Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
social construction of reality - Coggle Diagram
social construction of reality
applying results of shadow Qing to race
Q5 - what kind of subjectivity (individual vs
group
)
suppose shadows are subjective - existance derives from something about mind &/or lang
need to ask --> does that mental-lingustic aspect of reality have to do with person singular or 1st person plural phenomena
1stintuitivly put: does the metaphysical base of shadows have to do with I-facts or we-facts
I-facts = then shadow turns out to be like beuty - widly held view that its in 'eye of beholder' - shadows are responce dependant
We-facts = shadows turn out like public land meanings - e.g. what makes happiness mean happiness is way speakers use it - shadows are socially constructed
Q4 - metaphysical basis/ground (objective vs
subjective
)
when kind is derivative key Q about metaphysical basis of its intances = are they derived from mental or lingustic phenomena
if say kind is subjective - existance derived from mental-lingustic practice
e.g. artifact types: portraits, sontas, spoons, buildings, also meaning bits of lang - word 'dog' or 'dude'
if non-basic kind is not subjective - instances are mind & lang independant - this kind is obejctive
e.g. celestial bodies, stars, etc
common sense maintain shadows are real but non-basic --> are they subjective or objective
objecrtive - shadows derived from light reflectance properties of surfaces, which are objective, therfores stands to reason shadows are too
BUT shadow in daylight - clear where is & isnt cause less light bouncing off surfaces where shaodow is - but will be light bouncing off surfaces in the shadow jsut not enoigh to ee these surfaces well --> other creatures be able to see these surfaces well - for them no difference inside & out of shadow
existance of shadow is related to perceptual capcities --> shadows are subjective
Q3 - metaphysical status (basic vs
derivative
)
basic kinds are real - instaces exist - but dont metaphysically derive existance from anything else --> bsic kinds just exist
can think basic kinds can be caused to exist (basic ness jsut ensures their existance doesnt consist in existance or activty of something else
contrst with non-basic
real as well - existance is derived from other things - real in virtue of other aspects of reality
e.g. football teams are derived from players, fans, clubs, etc)
following common sense shadows are derivative
Q2 - real in what sense/ontic status (
real
vs unreal)
consider - relevant show is shapeed like right hand (RH-shadow)
Q: are RH-shadows real?
depends on meaning of real
what s it to be real - might say something is real if:
i) it exists or
ii) its causally efficacious - capacity to bring about something/amke something happen
X exists <--> X is causally efficacious
LTR maintains that X only exists if X has capcity to bring about something
RTL maintains X has such a capcity only if X exists
hard to fault RTL - doent look poss for things to be causly effcacious & not exist
LTR not obviouly true - seems poss for things to be cauily inert
focus on 1st criterion - existance --> do shadows exist
realism = yes
eliminativism = no
Q1 - which ontic catagory (particular vs
kind
)
particulars = indivuals of same kind
e.g. shing light over hands, resulting on 2 hand shaped shadows - 2 induvials of the kind of shaws
easy to mix up kinds & particulars in speech -->
e/g/ you & i drive the same car - particulars would be the same singular car, particulars would be same type of car
put onto shadows: suppose 2 things are identical can say they have same shadow - this is weird interpreation - interpretate as particulars
focus on shadow kinds from here on
a space of positions
talk about shadows - creating a space of positions on their being - will later apply to social ontology - race
ontology --> study of being, social concerns being in the social world
Q1 - which ontic catagory (particular vs
kind
)
e.g. of horse barn - 1 kind of thing, 5 instances of horses
racial kinds refer to: whites, blacks, latinos, asians, etc..
empirical realism & normative eliminativism
if this is correct world would be better place id we behaved in ways that didnt ground racial catagories at all - avoid subjugation & pridlage
resulting view = empirical realism about rac conjoined with normative eliminitivism
consequences
but group behaviour is perfectly contingent - social contructivsm thus entails that we could exist in world that has diff racial kinds than current ones
therefore we could live in world with no racial kinds --> normally viewed as propper goal of society by social-constructavists
Q5 - what kind of subjectivity (individual vs
group
)
assume group subjectiveity matters - whether person falls into racial catagory depends on something about how people treat each other
= social-constructivism about racial kinds --> belonging to racial kinds amounts to being trated socailly in some heiraracal way
Q4 - metaphysical basis/ground (objective vs
subjective
)
if racial kinds not basic - then people belong to them in virtue of beloning to other kinds - waht are they?
if metaphysical base of race doesnt involve minds or lang - they are objective (mind & land indepednant)
if meataphysical base of race does involve mind & lang - theyre subjective (mind & lang depednat)
common sense realism about race
sees racial catagories as objective - not about treatment, social aspects --< a skin deep conception of race
Skin deep race:
simple way to endorce idea racial catogries are only about skin colour
Delia problem:
therefore she was a diff skin-depp race than family - inconsitance with common sense - race & heritage are connected
following this dark skin isnt a necessary condition of being black
Delia could pass as white even though her family was dark skinned
Scott problem:
tans heavily in summer even though hes white & was called slur for Hispanic people
skin-deep notion of race entails that people wre right about his race - cahnged race by tanning - not consitant for common sense
someone is white <--> they have white skin
Delia prob conflict with RTL
Scot prob conflicts with LTR
race as unobservable
follows ordinary conception of race sees racil kinds are unobservable kinds
on assumption of racial kinds = objective - waht are those underlying properties
Objective theoretical race realism
4 types of unobservable properties to anchor objet apprach to racial ralism
genetic properties
chariter disposition/
something in heritage
something in blood
but none line up well with racial kinds in society
--> therefore is neither obseravble or unboseravble objective properties
assuming racial kinds are real-but-derivative --> follows theyre subjective
Q3 - metaphysical status (basic vs
derivative
)
not a priori there aer basic kinds - or any kinds at all
perhaps no kinds cause nothing exists
comceptually poss that there are kinds in world - but all are derivative - if so any kind its intances derive from intances of more basic kinds
given assumption of kinds in world wntials infinate decending chain of dependance between them
common sende not cleat on racial kinds
Q2 - real in what sense/ontic status (
real
vs unreal)
common sesnse distinguishes real & unreal kind - women, witches
empty catagories are unreal ones that nothing falls into - unicorns, witches, suprhoers, etc..
racial kinds --> common sense buys into they are real (realism)