The Dangers of Social Relativism

Sorry for the delay in posts! College is keeping me mighty busy these days.

I've noticed quite a disturbing trend among some of my fellow college students. While waiting outside one day for my 3:35 class to begin, I overheard a conversation between some students in a different class who were also outside. One of the students, a girl probably a year or two older than I (and possibly a teacher's assistant), was engaging the others in a frank discussion about sexuality and gender. Eavesdropping on others' conversations is not a hobby of mine, but considering this conversation was happening near my usual Monday/Wednesday-between-classes-cigarette-break-spot, I perked up an ear and listened.

The girl began to explain to her small audience about how gender and sexuality are socially constructed, and have very little meaning beyond what "society" gives them. The essence of her claims was that gender roles are something created by the society we live in, and in the same hand, sexuality (be it hetero, bi, or homo) is also socially constructed. According to her argument, the act of coitus has little to nothing to do with procreation, and the commonly-held belief that sex is for procreation is (surprise!) created by society.

I listened with growing alarm at her claims and arguments. Her audience of three attempted to offer timid challenges to her claims, for even their college-level Liberalism was mildly disturbed by such radical claims. Gender, sex, and sexuality aren't real? They're constructed by the society we live in, which we, as Liberals, hate? Oh my!

The conversation ended within ten minutes, and I was left dumbfounded. It was the first time I had heard the social constructivist position given in full on a position. It wasn't my first encounter with social constructivism and social relativism; such viewpoints are rampant on college campuses, where nihilism is an actual sustainable lifestyle. But this was the first time I had listened to a social relativist explain in person their position on an issue, and it sounded like nothing short of insanity.

Had I more time, I would have turned around and immediately engaged in the conversation, even though I knew none of the people in the small group and was not in the class. Alas, I had to go to my next political science class, and duty to studies overrode my desire to destroy terrible claims.

Why is this girl's position so dangerous, you ask? Don't her claims have an instance of truth?

The short answer is that, yes, they do have an instance of truth. We as a society do, both subconsciously and consciously, define what it is to be a man or woman, and what it is to be heterosexual and homosexual.

The longer answer is more complex. The truths of this girl's position are completely overwhelmed and overshadowed by the enormous falsehoods therein and by the borderline-sociopathic attempts at morally justifying such a position.

Firstly, it is clear that biology (specifically genetics) affects human physical and mental characteristics such as race, appearance, gender, and, to a certain degree, sexuality. Social relativists such as the girl I overheard claim that these things are constructed by society, which deems certain variations of these human characteristics to be desirable. Western society, for example, assigns gender roles, defines race and sexuality, and assigns the variations in each category different value judgments. Until recent history, Western society defined heterosexuality as preferable to homosexuality for reasons varying from religious conviction to the assurance of a healthy family unit complete with children, which is necessary if a society is to survive. Men were expected to act a certain way, which included working (supporting the family financially) and being the head of the household. Women were also expected to act a certain way, which included raising the children and maintaining the health of the family.

In the last century, these things began to change. Women began to seek a change to their roles in society, specifically regarding their civil rights and their equality in the occupational world. Western society has shown that no ill effects come from women having equal rights as men; no family (or society) has disintegrated because the woman in the household also has a job, so long as the woman still fulfills her duties as a mother and wife. Men also began to broaden their horizons, albeit not to the extent of the women. Men started choosing to be the one who stays home while the mother works. This also is completely fine, so long as the man in the house fulfills his duties as a father and husband.

People like the girl I overheard, however, seek to change even that. To those people, the very concepts of motherhood and being a wife are socially constructed in order to prop up the paternalistic, chauvinist Western society, just as race is socially constructed to prop up the racist, discriminatory Western society. Such views are common among modern-day Liberals; any success demonstrated by Western society was made at the expense of minorities, and therefore cannot be considered true progress or success. In order to make up for such "oppression" and "discrimination", the social relativist seeks to dismantle and destroy every aspect of Western society that categorizes people, regardless of how tightly they are sewn into everything we as Westerners know and love.

Men should not have to act like men because such assumptions lead to the oppression and ostracism of feminine and/or gay men; the same (but reverse) goes for women. Men and women should be allowed and encouraged to not only adopt the other gender's mannerisms, but also to adopt the other gender's genitalia and other physical characteristics, if they have such desires. Race is based on hardly any physical scientific basis, but is rather constructed by society, and therefore should be ignored from all discussion in order to avoid the oppression or ostracism of the minority races.

Arguments such as these are the basis for the complete destruction of everything upon which our society still precariously stands. The basic, banal truths remain that society IN PART defines these things, but they are defined as such because of the natural manifestation of such things! History has clearly shown that the gender roles, preferred sexualities, and self-identification with regards to race are beneficial to society as a whole. Did Western society become the most successful society on earth by treating these basic traits of humanity as relative and unimportant? Of course not.

This is not to say that discrimination based on these categories is acceptable. No one should be denied opportunities simply on the basis of such categories, although this has happened in the past in Western society. The social relativist, however, seeks to completely destroy these natural foundations of our society in order to make up for such past discrimination and in order to prevent future discrimination. The social relativist is basically a hardcore Liberal whose main goal is to make every single person in the world equal to everyone else, regardless of what they destroy in the process. In order to do this, they must deconstruct everything upon which our society is based in order to make way for the new Utopian society in which race, gender, sexuality, and life choices are all equal, accepted, and successful.

Any sane, rational person must see the folly in such thinking. If the past several millenia have shown anything, it is that humans are inherently not equal, and that any attempt to make them such will only result in the complete self-destruction of a culture and nation (worse-case scenario) or a great averaging of everyone, leading to a bland, cultureless nation of average, adequate people (best-case scenario). In the Liberals' great quest for the Sacred Cows of Diversity and Equality, they will actively destroy one (Diversity) to attempt in vain to gain the other (Equality).

The social relativist opinion held by most Liberals can result in nothing less than failure, and is therefore completely indefensible. I wish I took that girl's class so I could tear her arguments apart limb from rotten limb.