I wrote this comment this morning and then my 'net gave out and then once I got it back I forgot to post it. oO
To what extent can one overcome real differences simply by acting as if they didn't exist?
Acting as if differences--whether they be real or socially constructed--don't exist isn't a radical methodology, but a (neo)liberal one; agree with your instint that "that one should never base anything on something one knows to be untrue." The radical methodology is to notice the differences which exist in our society, identify the sources of the difference--the superstructures of systemic injustice--and to remove them.
I don't think the radical theorist is necessarily committed to the claim that all types of difference must be a result of sociolinguistic factors; she must merely remain open at all times the possibility that they all might be, all the way down. And it's important to note that we're not looking at two naturally occurring groups, one of which gets to roll 2d6 for upper body strength and the other 2d6+1 (if you're not familiar with the notation, that would produce two bell curves one a negligible distance to the right from the other); instead, we separate people nature produces into two groups based on criteria that aren't as straight-forward as we act as if they are and then it turns out that there's a disparity between the two groups.
But while it seems whether people can have a real disagreement over whether there's a such thing as "real" sexual difference (although, again, it's real enough to the people experiencing it no matter what the source is), it doesn't even make sense to ask it about class; while we can have questions about what types of sexual and racial difference might be left once we've removed the cultural and linguistic factors, it seems self-evidently clear that it'd be absurd to say that poor people are shorter than rich people even when divorced from an economic system.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-21 10:19 pm (UTC)To what extent can one overcome real differences simply by acting as if they didn't exist?
Acting as if differences--whether they be real or socially constructed--don't exist isn't a radical methodology, but a (neo)liberal one; agree with your instint that "that one should never base anything on something one knows to be untrue." The radical methodology is to notice the differences which exist in our society, identify the sources of the difference--the superstructures of systemic injustice--and to remove them.
I don't think the radical theorist is necessarily committed to the claim that all types of difference must be a result of sociolinguistic factors; she must merely remain open at all times the possibility that they all might be, all the way down. And it's important to note that we're not looking at two naturally occurring groups, one of which gets to roll 2d6 for upper body strength and the other 2d6+1 (if you're not familiar with the notation, that would produce two bell curves one a negligible distance to the right from the other); instead, we separate people nature produces into two groups based on criteria that aren't as straight-forward as we act as if they are and then it turns out that there's a disparity between the two groups.
But while it seems whether people can have a real disagreement over whether there's a such thing as "real" sexual difference (although, again, it's real enough to the people experiencing it no matter what the source is), it doesn't even make sense to ask it about class; while we can have questions about what types of sexual and racial difference might be left once we've removed the cultural and linguistic factors, it seems self-evidently clear that it'd be absurd to say that poor people are shorter than rich people even when divorced from an economic system.