While folks mull over my first feverish musings, let me further muddy the
waters with the second.
Reportedly, Pierre Bourdieu has in a recent paper hypothesized that the
human gender duality split is itself arbitrary. However, he argues that
unpacking that arbitrariness will next to impossible given how deeply
embedded it is in human activity.
While I agree with the basic premise, it seems to me that we can use
evolutionary data to make the case that the human gender arrangement is
arbitrary. Genetic mutations could have created humanoids that filled
the same ecological niche, but dealt with reproduction differently.
My question is to what extent can we take that arbitrariness seriously?
Consider the following thought experiment. Suppose that as a move to
reduce oppression, the government decided to "assign" gender - randomly,
ignoring biological signs previously used. Would we consider this
'fair?' Nevermind fair, suppose that your gender was suddenly changed -
how would you function?
Of course we all have some historical investment in our present gender.
But that doesn't take away it's arbitrary character. On the contrary, we
stand on a lot of "foundations" that in fact are nothing but arbitrary
sands.
Let me illustrate the point more directly. In New Zealand, there is a
movement afoot to restore the names and pronunciation of landmarks to
"original" Maori names. This is supposedly done again the name of
"fairness," but a closer look suggest matters are more complex. The
Maori are themselves invaders, who a few hundred years previously came
from Polynesia, apparently ate the native inhabitance, but now claim
ownership of the Islands. Yet, when the British returned the favor to
the Maori's, the natives from the West are now expected to pay homage to
the previous invaders - because their got there first and got rid of 100%
of their competitors (whereas the British were sloppy and only got rid of
only 90% !?!)
The Maori's suggest to me the epitome of the "naturalization" of an
arbitrary category. The Maoris no more "belong" in New Zealand than the
Western invaders. Yet, in our time we arbitrarily define a Western
invasion as somehow unnatural. Invasions by anybody else are for some
reason natural. The situation doesn't exactly represent human logic at
its finest, but that is really besides the point. The bottom line is
that who is called the invader is truly arbitrary. Neither side has a
"better claim" for residency, yet the whole politic movement in New
Zealand hinges on the effaced arbitrariness of circumstances.
Of course to the bulk of xmca readers the predominate view is - so what?
Who cares what some silly cliff, road, or valley is called in New
Zealand? Of course if you don't live there - that is easy to say. If
you live there, then it jolly well matters what your street, city, or
peninsula is called. Yet, that local meaning does *NOT* resolve the
arbitrariness. Mail will get a street no matter if it is called "Whare
Wananga" or University. The great dispute between the Maori and Pakeha
(Westerners) boils down to: definitions and power.
This leads me to the second troubling source of fever. Even if we can
keep our diligent analysts on task (while in the adult sandbox,) will
their discoveries help or hinder? The scientific/scholarly enterprise is
based on the assumption that appropriately directed investigation will
yield understanding. Suppose it doesn't? Suppose instead we discover I
have illustrated about New Zealand. Instead of understanding, we
discover that there is no basis for why things are as a they are.
Instead much of world is - just because it is, and that moreover it could
be entirely different without violating any rules of logic, science, or
"fairplay?" Consider the situation again in New Zealand: Should the two
side be allowed to "fight it out" freed of the false logic they battle
with now? Should some other "order " be imposed on the outside? Who
should decide? Why?
This brings me back to the gender example I started with. There is
considerable intellectual, political and economic pressure to change
existing conceptions of gender. However, the same questions about New
Zealand apply to gender. There *CANNOT* be any rational criteria - by
the definition of arbitrary. We cannot spill off multiple human races
and try various "experiments." Finally, we cannot draw on historical
precedent, historical conceptions of gender are the primary justification
for change. Shall we allow the various factions to "battle it out?"
(that is the default solution - alas.) Shall we seek a solution "imposed
from outside?" If so by whom, and who should decide?
The arbitrary character of our world poses the ultimate challenge for any
form of rational action (no matter how transformed by post-modernism.)
It means that some of the most critical issues in our world have no
solution. Barring some sort of rational "salvation," it would seem that
the only possible solution will be struggle - using whatever weapons the
combatants choose to bear.
Edouard
. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - .
: Edouard Lagache :
: lagache who-is-at violet.berkeley.edu :
:...................................................................:
: We can not recapture the past any more than we can escape from it :
: Linda Lichter :
. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - .