This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The same is true about race.
If you keep talking to a constructivist, eventually they'll admit that all "X is a social construct" means is that it's a human-created category. There being something natural / physical behind a classification doesn't diminish it's social-constructivenesss. The term has no meaning beyond that, but they love that the way it's formulated implies that you could reshape physical reality by changing enough peoples' minds.
Which is a shame, because there are actually valid insights and applications of constructivism in its more limited forms. In the international relations context, constructivism is one of the few 'major' IR theories that recognizes the role of actors as individuals acting according to individual perspectives, and thus able to analyze/predict why key actors would go against a realist/institutionalist paradigm. Things like the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea make considerably more sense from a cultural analysis of a warlord than a state-interest approach.
The prescriptions may be, well, prescriptive- we can change people's perceptions if we do Y so they no longer feel it right to do undesirable thing X- but it also serves as an often much-needed counterpoint to the theories that kindly gloss over individuals as existing at all (realism, institutionalism, etc.) in the name of simplifying the model. People exist. People make crucial decisions. How they make decisions is shaped by what they value in subjective contexts, and those subjective perspectives can change. There's nothing particularly controversial about such limited claims.
It's just that it is as prone to misuse / taken to its absurdist extremes as any other. 'Reshape physical reality by changing enough people's minds' is a fair critique, as is the 'your attempts of social engineering don't necessarily convey the new cultural norm you want them to'- like how the cultural norm of making exceptions to standard values in favor of the favored groups is less 'it is right to favor the favored group' and more 'those standard values aren't actually standards.'
More options
Context Copy link
Of course.
I suppose I would point to a difference between this (drawing boundaries) and something that seems to be a bit more radically a social construct, like literature or law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link