>>blue for boys, pink for girls)? Does it apply to social
>>conventions which arose because they seem to work, or
>>fulfill a strong utilitarian basis (the development of
>>paper economies, the training system for physicians, the
>>shapes of chairs)? Is it a catch-all for anything that's
>>not solely derived from the genes or the brain (capacity
>>for language, eye color, bilateral symmetry), even if we
>>have _no idea_ if it's socially "constructed" or not?
>>
>>
> Does this term apply solely to social conventions (i.e.,
> It might help to define what "socially constructed" means.
>
>
>you know, kelley wasn't particularly nice in her response to
>your rather obtuse question, so maybe i can help. (not that
>i'll be nice...)
>
Oh, my question wasn't just obtuse, but _rawther_ obtuse?
I say, Buffy, this ruffian desires social intercourse with his betters! How amusing!
>you joined this list and got a blurb telling you what it was
>about. you either read it and stayed or you ignored it and
>stayed, but whichever it was, you were warned that it wasn't
>about shoring up your predetermined notions of human
>behaviour. you were warned that silly 'cultural' topics
>were considered fair game.
>
So were you.
>>Frankly, when people say that _anything_ is "socially
>>constructed," I suspect that people are simply using
>>quasi-technical terms to look sophisticated.
>>
>>
>
>is this what you say to surgeons when they use big words or
>is this sort criticism reserved for fields where you have no
>competence?
>
But there's the difference. When I speak to surgeons and research
physicians (and I do, actually-- it's part of my job), and I ask for an
explanation of some abstruse medical topic, they actually _give_ me one.
And I've found that they are actually very good at describing the topic
in terms which I can understand; they don't lapse into Latinate terms,
and if they do drop some jargon, they don't mind if I ask for an
explanation. Matter of fact, I've had the same experience with building
contractors (say, explaining why certain kinds of brick mortar expand
more or less due to the weather), physicists, accountants, plumbers,
sound engineers, bankers, and even economists and computer programmers.
And when I can't talk to someone, there are always books: I haven't had
any problems understanding how things work, like public-key
cryptography, or computer-generated imagery, or eight-cylinder engines,
or Chomskyan linguistics, or what-have-you.
About the only times I've run into professionals who _won't_ make the effort to make their work understandable are when I'm talking to lawyers or social theorists. I am _not kidding_. I am _not exaggerating_. If I ask lawyers to explain some point of law, and they get dismissive or evasive, then I press them some more-- and even lawyers are willing to say that they just don't understand some things, but it's the way it's done. Only among social theorists have I encountered dismissive and, frankly, snobbish dismissals about how I wouldn't understand something, or how I'd need to study the concepts for several years before I'd begin to reach their rareified vantage point. Occasionally, I'd get accusations of some kind of psychological deficiency (like class bias, or false consciousness) which prevented me from understanding the clarity of their vision.
And your note is _loaded_ with this kind of stuff. If you'd encountered it in any other context-- say, a corporation's PR, an historian writing aboutthe Middle East-- you'd be all over the discourse of privilege, the subordination of clarity to preserve hegemonic advantage, and the distancing strategies of the intellectual classes. But this fantastic insight _fails_ when it's turned upon itself.