Tuesday, September 15, 2015

What is your gender when you are alone in a forest and society isn't around to construct it?

While there are social constructs out there- like this insane idea that we all should enjoy getting together in huge crowds, which is a very novel thing to do from an evolutionary standpoint- the far more likely point of departure from reality out there is something taught to you, personally, that puts your identity (your conception of self) at odds with yourself.

In other words, if I am alone in a forest, I am still male, just as reliably male, as the tree falling in the forest makes a sound. Since we now know what sound is, we know the sound waves would be there. We know anatomy too. Identity is the construct, not gender.

I do not think hierarchy is a social construct. If it were a social construct, we'd have got rid of it by now- most of our leaders are failing us badly, and I am not talking about mere left/right dichotomy. There are progressives angry with Obama, and despite the fact that I'd never vote for him, we might actually be worse off if he wasn't there. What would the others have done? Would we be in an official war with Syria? Iran? They never mention the U.S. is giving Iran its own money back, and that our acts against them were basically acts of war. Kerry sometimes comes across this with this message in a muddled sort of way by saying if the treaty doesn't pass the other option is war- what he doesn't say is that was probably the plan, but the failure to launch in Syria, the subsequent proxy war against Assad with what turned into ISIS, and the ensuing chaos led to the realization they couldn't sweep across the Middle East the way they were hoping to.

And then Obama lifted the sanctions on Cuba, so I've got a couple of good turn outs from this guy being in office, versus the near certainty of the neoconservatives doubling and even tripling down on war during a McCain or Romney administration. McCain is nuts, and Romney did a version of Obamacare in whatever state it was he came from, so I don't see much in the way of potential mitigating factors.

So we have a sick hierarchy- how could it be considered otherwise given the poor choices we have- in need of fixing. One of the fastest ways of fixing it is to admit it is actually there- that egalitarian America is shot through with hierarchy. Pretending to be egalitarian in a hyper-legislative environment ends up meaning real things, like the less intelligent in poor urban areas being shoved through a revolving door of tickets, misdemeanors, and the like to generate revenue for cities. A very long time ago, in a less egalitarian environment, police officers would often see someone violating the law in some stupid but non-violent way and they go warn the person to stop it. No seizing property. No entrapment.

It seems to me all attempts at actually getting rid of hierarchy has failed. Since we have mostly gone progressive, the narrative becomes that of an oppressor/oppressed, and the solution inevitably is that we must hired bureaucrats who supposedly will impartially repair whatever damage done. Administrators with a false moral narrative, and no owners to keep them in line very quickly become a problem.

Pure egalitarianism is a social construct. It fails way as soon as you are alone in a forest. Either you've got skills or you don't. Either you've got intelligence or you don't. The forest is a test.

We are encouraged to identities that don't pass the forest test.

No comments: