Socially constructed things are still real things, inasmuch as society
is real. But they are factitious, inasmuch as they are constructed.
The point about authenticity is that it's supposed not to be
constructed.
Dworkin, since you mentioned her, might argue for authentic human
personhood against factitious gender identity, the idea being that
authentic human personhood doesn't depend on social consensus to
exist, and that the authentic human personhood of persons gendered
female actually exists in spite of - and in resistance to - the
prevailing social consensus (which assigns them a sort of
pseudo-person status, along with children and animals).
I don't especially wish to get dragged into a discussion of the merits
of this line of argument, but it can serve as an example of the
distinction being used in anger.
When it comes to language, I think any quest for an "authentic" speech
will inevitably get snarled up in dense thickets of philology. And as
thickets come, there are no denser...
Dominic
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:15:39 +0000, Dominic Fox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Doesn't "socially constructed" rather imply "factitious"?
>
> Dominic
>
--
// Alas, this comparison function can't be total:
// bottom is beyond comparison. - Oleg Kiselyov
|