Philosophical Reflection: How Constructionism and Post-Structuralism “Construct” Who We Are.

For me, determining the question “Who am I?” is complex and often confusing. I see several commonalities and various discrepancies when trying to categorize or formally identify myself within the representational modes prevalent in broader society. Two cases from ballroom culture, which I have recently engaged with, exemplify this confusion.

In an effort to learn more about the LGBTQ+ community, I participated in two sessions of the Vogue Femme workshop, a prominent performance in ballroom culture. Growing up, I was often judged for looking, acting, and dressing in a "sissy" way. However, the extreme power of femininity displayed in Vogue Femme—whether in dramatic or soft and "cunty" manners—does not resonate with me. Feeling awkward and self-conscious, I question my self-identification as a Butch Queen. While I share some commonalities with my fellows, I do not necessarily enjoy in this category.

Another instance of my confusion involves the intersection between claims made in an interview and those in literature. Marlon M. Bailey’s ethnography on ballroom culture provides deep insights into ballroom as a culture and its sociobiological values. He highlights a prominent feature in ballroom, the “Gender system,” categorizing it into six groups: Butch Queen up in drags, Butch Queen, Femme Queen, Women, Men/Trade, and Butch. He underscores their importance in terms of gender performativity and implications for ballroom members in broader society. However, an interlocutor in an official video interview contends that ballroom is a utopia, where these categories are just a form of game, and the embedded gender identities do not necessarily reflect one’s true identity. This contradiction calls for closer examination.

The construction of oneself is an intriguing topic that has been discussed in philosophical circles since the 20th century, with early theories continuously influencing our current conceptions. Determining one’s identity or fitting into existing categories is contentious. These empirical experiences have led me to question: What is the general, if not exact, mechanism behind the process of self-identification? Is it an inherent feature, or are we shaped by social, cultural, and other contexts? Furthermore, is this process stagnant, or can it evolve and produce new variations?

Debate between constructionism and essentialism

Without socially and culturally imparted knowledge and frameworks, one is to some extent incapable of truly identifying oneself. Consider someone who always thinks of themselves as existing outside dominant features, marking a point of undeniable realness. This coincides with the philosopher René Descartes' notion of “I think, therefore I am” (a concept also cherished by essentialism). Descartes’ theory about human rationality, originality, and uniqueness advanced philosophical thought. However, this theory is problematized by later theorists such as Louis Althusser, Sigmund Freud, Ferdinand de Saussure, Jacques Lacan, and Michel Foucault. They collectively argue that instead of being inherent and self-determined, one’s identity is shaped by cultural and social influences, with individual subjectivity founded on ideology. This view aligns with the notion of constructivism. For example, how can one understand their sexual identity without the structure (or architecture) constructed by society? On the other hand, essentialists oppose this view. They argue that homogeneity is an inherent feature naturally carried by individuals. However, there are abundant examples of men who identify as straight but engage in same-sex sexual intercourse, highlighting the complex nature of identity beyond inherent features.

Integrating Post-Structuralism with Constructivism

The discourse between essentialism and constructivism is insufficient to answer my question since we often see anomalies deviating from binary identification. Structuralism theorizes things to be stable, presented in a binary manner (e.g., Good vs. Evil). However, the reality is continuous rather than discrete. Consider a doctor who lies to a patient about their remaining lifespan to reduce unnecessary emotional distress. While mendacity is generally deemed “evil,” the doctor’s action shows a “good-hearted” intention. This example indicates that the categories or representational modes we use cannot entirely reflect the qualitative features of one thing or person. Instead, we live in a non-binary world where these “binary-attributions” provide relative dimensions, similar to the x and y axes. This notion is evident in post-structuralism, which celebrates instability and fluidity. So, how are these theories relevant to our self-identification? It should be evident that structuralism provides an environment where we can seemingly fit into established subjectivity, often shaped by different ideologies. Moreover, we are constantly shaping and adding elements to the axis in a multidimensional self-identification process.

Reference

1.Sayer, A. (1997). Essentialism, social constructionism, and beyond. The Sociological Review, 45(3), 453-487.

2. Bailey, M. M. (2013). Butch Queens Up in Pumps: Gender, Performance, and Ballroom Culture in Detroit. University of Michigan Press.

3.Chaffee, D., & Lemert, C. (2009). Structuralism and poststructuralism. Social Theory, 124.

4.Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory: An introduction. nyu Press.