Abstract
Abstract Was bisexuality a widespread feature of ancient Greek society? This question is an instance of cross-cultural projection -- of taking the means through which people are categorized in one culture and applying it to members of another. It’s widely held by those who think that sexual orientation is socially constructed that its projection poses a problem. In this paper, I offer a more careful analysis of this alleged problem. To analyze projection, I adapt Iris Einheuser’s substratum-carving model of conventionalism to fit the specific needs of social construction (and social metaphysics more broadly). Using this model, I show that projection is conceptually coherent, and so does not for that reason pose any problem. Along the way, I identify some of the epistemic difficulties facing projection. While these difficulties are formidable, they are not substantially affected by the constructivist claim. I therefore conclude that there is no unique problem facing the projection of a socially constructed sexual orientation.
Highlights
In more than one dialogue, Plato portrays a relationship between Socrates and Alcibiades that was sometimes playful and often erotic
It’s widely held by those who think that sexual orientation is socially constructed that its projection poses a problem
I will show how the adapted substratum-carving model can be applied to the metaphysics of sexual orientation
Summary
In more than one dialogue, Plato portrays a relationship between Socrates and Alcibiades that was sometimes playful and often erotic. Whether a person ends up gay, straight, or bisexual depends in large part on how this process of biological differentiation goes forward, the lead actors being genes, sex hormones, and the brain systems that they influence (LeVay (2017): 163) They take our contemporary categories of sexual orientation as “essential”, and often look for historical expressions of this supposed essence. According to Foucault, “the homosexual”’ did not exist until doctors began to categorize patients as homosexual (Shortly thereafter, they were understandably compelled to categorize some “non-homosexuals” as “heterosexual”) He would deny LeVay’s assertion that sexual orientation is a biological category, and he would deny that the historically recent division of people into gay, straight, or bisexual is a mark of scientific progress in our understanding of sexuality. There is no unique problem facing the projection of a socially constructed sexual orientation
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have