Oxygen. Chemical processes. Carbon cycle. Cell division. The inevitability of death. The words we use may be constructs, but the processes themselves are just reality.
Yep, covered this in the full video too - take something like gravity, that's not a social construct because no matter where we go in the world, what time period or who or what it's acting on, gravity works in the same way. Even before we understood gravity, it was working in the same way. Our understanding of it and what we think of it doesn't change it at all.
@@moreracheloates But our understanding of virginity doesn't really change anywhere in the world either, only the value that's given to it in a moral sense. The issue I guess, with the term lies in the fact that it combines objectively real concepts (ie. not having had sex yet = virginity), with subjective value that they have (ie. its importance). For example, the idea of virginity, gender, or aging, and their definitions definitely do not change with culture. How we value it does. As do our social expectations imposed on people with these traits. And this is kind of where this idea of "social construct" becomes an issue: it merges terms that have had the same definitions across cultures, with their value and importance across these cultures. That is, their definitions have definitely practically never changed. There's a reason that I believe you think this though, and it's because of phrasings like "real men do X", "women are supposed to be housewives", "you've finally become a man", "virginity is feminine", etc. However, none of these are claims of literal definitions. They are only expressions of social expectations that we wish to impose on people that are men/boys/girls/women/virgins/etc. They do not express how we define these terms. Think of the word "human". Would you also say humanity is a social construct? Because again, we impose social expectations on humans as well when we say things like "raping children isn't even human".
@@moreracheloates Actually death *is* a social construct, by the video definition. Vikings said death is honourable, and when you die in battle you will go to Valhalla. Especially with WWI and WWII, the perspective of death has changed in many cultures. It's the same for the example of Oxygen: why did they pick oxygen when there's so many elements? you see oxygen holds higher value in our human minds, because we know we need it to breathe/live. the positive connotation behind 'oxygen' is the essence of it being a social construct. the same as the positive and negative connotation to 'virginity'. if a train has gone past you, a train has gone past you. if you have had sex, you have had sex. this is simple observable reality, the same as the Water cycle. any extra opinion beyond that is what makes a concept a social construct. 1:58-2:12 value/opinion/treatment, changed over time/place/culture. Our opinion of Oxygen has Definitely changed over time, and still differs across different cultures to this day. The reason why Cell division is not a "social construct" is because it's not a popular enough term. (what a surprise. 'social' and 'popular' both mean, "more than one person//more people") Having an issue with a specific social construct, is more along the lines of having an issue with why it's popular. I'd appreciate any comment from you, as I will make my own video in response to yours.
I don't know if I missed this in your video, but what I think is the most important misunderstanding people have about social constructs is that they fail to consider the environment and substrate in which those social constructs exist. So when someone say "X is a social construct", people interpret this to mean that X could have taken any other form, and just is what it is because of "power structures" or whatever. And indeed, it's possible to imagine other ways to build X as a social construct. The question is: are these other ways possible, given X's substrate? And are these other ways of constructing X adaptive to the environment in which people who built X live in? Social constructs don't just float in the air, they are intrinsically tied to the people and the environment. And just because X could be constructed differently, doesn't mean that doing it differently would be adaptive or beneficial.
If this sounds too abstract, remember the 2+2=5 discussion that happened on Twitter some time ago. If you axiomatically make 2+2=5 true, it "breaks mathematics" (as most people understand it).
You can remove the social construct interpretation from sex but the biological interpretation of sex would still remain.
Can you name something that is NOT a social construct?
Oxygen. Chemical processes. Carbon cycle. Cell division. The inevitability of death.
The words we use may be constructs, but the processes themselves are just reality.
Yep, covered this in the full video too - take something like gravity, that's not a social construct because no matter where we go in the world, what time period or who or what it's acting on, gravity works in the same way. Even before we understood gravity, it was working in the same way. Our understanding of it and what we think of it doesn't change it at all.
Rocks
@@moreracheloates But our understanding of virginity doesn't really change anywhere in the world either, only the value that's given to it in a moral sense.
The issue I guess, with the term lies in the fact that it combines objectively real concepts (ie. not having had sex yet = virginity), with subjective value that they have (ie. its importance). For example, the idea of virginity, gender, or aging, and their definitions definitely do not change with culture. How we value it does. As do our social expectations imposed on people with these traits.
And this is kind of where this idea of "social construct" becomes an issue: it merges terms that have had the same definitions across cultures, with their value and importance across these cultures. That is, their definitions have definitely practically never changed.
There's a reason that I believe you think this though, and it's because of phrasings like "real men do X", "women are supposed to be housewives", "you've finally become a man", "virginity is feminine", etc. However, none of these are claims of literal definitions. They are only expressions of social expectations that we wish to impose on people that are men/boys/girls/women/virgins/etc. They do not express how we define these terms.
Think of the word "human". Would you also say humanity is a social construct? Because again, we impose social expectations on humans as well when we say things like "raping children isn't even human".
@@moreracheloates Actually death *is* a social construct, by the video definition.
Vikings said death is honourable, and when you die in battle you will go to Valhalla.
Especially with WWI and WWII, the perspective of death has changed in many cultures.
It's the same for the example of Oxygen: why did they pick oxygen when there's so many elements? you see oxygen holds higher value in our human minds, because we know we need it to breathe/live. the positive connotation behind 'oxygen' is the essence of it being a social construct. the same as the positive and negative connotation to 'virginity'.
if a train has gone past you, a train has gone past you.
if you have had sex, you have had sex. this is simple observable reality, the same as the Water cycle. any extra opinion beyond that is what makes a concept a social construct.
1:58-2:12 value/opinion/treatment, changed over time/place/culture. Our opinion of Oxygen has Definitely changed over time, and still differs across different cultures to this day.
The reason why Cell division is not a "social construct" is because it's not a popular enough term. (what a surprise. 'social' and 'popular' both mean, "more than one person//more people")
Having an issue with a specific social construct, is more along the lines of having an issue with why it's popular. I'd appreciate any comment from you, as I will make my own video in response to yours.
I always make time for my favourite youtuber you are stunning love both you're channel's
Promo-SM 🤤
I don't know if I missed this in your video, but what I think is the most important misunderstanding people have about social constructs is that they fail to consider the environment and substrate in which those social constructs exist.
So when someone say "X is a social construct", people interpret this to mean that X could have taken any other form, and just is what it is because of "power structures" or whatever. And indeed, it's possible to imagine other ways to build X as a social construct. The question is: are these other ways possible, given X's substrate? And are these other ways of constructing X adaptive to the environment in which people who built X live in?
Social constructs don't just float in the air, they are intrinsically tied to the people and the environment. And just because X could be constructed differently, doesn't mean that doing it differently would be adaptive or beneficial.
If this sounds too abstract, remember the 2+2=5 discussion that happened on Twitter some time ago. If you axiomatically make 2+2=5 true, it "breaks mathematics" (as most people understand it).