SolarCross wrote:The Immortal Goon wrote:
But I specifically said, "every day interaction," or some similar qualifier.
Whatever moral spin they put on it, it's still shiny rocks, slips of paper, or a series of 1's and 0's stored in a bank computer that all the people you mentioned agree has a particular value. If one does not agree that the shiny rock is valuable, than even your most militant Christian won't say that it's the root of all evil; or that a slip of green paper is a Jewish conspiracy.
It's the social construction of value that's important in each of these cases.
Right but the thing everyone (or mostly everyone) agrees with is the underlying basic facts: gold is shiny, paper bills tear easily, digital information can pass fly around the world at the speed of light. The social construct part is, just as you say, the value of money... But value is always and forever subjective and consequently the stuff of controversy.
Look at the definition again; we both agree that the value of shiny rocks and slips of paper is a social construct.
But that's where it ends. So far as how we regard this social construct, of course, is up to debate. Even at the level of whether this construct is dependent upon a value given my credit or labour is debatable. The construction, that we regard this thing as having an abstracted social value, is not debatable.
[quote="SolarCross]Take your example of male homosexuality as a social construct, the basic facts of the matter everyone agrees on: it involves men sticking their erect penises up each other's excretory organs and also probably kissing and fellatio too. [/quote]
Most of us would agree upon that because we have built that social construct. As mentioned, this wasn't true in an early 20th century boarding school. Or 19th century parliament. Or, apparently, Iran today.
Nor, on the other side, would either of us (being from a similar culture) say that fingering another man's prostate for pleasure while looking intently in his eyes was not gay simply because it wasn't one of the listed activities. It is gay because we understand that it is gay; and we understand this because we have built a social construction for it.
In the same way if we went to Tongo, we wouldn't be able to identify the people from Guam there as our social construct of race doesn't view that as an important distinction. In Tongo, however, it is. And just like they might be able to tell us exactly what rigid rules makes someone from Guam someone from Guam, we have difficulty listing out exactly what legalistic things make you gay. We both just agree that there is this status that we place value upon and place here or there.
[quote]The disagreements, the controversies, start happening on how people value those activities. For some it is the work of some evil god called the devil and it will send you to hell, hence it is valued poorly. Some others may think its just a bit of harmless fun or something. For others still it is the best thing ever, so valued highly, and whole host of other valuations are possible too.[/quote]
And see, with respect, this is the value of something we already agree existed as a society. It was, in effect, socially constructed.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!