> I don't think this "biological substate that contrains X" rhetoric is
> very helpful. You can just as easily turn it around: "Is it so
> far-fetched to think that social conditions, whatever they may be, might
> constrain our linguistic capacity"?
Not in the least. In fact this is obviously the case -- we can't speak a language we've never heard, we can't talk about things we have no words for, and if our social conditions are dire enough, we'll never develop our language capacity at all.
> Whether we privilege the
> "biological" or the "environment", we're artificially valorizing one
> element and treating the other as the element contrained/controlled by
> the valorized element.
Noting the existence of biological constraints on human language is hardly the same as "privileging the one over the other." I'm not sure who your antagonist might be on this point, but I'm pretty sure he's not in the room.
> the question assumes a
> dichotomy between the "physical" and the "environment" that does not exist.
Frankly, though this sounds rather grand, it's also nonsensical. People are born with spinal cords, livers, etc. These structures are not "socially conditioned", and they can do certain things and not others, period, full stop.
What happens to them -- and what you're able to do with them -- during the course of your life is, of course, further constrained by your social circumstances.
But even under socialism, comrade, people will not be able to run 60 miles an hour, or digest cellulose.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org