Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Critya t1_iyhoyd6 wrote

Reply to comment by Spitdinner in Why “the Christmas feeling” is more profound than you think - some holiday themed philosophy by Melodic_Antelope6490

Society is a social construct. That’s not even an argument.

27

ting_bu_dong t1_iyhrmih wrote

> Society is a social construct.

So: Society emerges from society; it continually recreates itself in society's image?

Edit: Not sure why this was downvoted. It's an honest question.

3

beingforelorn t1_iyi1wg7 wrote

I think they mean that society is a human construct and have confused the meaning of social construct. Lack of inquiry and precision in terminology is rather abundant here in this thread.

5

ting_bu_dong t1_iyi8gsx wrote

> Lack of inquiry and precision in terminology

How... unphilosophical.

1

Critya t1_iyibgxr wrote

Society is a construct built be the socialization of humans as a way to coexist. It is therefore a social construct. And I’m super bored with the “it’s a social construct” as if it settles the debate. Yes everything we do that is related to human civilization/socialization is related to “society” whether it’s tradition, culture, religion, communication, trade, even science.

All of it has been “constructed” as a way to progress us as a species past just animals roaming the savannah fucking, fighting, eating, and dying. So pointing out that something is a “social construct” as it relates to human socialization in the modern world is like pointing out that liquid water is wet or the sky is blue. So what? Partying is a social construct, graduation is a social construct, a promotion is a social construct, a marriage (in the romantic, not the religious sense) is a social construct.

Are you saying that by the very nature of something being a social construct, it is inherently bad? If so, that means that even the social constructs you enjoy must be destroyed and done away with. Or are you simply saying that a social construct is something that can be changed/removed? This argument would make a lot more sense, but that’s not how you presented it. And if you feel that a “social construct” is something that can be changed/removed and in this case you feel it should be, then present your argument on why that should be the case.

0

WaterIsWetBot t1_iyibmpb wrote

Water is actually not wet; It makes other materials/objects wet. Wetness is the state of a non-liquid when a liquid adheres to, and/or permeates its substance while maintaining chemically distinct structures. So if we say something is wet we mean the liquid is sticking to the object.

 

Every time I take a drink from a bottle, it keeps pouring back.

Must be spring water.

2

MichaelOraProNobis t1_iyia643 wrote

I think what is meant is that society forms through social interaction between people.

This shared interaction creates norms/rules/etc this becomes more solidified as time and interactions continue. Creating roughly what we would call a culture or society.

2

ting_bu_dong t1_iyianm7 wrote

So, I guess the answer would be yes? Society creates (and, thus, continually recreates) itself.

Edit: Or, maybe "reproduces" is a better way to phrase it than "recreates?"

It just got me thinking of Mark Fischer, is all.

https://youtu.be/JX-HfNIN-pc?t=171

2:51
while we used to recreate the
2:54
past in order to understand it or relive
2:57
it
2:57
today we recreate the past unconsciously
3:01
today's nostalgia is purely formal
3:04
today's nostalgia takes up the signs and
3:07
forms of yesterday's culture not in
3:10
tribute or as a critique but in the same
3:13
way that workers reproduce their own
3:16
exploitation every day in order to
3:18
survive we repeat the past simply
3:22
because these are the only forms that
3:24
seem remotely viable to consider

If society gives birth to itself, mimicking itself, then, society would be inherently conservative, right?

1

MichaelOraProNobis t1_iyieqwn wrote

I think I basically agree. But I would phrase it a little different. More like:

Society is the result of social interactions amongst a people who share a minimum of interconnected needs/interests. This result is a series of norms/rules about the structure/form of these interactions.

This social interaction structure changes as the nature of interactions change. It’s not so much a recreation as a process of adapting to accommodate new social variables.

I would agree that society is conservative in the sense that it tends towards a maintaining a cohesion among the people within it. But this is not always the case as social upheavals and revolutions happen. This usually seems to happen at time of social breakdowns where the expectations of the members are not met by the society.

Or something along those lines

2

ting_bu_dong t1_iyih5go wrote

> I would agree that society is conservative in the sense that it tends towards a maintaining a cohesion among the people within it. But this is not always the case as social upheavals and revolutions happen. This usually seems to happen at time of social breakdowns where the expectations of the members are not met by the society.

I sometimes wonder if Mark Fischer were still with us, what he would think, now that we are seeing more and more social upheaval. Would he be happy?

"Good! That means we're still actually capable of change! Not stuck in some listless cultural depression, looking to only recreate current forms!"

But, then, it seems that the antidote to depression is... anger. Hopefulness just leads to more depression. But anger? That changes things; and, thus, the society that is created and recreated tomorrow is changed.

Maybe revolution is necessary, not simply because of intolerable conditions, but, to end cultural stagnation.

Which... isn't really a comforting thought, though?

1

MichaelOraProNobis t1_iyim9o2 wrote

One thing I would say is that there has never been and never will be a time in which there isn’t change happening. It’s a matter of degree or severity. Only when a thing no longer exists can there no longer be change.

In that way our time is no different than any other time. Things go through phases of increased social change and times of lesser social change. Any perceived stagnation is just a matter of considering things on a different scale.

I disagree that hopefulness inevitably leads to depression. The lack of fulfilled expectations of that hopefulness turns to depression if our response to it is something along the lines of bitterness. That lack of fulfillment can be meant with something like acceptance instead which would minimize or prevent depression.

1

ting_bu_dong t1_iyiphma wrote

> One thing I would say is that there has never been and never will be a time in which there isn’t change happening. It’s a matter of degree or severity. Only when a thing no longer exists can there no longer be change.

Well, sure, there can be change. But if we take this seriously:

>we repeat the past simply because these are the only forms that seem remotely viable to consider

Then, there is no "real" (radical?) change; just a repetition of viable, acceptable forms. Society recreating itself as just the latest remake.

Though, I do kinda wonder if all the cultural sameness is simply driven by capitalism, not... organically, for lack of a better term? Hollywood makes endless remakes and superhero movies, for example, because they sell. And, so, it looks like that's all there is. But there is plenty more out there. It's just all the more out there isn't picked up; "the algorithm" doesn't boost it. Cool new stuff gets buried and goes unnoticed.

>That lack of fulfillment can be meant with something like acceptance instead which would minimize or prevent depression.

I'm reminded of The Myth of Sisyphus here. "Accept that reality is absurd slow moving."

1

MichaelOraProNobis t1_iyitych wrote

I would say that there is always change, not that there can be change. As long as there is motion there is change.

Not to be pedantic but it is impossible to repeat the past. We can experience things that bear a resemblance with the past. There can be behavioral patterns that act in a particular way that is shared among all humans but the manifestation of that behavior and the results of are unique to that point in time.

Remakes while I agree are a bit to repetitive or redundant for my liking, are new and different. Like Heraclitus said about not being able to step in the same river twice. The perceived lack of difference is dependent on the scale of the examination. The complaint of Sisyphean repetition can just speak to a jadedness or hedonistic dulling.

1

ting_bu_dong t1_iyiuzzh wrote

>Not to be pedantic but it is impossible to repeat the past.

Well, sure, that's why I framed it as "recreation" of the past (or maybe "reproduction").

Whatever you want to call the conservative force that keeps keeps society from radically changing.

1

Friendcherisher t1_iyhv419 wrote

If you put it that way, reality itself becomes a social construct if we follow Baudrillard's and Goffman's line of thinking.

1

Hedlundman t1_iyhxsxs wrote

Our reality is limited by our senses. It doesn't make it less real but perception is fun.

2