Social constructs are the unwritten ideals that people in different societies have because of their culture. Using this definition, one must accept that a society is a group of people defined by their shared views and values (often in addition to their more objective geographic and political features). In that sense, different communities of different sizes impose rules on individuals, and every individual belongs to many societies ranging in size from countries to small groups of friends. Because individuals have some choice in the societies to which they belong (like groups of friends), they choose to be with people who are similar to them.
Then, without deliberation or discussion, the societies form unwritten values shared by the majority of the people. Although these values and the rules they imply are always changing, they are at any given point oppressive to at least one person in the group. In this way, human interaction inevitably leads to social constructs. So to be a true existentialist, one must live in isolation.
I think to truly be a radical subject, it is necessary to live in isolation. I agree that even the smallest of systems we belong to have a profound impact on the way that we interest with the world and, therefore, it is impossible to be completely subjective in our thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAmong other adjectives, I find this blog post to be very realistic. I think that we (the class) have been trying to envision a society/culture where social constructs don't exist and subsequently try to understand the concept of existentialism. You have pointed out, however, that regardless of what the social constructs may be, they are inevitable for a society to not only exist but to flourish. It is animalistic nature for humans to connect with other humans that share similarities. Beyond biological similarities, humans can subdivide into more specific similarities that address political views, religious beliefs, etc. From these subdivisions, the newly formed societies, as you mentioned, will form unwritten values that usually cater to the majority. These unwritten values, or social constructs as you defined them, are subject to evolve, however it is unrealistic to try and pretend like such a concept won't exist within a society.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right: social constructs can't exist without society. Your post brought me back to learning about Enlightenment philosophy in AP Euro. John Locke described the mind as a "blank slate" at birth. In the Lockean state of nature, without social constructs or interaction with other humans, the individual is free to develop their own morals and define the meaning of their own existence. Living in this social isolation is the purest form of existentialism. Only when humans begin to interact do governments and other social constructs form. I think you make a great point here: existentialism in its true form is isolation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Yohanna that this post is very realistic. Society can't exist without social constructs. I believe that your post just further supports how existentialism is wholly inapplicable to life. However, as Mr. Heidkamp said, we could focus on breaking from society in small ways, like dying our hair pink (go Megan!), and though this might not be total isolation, it is a small embodiment of existentialism.
ReplyDelete