level building blocks of who a person is-- something as intrinsic as a native language-- and therefore any attempts to change that are very dangerous to the whole structure of who a person is, and are unlikely to be successful. You can't unlearn your orientation any more than you can unlearn your native language. Even if you learn to speak exclusively in another tongue, your original language is always going to be there.
