John Ransom wrote:
>Perhaps we can think of
>reality and its relation to human cognition and production in terms of a
>continuum?
>
>gravity homosexual
>|------------------------------------------------------------------|
>"no matter what" truths socially produced
>truths
>
>One of the impressions I have from your posts, Colin, is that while you
>are willing to admit (as above) that lots of truths are socially produced,
>you become abusive and dismissive (which is fine; I'm not complaining)
>when postmodernists try to trace out the twists and turns of
>truth-production. And I don't understand -- not that you owe anyone an
>explanation -- why after granting a point that after all has been
>primarily established and popularized for by postmodernists (namely, the
>social construction of all sorts of truths) you dismiss them so
>contemptuously.
>
>The relevant question probably isn't: Do you think there's a real world
>which exists no matter what, no matter how you interpret it? The question
>rather is: where on the continuum above do we roughly locate the dividing
>line (if we grant there is one) between socially constructed and
>no-matter-what truths?
>
>I would put my line pretty far to the left of the continuum.
I think that these sorts of battles are fought over just where to put that
line. No one coming out of a Marxian tradition could argue with the notion
that our notions of "truth" are socially constructed. But the questions are
how, and how much?
One could devise a similar spectrum covering the natural and social
sciences. The science studies crowd seem to argue that what we might call
Ransom's Line is also pretty far to the left on this spectrum too.
Conversely, many mainstream social scientists, notably economists, would
place Ransom's Line pretty far to the right, rejecting any notion that
either their concepts are socially constructed, or that what they see as
"laws," valid across time and space, apply only to the social construct
known as contemporary capitalism (and apply rather spottily at that).
What bearing would this sort of analysis have on, say, the pseudo-science
of racist biology? All the bizarre notions of bio-determinism, from the
wandering uterus to the inferior African brain, were socially constructed -
but were refuted (or socially deconstructed if you prefer) by scientists
who probably would locate Ransom's Line pretty far to the right. Is this
just a matter of one social construction replacing another? Or is it a
matter of a socially constructed untruth, masquerading as truth, being
undone by the discovery of some "'no matter what' truths"?
Doug
>Perhaps we can think of
>reality and its relation to human cognition and production in terms of a
>continuum?
>
>gravity homosexual
>|------------------------------------------------------------------|
>"no matter what" truths socially produced
>truths
>
>One of the impressions I have from your posts, Colin, is that while you
>are willing to admit (as above) that lots of truths are socially produced,
>you become abusive and dismissive (which is fine; I'm not complaining)
>when postmodernists try to trace out the twists and turns of
>truth-production. And I don't understand -- not that you owe anyone an
>explanation -- why after granting a point that after all has been
>primarily established and popularized for by postmodernists (namely, the
>social construction of all sorts of truths) you dismiss them so
>contemptuously.
>
>The relevant question probably isn't: Do you think there's a real world
>which exists no matter what, no matter how you interpret it? The question
>rather is: where on the continuum above do we roughly locate the dividing
>line (if we grant there is one) between socially constructed and
>no-matter-what truths?
>
>I would put my line pretty far to the left of the continuum.
I think that these sorts of battles are fought over just where to put that
line. No one coming out of a Marxian tradition could argue with the notion
that our notions of "truth" are socially constructed. But the questions are
how, and how much?
One could devise a similar spectrum covering the natural and social
sciences. The science studies crowd seem to argue that what we might call
Ransom's Line is also pretty far to the left on this spectrum too.
Conversely, many mainstream social scientists, notably economists, would
place Ransom's Line pretty far to the right, rejecting any notion that
either their concepts are socially constructed, or that what they see as
"laws," valid across time and space, apply only to the social construct
known as contemporary capitalism (and apply rather spottily at that).
What bearing would this sort of analysis have on, say, the pseudo-science
of racist biology? All the bizarre notions of bio-determinism, from the
wandering uterus to the inferior African brain, were socially constructed -
but were refuted (or socially deconstructed if you prefer) by scientists
who probably would locate Ransom's Line pretty far to the right. Is this
just a matter of one social construction replacing another? Or is it a
matter of a socially constructed untruth, masquerading as truth, being
undone by the discovery of some "'no matter what' truths"?
Doug