A perfect world, void of hunger, and the proper reduction of pollution would introduce a positive harmony to the state of our current reality. In other words, this kind of world would be ideal. One reality in life is that humans are flawed and full of vices, and because of these flaws and vices, society is forced to face the ugly plight of active shooters, hate crimes, and wars. The ideal world has become a fictitious wish for the optimist. Though not completely optimistic,the constructivism offered in Shotter’s paper, is presented as idealistic because of the wavering extremes depending on the context and society that an individual is brought up in; essentially, the ideal conditions presented in Shotter’s work cannot apply to every human.
To begin, Shotter’s idea humans allowing themselves to be ruled by a ‘dominant ideology’ shines a light on the level of submission that is required to act as a functional and reasonable member of a society.The idea of being ruled by a ‘dominant ideology’ is simply the rule of social norms (Shotter). Social norms vary from country to country and from culture to culture. For example, in India, it is socially acceptable for males to publicly urinate. However, in America, a man who decides to do such a thing in public could be arrested and charged with indecent exposure. His allegations can intensify and cause him to become a registered sex offender. In India, the dominant ideology is the system of a male dominated patriarchal hierarchy that allows men to get away with things that women could not imagine getting away with.Therefore, men in India can defend this behavior with ‘good reasons’ for their conduct , but in America there would not be much of a defense in this situation because many people would agree that the individual peeing in public is inappropriate (Shotter).While in America, the dominant ideology is that humans are meant to do such things in private, or in a place where one is not exposing oneself and offending others. This also points to the differential boundaries that exist in the different settings.
Another factor that makes Shotter’s constructivist view too idealistic is the idea of the citizens having access to socio-ontological resources. This concept is based off of the freedom of self-expression and how it impacts our sense of self/being. This is an opportunity and a privilege that not everyone has. For example, in Saudi Arabia, it would not be a good idea for a member of Saudi society to decide that the King of Saudi has hurt their feelings, so they are going to go to Twitter of Facebook about it. This is an offense that people are jailed for, or in some cases people even disappear for. The concept of freedom of speech is quite different, which highlights the lack of the Saudi citizen’s ability to utilize social-ontological resources freely. Meanwhile, here in America people have to right to make very rude and inappropriate political propaganda or to simply make horrible comments about the president. Americans have more freedom in their use of socio-ontological resources. When government constraints are put on a society, the leeway is developing underground groups of people who have the same interest or share the same thoughts, which could be another way for people in socio-ontologically restricted societies to utilise their resources. This idea could even help people who have interests or ideas that contradict the norms of their society find community.
Furthermore, the reality that faces humanity is that humans are not naturally free because of the obligation to abide by the social norms of one’s society. The norms of society challenge an individual’s ability to live the life they wish to live because the social surroundings may contradict the desire. An example would be the desire to be a promiscuous woman in a conservative muslim society. This is a social abnormality that could lead to social rejection, jail time, and in extreme cases death. Though not ideal, this is the reality. It is an individual’s job as a citizen of society to abide by the societal norms or else their are risks and consequences. In the western world, modern day mentalities have a motivation to rebel against and defy social norms. The society has provided a platform where people are not afraid to rebel because Western society is designed in a way to where an individual can go on without the social identities that may be restricting them of exercising their free-will. Due to diversity, people who may be considered social outcasts can easily find or build their own socio-ontological support system through the internet or other social outlets. Moreover, because of the flexibility that western societies offer in this perspective, Shotter’s idealistic approach better applies to a western society, which makes it bias.
Lastly, there is a biased fault in Shotter’s assumption that every human will have the proper circumstances to create ‘virtues of their passions’. Shotter states that as humans people “become themselves responsible for their own nature”, but this statement cannot be fairly applied to societies in which an individual’s class, family, or socio-economic situation has a prohibiting impact on their ability to explore the ‘virtues of their passions’ (Shotter). For instance, in a family where there is an expectation that an individual will only pursue a career or interest that yields a lot of money in their future career, the individual who is expected to live up to this expectation cannot properly explore the ‘virtues of their passions’. Maybe this individual may have a greater desire to pursue something like creative writing or dancing, but their surrounding circumstance creates a barrier in them pursuing the ‘virtues of their passions’. If the individual was given the opportunity to explore their own passions, then it is possible that the individual would be a completely different person due to the opportunities and situations that would come along with the differing passion. The inability to explore passions prevents an individual from being “responsible for much of their own nature”(Shotter). They become molded and shaped by their surroundings, which robs them of their freedom of self.
To conclude, Shotter’s constructivist view comes across as idealistic because of its inability to respect the plethora of diverse circumstances, norms, and cultural conditions. The context that Shotter offers seems to be very western focuses. Shotter assumes a certain amount of liberty and freedom that many communities do not have the privilege of having. Nevertheless, Shotter’s points on the needs of human nature are indeed valid, but unfortunately not every society is engineered to properly implant Shotter’s way of presenting the fulfillment of socio-ontological resources. All in all, an ideal world is not achievable due to the constraints and the engineering of certain inflexible societal constructs.
No comments:
Post a Comment