0

Take the example of the concept of 'femininity':

An existentialist thinker might suggest the meaning of femininity is completely subjective and one must decide the meaning of femininity for themselves in a completely absurd world with absolutely no pre-given meanings.

However an alternate view is that, historically only the female can become pregnant and give milk (undertake the role of motherhood), and the mother would be best having traits such as nurturing/loving/gentle. So here the biology is associated with the social role which is associated with the traits. Now while motherhood is a state of vulnerability, it would mean males would best undertake the role of provider/protector and best have traits such as resilience, perhaps even a bit of strength to face dangers/threats. Thus the biology-social role-traits here are linked.

So proceeding from this view, femininity becomes a concept that links female(biology)-social role(mother)-traits(such as gentleness) together, and masculinity becomes a concept that links male(biology)-provider/protector(social role)-traits(such as strength/courage) together.

We also might with technology, one day be able to make pregnant males, so the argument defending this arrangement cannot be one of necessity, it must come from defending the this arrangement having cultural/historical meaning then.

So in conclusion, are there philosophers who defend/explore drawing the essence/meaning of social identities from a historical-cultural background roughly as what I have described? Are there philosophers who defend the importance of culture/history giving us meaning in our lives?

P.S. Perhaps even an idea that Culture/History is the starting point of all value/meaning in life

user65383
  • 79
  • 3
  • "*Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just stand there.*" – Scott Rowe Mar 29 '23 at 01:21
  • "An existentialist thinker might suggest the meaning of femininity is completely subjective and one must decide the meaning of femininity for themselves in a completely absurd world with absolutely no pre-given meanings." I know of no existentialist who claims such absurdity. Existentialists know we are born in a society that carries values and meanings and teaches them to us as we grow up. The point is not that we can reinvent everything at a whim, but be conscious that those cultural values are only vaguely rooted in nature and can be critiqued and adapted. – armand Apr 27 '23 at 00:20

1 Answers1

-1

You sound like Jordan Peterson.

"are there philosophers who defend/explore drawing the essence/meaning of social identities from a historical-cultural background"

That's just how words work, that are about society, with maybe a few exceptions like Plato's Idealism. Words come with cultural baggage, that is just inevitable. Culture and history are how we learn words, are how we make sense of definitions.

Society has changed enormously. It used to take a team to meet the basic necessities of a family, securing and preparing food, and heating. With fossil fuels and 'mod-cons', why should cooking and cleaning remain a gendered role? Home-based like weaving were considered the only ok jobs for respectable women because of the constant fear of rape, and social judgement of women depending on secure paternity of children. Between police forces and family-planning, this is no longer a conxern that shapes society, though fear of crime still affects women far more. The direction of moral progress being towards greater gender equality discussed here: Studies exploring the rationale of gender equality

You say

"the meaning of femininity is completely subjective and one must decide the meaning of femininity for themselves in a completely absurd world with absolutely no pre-given meanings"

That's just not how language works, that idea was specifically critiqued by Witggenstein's Private Language Argument. And this XKCD comic:

XKCD 1860: Communication

You say

"it must come from defending the this arrangement having cultural/historical meaning

Why must it?

It seems like you want to make a strawman out of moral relativism, which is not what you imply, and then seek basically to just defend keeping everything the way it used to be - the appeal to tradition fallacy.

CriglCragl
  • 19,444
  • 4
  • 23
  • 65
  • [1] I'm not arguing for keeping the gendered roles out of necessity. I've already said because society will change, so such a defence of this interpretation of gender roles cannot depend on utility/necessity, so it *must* come from citing for example the value of conserving cultural/historical meaning of femininity (if one desires to make a case for interpreting gender this way), so the *must* is used in this context [2]existentialism says there's no inherent meaning to anything so all meanings are subjective in this view, to an existentialist the meaning of femininity is subjective. – user65383 Mar 27 '23 at 21:57
  • On the point of the appeal to tradition, I actually am not sure why this is a fallacy since tradition itself does hold unique value for many people, which is why there are things called UNESCO World Heritage Sites, and I'm not saying 'this is right because we've always done it this way', rather 'this is good because we've always done it this way' which isn't always the case (e.g. slavery) but sometimes it can be good simply because we have always done it this way (keeping the original furniture in Mozart's house because it's original which makes it good for that reason alone) – user65383 Mar 27 '23 at 22:10
  • 1
    @user65383 I wonder if gender equality will evolve to become a non-sequitur, as ideas of gender diffuse and vanish? – Scott Rowe Mar 29 '23 at 01:25
  • @ScottRowe: Evolutionarily there is a tension. On the one hand, degree of sexual dimorphism seems to relate to extinction risk, which given that a niche has presumably has a best response makes sense (display charactetistics often impair fitness). On the other hand, sexual selection can amplify rapid changes if the niche is changing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Reproductively_advantageous That is the biological history. – CriglCragl Mar 29 '23 at 02:14
  • 1
    My theory, is the analogous thing to humans being able to take tools & tactics from any other species, is like when bacteria started trading genes using viruses. The gene won't be the only unit of selection, when you can pick-&-mix. Expect a tool-box. But, replication of replicators is always going to be the criteria for what sticks around, memes or genes. Gender is a performance, to benefit reproduction. It may change, but expect cues, & shortcuts to evaluate fitness, to remain. The existence of things we judge others by, motivates behaviours. Thus society emerged from biology. – CriglCragl Mar 29 '23 at 02:21
  • 1
    Ok. I guess I was thinking near-term. Perhaps humans will alter or avoid, or commandeer evolution? Stealing the Crispr segment from a virus was pretty amazing. – Scott Rowe Mar 29 '23 at 10:23