We are born as either boys or girls, and we will be men or women. Even those who are “sexually different” are still classified male or female. There is no neither-nor, there is no both, there is no in-between. We grow into the world around us and, as we grow older, we begin to understand reality. We have knowledge of the world and we can work with that knowledge: We know what is true, real, just. We can also speak about abstract concepts, such as feelings, politics, history, and we understand each other, we know what we mean. We categorise the world according to natural, obvious criteria into discrete kinds. For instance, we are either men or women.
This essay is an attempt at tackling most of the above assumptions. All of our thinking - whether abstract or concrete - will be regarded as based on interacting cognitive, social and cultural systems, such as perception, categorisation, language, belief, etc. There are no social/ cultural aspects independent of general cognitive structures, and cognitive processes are in turn influenced by social/ cultural patterns. For most of us, this sounds intuitively dubious: Do we not perceive the world all in the same way? Are there not universal similarities in basic categories and in sensual perception? Can we, for instance, claim a cultural influence on our visual or acoustic perception?
Recent research in Cognitive Sciences 1 (e.g., psychology, psycholinguistics, language philosophy, etc.) has suggested that we may have to assume something in that direction. Categories, for instance colours, are categorised differently in different cultures. Not that items in the world actually do “look different” (in terms of properties of reflection, wave lengths of light, etc.), but culture-specific categorisations depend on the specific kinds of bodily and social interactions within a given culture. Obvio usly, these experiences and interactions differ between cultures, to a larger or lesser extent. These culture-specific kinds of interactions with “the world” form part of the basis for language codes, cognitive processes, social interaction patterns, concepts, beliefs, emotions, etc. I will take these assumptions as the starting point and as the basis of my argument. [...]
Table of Contents
Introduction
part one: KNOWLEDGE
1. A ‘Folk Theory’ of Knowledge
The Objectivist Paradigm
Basic Cultural Conceptualisations
2. Knowledge as a Cultural Product
The “Nature” of Knowledge
Processes of the Production of Knowledge
3. Summary: What Has That Got to Do with Theory?
Scientific Knowledge
Subjectivity, and the Dream of the Individual
Conclusion and Outlook
part two: GENDER
4. Theorising SEX and GENDER
SEX and GENDER
The Heterosexual Norm
Identities – Transgressions – Subversions?
5. Discussion: Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
GENDER (Re-) Produced
Cultural Context (Contested)
Subversive Representations?!
Final Remarks
Objectives and Core Themes
The primary objective of this work is to explore how cultural knowledge and gender identity are constructed and produced within society. By challenging the objectivist paradigm, the research questions traditional assumptions about "truth," "reality," and "nature," arguing that these concepts are historically contingent cultural constructs reinforced by power relations and social discourse.
- Deconstruction of knowledge as a culturally produced construct.
- Critique of the objectivist paradigm in scientific and everyday thought.
- Analysis of gender as a performative, discursive practice.
- Examination of the role of power in the reproduction of social norms.
- Evaluation of subversive potentials within cultural products like film.
Excerpt from the Book
The Objectivist Paradigm
The philosophical paradigm of objectivism can be traced back at least to the Greek philosophers (Homer, Plato, Aristotle), and it has been dominating European/ Western thinking ever since. This paradigm has provided the very basis for most cultural conceptualisation, thus having become so “natural” to everyone that the underlying assumptions never have to be explicitly stated. This way, I want to argue, these assumptions have structured our conceptualisation of the world to such an extent that any alternative view seems to be almost “unthinkable” to us. The “unintelligibility” of very different cultures clearly illustrates this.
In the objectivist paradigm, two very basic assumptions have to be explicitly stated in order to understand the impact it has on our common sense-understanding of the world: First of all, there is what Lakoff calls the ‘metaphysics of objectivism’, i.e. the belief in the existence of one and only one correct description of an external reality. This assumption is metaphysical in that it understands human reason as independent from all materiality, and therefore as referring to an independent “truth”. The very notion of “truth” as describing the nature of the world independent of the subjects doing the reasoning provides the basis for most of our conceptualisations. The objectivist paradigm prepares the ground for our traditional – and most commonplace – understanding of the relation between “reality” and “reason”.
Chapter Summary
1. A ‘Folk Theory’ of Knowledge: Defines "folk theory" as everyday beliefs about knowledge and reality, arguing that these are cultural constructs rather than independent truths influenced by the objectivist paradigm.
2. Knowledge as a Cultural Product: Examines knowledge through structuralist and post-structuralist lenses, highlighting how meanings are produced through social practices rather than existing independently.
3. Summary: What Has That Got to Do with Theory?: Analyzes how the production of theory operates as an exclusionary practice that claims objective truth to regulate and control knowledge.
4. Theorising SEX and GENDER: Discusses the construction of sex and gender as political categories, drawing on theorists like Butler and Wittig to examine the heterosexual norm and identity.
5. Discussion: Priscilla, Queen of the Desert: Applies the theoretical framework to the film "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" to analyze how gender is reproduced or challenged through transvestism and transsexuality.
Keywords
Knowledge, Gender, Objectivism, Cultural Construct, Heterosexual Norm, Performativity, Discourse, Power, Subjectivity, Identity, Social Production, Subversion, Sex, Feminism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research?
The research focuses on the cultural production of knowledge and gender, examining how these concepts are constructed through social, linguistic, and power-based processes.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The core themes include the criticism of objectivist philosophy, the role of power in knowledge systems, the performativity of gender, and the analysis of subversion within popular media.
What is the main goal of the thesis?
The goal is to demonstrate that "knowledge" and "gender" are not natural or fixed facts, but are instead historically contingent constructs maintained by dominant social discourses.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The author employs a multidisciplinary approach combining cultural studies, cognitive linguistics, feminist theory, and post-structuralist philosophy to analyze cultural conceptualizations.
What does the main part of the work address?
The main part addresses the deconstruction of knowledge production (Part One) and the subsequent analysis of gender and identity as discursive practices within the context of the film "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" (Part Two).
Which keywords best describe this work?
Keywords such as Knowledge, Gender, Performativity, Objectivism, and Heterosexual Norm are central to characterizing the theoretical arguments presented.
How does the author define the "objectivist paradigm"?
The author defines it as a long-standing Western philosophical tradition that assumes reality exists independently of human perception and can be described by a single, correct "truth."
How does the author interpret the film "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert"?
The author interprets the film as a cultural document that reveals how gender is both performed and naturalized, using the characters' transvestite and transsexual identities to test the boundaries of the heterosexual norm.
- Quote paper
- Michael Obenaus (Author), 2000, What do We Know about Gender? On the Cultural Production of Knowledge, Theory, and Gender, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/23527
