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
Objective and Main Topics
This academic publication investigates the cultural production of knowledge and gender, analyzing how philosophical paradigms, language, and power relations construct our understanding of reality, sex, and identity.
- The objectivist paradigm and folk theories of knowledge
- Knowledge as a cultural product influenced by structuralism and post-structuralism
- The theoretical relationship between sex, gender, and the heterosexual norm
- Deconstruction of gender identities through the analysis of the film Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
Excerpt from the Book
Introduction
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 (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. Obviously, 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.
Chapter Summaries
1. A ‘Folk Theory’ of Knowledge: Explores everyday beliefs about reality and introduces the objectivist paradigm dominating Western thought.
2. Knowledge as a Cultural Product: Examines twentieth-century theories of knowledge production, incorporating perspectives from Althusser, Foucault, and cognitive linguistics.
3. Summary: What Has That Got to Do with Theory?: Discusses scientific knowledge, expertise, and the role of the individual producer of theory in relation to subjectivity.
4. Theorising SEX and GENDER: Analyzes the theoretical distinction and social construction of sex and gender through feminist philosophers like Wittig, Irigaray, and Butler.
5. Discussion: Priscilla, Queen of the Desert: Applies theoretical frameworks to the film to analyze transvestism, transsexuality, and the subversive potential of gender performances.
Keywords
knowledge production, gender, sex, objectivist paradigm, heterosexual norm, performativity, cultural construct, structuralism, post-structuralism, subjectivity, power relations, identity
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this publication?
The work explores the cultural and social construction of knowledge, theory, and gender within Western philosophical and sociological traditions.
What core themes are addressed in the text?
Central themes include the objectivist paradigm, knowledge production systems, the relationship between sex and gender, compulsory heterosexuality, and gender performativity.
What is the main research objective of the study?
The study aims to challenge taken-for-granted assumptions about objective reality and gender by demonstrating how both are culturally and historically produced.
Which scientific methods and theoretical frameworks are applied?
The author draws upon cognitive linguistics, cultural studies, structuralism, post-structuralism, and feminist theory, notably the works of Michel Foucault and Judith Butler.
What topics are covered in the main body of the work?
The main sections cover the deconstruction of folk theories of knowledge, the mechanisms of knowledge production, theories of sex and gender, and a detailed cultural analysis of a film.
Which keywords characterize the scope of the publication?
Key terms include knowledge production, gender, sex, objectivist paradigm, heterosexual norm, performativity, and subjectivity.
How does the author analyze gender constructs in media?
The author applies theoretical frameworks of gender performativity and transgressive sexualities to the film Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.
What role do transvestism and transsexuality play in the analysis?
They are examined as modes of sexuality that transgress traditional boundaries and test the stability of the heterosexual norm and gender categories.
How does the publication address the concept of power?
Drawing on Foucault, power is analyzed as a productive social force that circulates through discourses, institutions, and bodily practices to produce differences.
- 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
