>
>>
>> > And it'd be nice to see
>> > an example of something that _isn't_ socially constructed--
>>
>> Rocks, dinosaurs, galaxies. Lots of cool stuff, actually.
>>
>> -- DRR
>
> No, no, NO!!! Those names for those..... things... are always already
> (as
> we are too fond of saying) a part of culture. People who are born and
> raised today have a really hard time (impossible time, really)
> apprehending
> a "galaxy" without thinking a bit about Mr. Spock and Carl Sagan and warp
> speed. And the folks down the block and over the river do galaxies
> different as well. At least a part of what makes those galaxies "cool"
> is
> all our knowledge (and ignorance) about them. The galaxy "in itself" is
> unavailable to us as an object of contemplation. "It" is, or would be,
> meaningless. The fact that we could get smacked with one doesn't make it
> any less socially constructed... since we must presume an "it" to which
> we
> are referring or language fails us and we are back to grunting and
> pointing
> at the sky.
Wait. I thought that the discourse about rocks, dinosaurs, and galaxies was contingent upon power relations and the imperatives of the privileged classes-- their classification schemes were developed by white males through the distancing strategies demanded by the need to preserve and extend hegemony over the natural, i.e., more female world. But as you note, many of these things, which we are expected to regard as "real," are accessible only through the texts generated by privilege, and can be contemplated directly only through gatekeeping hegemonic institutions (observatories, multi-million-dollar telescopes, museums). So dinosaurs and galaxies did not actually _exist_ until signifiers were issued to represent them.