No Gentlemen

Is Anatomy Destiny?

As is usually the case, the question of etiquette like so many others ultimately deconstructs into one of philosophy. In the present case the issue revolves about the conflicting conceptions anatomy (sexual differences located between the legs) on the one hand as opposed to that of gender (sexual differences located between the ears) on the other. Which is to take precedence? In other words, IS anatomy destiny or is it trumped by social convention?

One’s answer to this question further deconstructs into the conflict of the Realist as opposed to the Constructivist positions. For the Realist – a few have been noted on this thread – tend to maintain that there exist unalterable physical differences between the sexes and that such differences cash out into distinct social behaviours. On that basis their answer to the question, “Is anatomy destiny?” would be in the affirmative.

On the other hand there are the Constructivists, those who maintain that it is what goes on between the ears and not the legs which is the operative principle guiding social relations – more of them have been noted on this thread than the Realists – and it is gender, a consequence of the forces of liberalism in general and feminism in particular, which embodies the guiding principle in social relations. They would answer the question, “Is anatomy destiny?” in the negative.

No one who is not some sort of philosophical primitive would subscribe ENTIRELY to the Realist view. Rather, the view consists of a “modified Realism,” one in which gender plays a significant but not a determining role. However, the Constructivist position – that one is ENTIRELY a product of prevailing cultural forces – raises the spectre of the “infinitely malleable man.” In other words, we have no “self” existing apart from the society in which we happen to find ourselves (the “Transcendental Self”) and so the Constructivist position may reduce to an unacceptable form of “social determinism.” So it looks like there is no clear-cut answer to the question. As with so much else, it appears to lie somewhere in the middle but exactly where is a question of emphasis and not prescription.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

Is Anatomy Destiny? (II)

A couple of comments on the question of the derivation of etiquette as an instance of acceptable male/female behaviour conceived in terms of its philosophical foundations in Naturalism or Constructivism bear further scrutiny. Before offering an analysis of those comments however, reflection on my initial post requires a brief additional comment.

I concluded that etiquette had become an amorphous concept, located somewhere between a “modified Naturalism” on the one hand and a coherent Constructivism, one that did not entail social determinism, on the other. In other words, I began to see etiquette as an “artifact” of a gradually eroding Naturalism under attack, so to speak, from a burgeoning Constructivism, the prevailing current philosophical world-view. The result “on the ground” culminates, for example, in a man not knowing whether to hold open the door for a woman. Now, let’s turn to the comments.

Hugo Phurst (12:01PM) announces that destiny, the view that one’s social behaviour is predetermined anatomically, is “bullshit.” The view implies a Constructivist position, that humans construct their own identities and futures. However, he goes on to say that “We make our own choices. You know, ‘free will’ and all that.” (Note the scare quotes around the phrase “free will.”) But the view that we possess free will as part of our natural equipment, so to speak, implies a Naturalist position. Is Hugo Phurst then guilty of self-contradiction? Of course, one occupying the social determinst end of the Constructivist position – someone like Marx comes to mind – might well say, “OK, now prove it.” In other words, he might say that Hugo Phurst’s “free will” is little more than an example of “bourgeois false consciousness.”

Kim (12:25PM) introduces the concept of “chivalry” but gets caught up in a “physicalist” interpretation – her preoccupation with doors – whereas I’m coming at the question from a philosophical perspective. Anyway, perhaps inadvertently, she appears to support my claim of etiquette being an artifact of a gradually eroding Naturalism. The knightly code of chivalry wasn’t a ploy to get laid but a visible marker of a thoroughly patriarchical class-based society in which clearly-defined behaviour was demanded of the knight in respect to the “fair maiden.” It was Naturalism in full flower. In time, however, chivalry gave way to a more modified “etiquette” which we see today in its uncertain and reduced manifeststions. Finally, etiquette seen as a relatively clearly-defined set of rules for social behaviour is morphing today into an even more uncertain and vague concept of “politeness” in which men take their chance in holding that door open. So the next time the occasion arises men, reflect on these philosophical questions before grabbing that door knob.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

Is Anatomy Destiny? (III)

Hugo Phurst’s response (Feb 20, 7:18PM) to my reflections on the philosophical origins of etiquette as embodied in either a Realist or Constructivist world-view shows that he has misconceived the nature of the two alternatives. Briefly put, they are not the objects of impartial scrutiny as he seems to suppose (like the “magnetron”) but rather the spectacles through which one scrutinizes those objects. The Realist-Constructivist perspectives, in other words, are the alternative frameworks through which “reality” is conceived. A few observations on his comments might be helpful.

: “I’ve never claimed to be a constructivist or a naturalist.” Of course, one never “claims” to be one or the other by way of giving some sort of arm’s length report on the content of one’s own consciousness. One simply IS one or the other.

: His claim that it is “I, not events, have the power to make me happy or unhappy today. I can choose what it shall be,” misses the point of Marx’s concept of “bourgeois false consciousness.” From Marx’s perspective this assertion itself embodies the false claim of individual autonomy (“Individualism”) which is characteristic of precisely that consciousness. From Marx’s perspective one necessarily possesses the consciousness either of the owner class (“bourgeois consciousness”) or that of the worker class (“proletarian consciousness”). There was no third alternative. In either case it is the consciousness through which reality is cognized. (The only argument that might tell against Marx’s position is, as usual, that of self-refutation. Marx himself was a bourgeois – he spent his time in the Reading Room of the British Museum composing his “Das Kapital,” a place frequented by other bourgeois but not the proletariat. But, as a bourgeois, how was Marx able to scrutinize the proletarian consciousness which, by definition, was beyond his world-view?)

: “Not all things happen for a reason. It’s up to us to determine the response to our circumstances.” On one reading this is just incoherent – one simply finds the world as a sort of inexplicable “given” without rhyme or reason but nonetheless it is up to one to “respond.” On the one hand it reflects a cognitive passivity (“Quietism”), a helplessness where one can only make the best of a bad job. On the other hand, reflecting on the nature of just such reasons for one’s circumstances – as we are presently doing on this thread – might constitute a rational response. But if not all “things”(?) happen for a reason, thereby gutting any consistent rational response, it is up to Hugo Phurst to distinguish those things that do from those things that don’t permit of a rational response and, further, to demonstrate of what such a response might consist. (Keep it at the philosophical level, please.)

As far as the initial question goes – “Is anatomy destiny?” – consider the following: At time T1 Hugo was born and the doctor in attendance, observing what was between his legs, announced “It’s a boy!” At time T2 Hugo was maturing nicely, wearing pants and not a skirt, playing with soldiers and not dolls, etc., and eventually started smoking cigars and, possibly, holding doors open for females. Time T1, of course, refers to anatomy; time T2 refers to Hugo’s destiny. Is not T2 the natural unfolding of T1?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!