Helen and David were talking last night about constraints, and how oppression can be good. The basic thesis, as I interpreted it (disclaimer: I was not the most compos of mentis), was that we need some benevolent oppression to tell us who we are and where we fit in society. Femininity, for example, is mildly oppressive, but it gives women a role and allows them to more expediently explore the meaning of their lives.
Okay. That seems to work. But if we need constraints to help us understand identity, what kind of identity do we have? Is there anything to us, naturally, or do we merely reflect the cultural circumstances from which we come? Sure, my social context tells me who I am, but am I actually discovering who I am or am I learning who I'm supposed to be?
I'm fine with reading history and looking at art and considering the origins of our culture. But if our culture is really worth continuing (and I think it probably is), why is coercion necessary, never mind good?
I'm pretty into choice. This is because I love freedom. But even more than general freedom I love it when people make their own identities. This doesn't mean iconoclasticism for iconoclasticism's sake. People who shout "down with the man!" annoy me as much as they do anyone else. I've chosen a fairly traditional persona in my society, for now. But I'm not sold at all that it's oppression itself that's important, rather than just wanting to protect things that we happen to like.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Who the hellz do you think you are? You're like the sort of person who would use two semicolons in one sentence.
also a pretentious twat, but that's beside the point.
Post a Comment