All societies, those that are recognized as a 'society', are based on stable social organization; the kind that works for the majority in the place where they are. Rather than disorganized to the point of chaos and collapse in the place where they are.
Such stability and social organization needs ideal types in the social imagination. Quite often ideal types are put in place (allowed) by all the participating people as they suit the common good. Most often ideal types are charismatic, heroic and self-determined rather than not. They usually represent what most want to or should aspire to.
Now, many argue that perspective is out of date. Today, many argue that the rich or positioned elite create ideal types and sell them up for others to follow but that's not really true. The top cannot be effective unless the bottom goes along with it... either by force or by mutual agreement according to what is obvious even for the uneducated peasant.
Sure, you can say or 'feel' that the top always wins because the bottom is ignorant or afraid; but an argument such as that is mistakenly presumed. Why or how? There is a natural order to things.
In sociology, that natural order of things including ideal types is based on the social dynamics of a group which are the necessary 'give and take' found in social interaction. They play the greatest role in any functioning society. Such dynamics exists within all groups, races, religions, and cultures... social actors that are naturally inclined to be either a charismatic dominant or subordinate dull type. Such social dynamics exist in all creatures great and small and serve a purpose... that of sustainability of the group in the place where they are.
Out of social dynamics, the ideal type arises when needed to maintain stability and sustainability. If we consider evolution to be actual, then ideal types arise naturally among all biological evolving creatures and are stabilized or embedded into the evolving social structure because they serve a purpose which is for stable society and its continued growth.
You can argue that not all people will agree with that sociological perspective. Since, they themselves may not find themselves or accept that they are either dominant or subordinate or respect ideal types put in place by the group. In context of social pitfalls, those self excluding social actors were often considered deviant and treated as such by all other participating actors who did not self exclude.
Nonetheless, to better or fully understand the argument for stable society based on social dynamics and ideal types pitted against the mindless unprincipled individual social actor, we can and should look at sexual orientation. For example, recognized gender and its role for stable society. Some think gender is fluid. But, is that biologically true or even scientifically provable?
To arrive at what can be proved let's first consider what is gender fluidity and thus consider the arguments put forward by Michel Foucault. As a social constructionist, Foucault assumed that all of society is socially constructed and that includes sexual orientation.. in the social imagination.
While that might be true, even the social imagination needs stabilization perimeters... lest it falls into a state of mindless chaos and or mental social psychosis. Foucault, just did not seem to fully grasp that.
In Foucault's day, financial disparity was everywhere but that is still true today. Its not due to the bourgeoisie inasmuch as its a problem of rejecting foundational truths of social dynamics. For instance, Foucault wrote about the rise of the bourgeoisie and how they used/use their power dynamic to control society. I am not saying that is not true but it does serve a purpose.
Foucault wrote that there was indeed an effort by the bourgeoisie to control sexuality and how people talked about sexuality so that they could control all of society.
He said that the bourgeoisie used 'science' to control people's sexual behavior and or preferences. They (the bourgeoisie) said things like, only a biological man and woman can reproduce. This so-called insight led Foucault to spend some time examining knowledge and power.
Well, we can get into all kinds of arguments about what is power and what is knowledge and what is science. Just read my previous blog about science and the comments left below. The irony, in my view, regarding Foucault, is that the same 'logic' he used can be applied to the proletariat if they were in power.
Let's go back to social dynamics of a stable society. Ideal types or just social norms exist and are accepted because they work positively in the place where they are. That means, from a bird's eye view, if being a gendered man by nature and a gendered woman by nature create more people naturally for the good of society, to build up society, creating a civilization in a place regardless of the good, bad and ugly, then that will be the norm as that is what works best for a group of people in the place where they are.
To Foucault, sexuality must be understood as a bourgeoisie invention that ensures dominance. Really? I guess so as many reprobates (unprincipled people led into corruption rather than sound doctrine) even today, still believe its purpose is to maintain power. But, again what is power in context of stable society especially in context of reproduction. If that wielded power is to ensure reproduction, then it is a good for society and most participating social actors will engage in that seeing for themselves the good in sexual reproduction and family roles that naturally flow from it.
Now, if you still are not convinced that 'power' can be justified in that its use in society can create stability for the good of the many in society... then, let's consider the alternative being put forward by the reprobates. For the record, a reprobate is a mindless unprincipled person sadly dysfunctional within a framework of stable society. This mindless unprincipled person is bent on the corruption of the given norm or current shape of an existing stable society.
The reprobate type is usually an isolated as in excluded individual (they can be either dominant or subordinate and usually the later) who thinks that his/her feelings matter more than what natures deems as truth. They fall out of either dynamic as they deviate from the norm of society at large.
So, let's start there. What if all of society was based on 'feelings' and not biology which is a science? If you recognize that biology is a science and that there are plenty of truths in biology, then you should have nothing to do with feelings. Oddly, Foucault aimed at suggesting that feelings have the biggest role in social constructs rather than biology, reason and or logic. If that is true, then he should not have had a problem with the bourgeoisie; after all, they have feelings too outside of logic and reason.
Foucault should have been able to recognize the role of the bourgeoisie in stable society, even if they were themselves yet reprobate behind closed doors (many were and are), was necessary as long as they were/are promoting publicly the reason, logic and science; i.e. biology.
Why would any power hungry bourgeoisie elite promote biological truths? Without them, society will fall apart because the natural role of reproduction will no longer be considered useful and or correct. That is opposite to the narrative of the reprobate... "well, that may be but I don't feel like a father or a mother". The children from such reprobate couples, if there are any, will see that a lie is being perpetuated for selfish reasons and not logical biological ones.
What would society look like if it were up to feeling reprobates, (a harsh but necessary colorful word which is in the dictionary)? I suppose the left would say according to Foucault, society would be free to imagine whatever it wanted to be.
Right now, there are so many 'sexual' orientations or 'genders' out there that one could spend a lifetime trying to understand them. So, let's say that in a reprobate society where the bourgeoisie are excluded that one of those sexual orientations becomes more popular than another as society tries to reorder itself and it will. Couldn't you imagine that the one outside of the scheme popularity would 'feel' excluded or rejected or worse - made to feel like a reprobate by other reprobates?
Now couldn't you imagine in the social imagination, a war rising up among all reprobates who feel they are right to feel the way they do over any other ideal type of reprobate? Many will say no because all they really want is to feel like they do. Well, what if a human being wanted to feel and act like a dog? Why not? But, keep in mind, dogs are by nature pack animals. Or, better yet, make the argument that if you are a dog and I am a dog... I think or I 'feel' my instincts are better than yours. Now, that would be a dog's rationale if I were a dog... but I am not.
When rational thought runs out... you better look out! Thankfully, for now, stable society is yet working based on the natural 'biological' order of things in the social imagination. However, we seem to be at a tipping point.
Foucault seems to miss the main thrust of his own ideology... if the bourgeoisie can be in control of sexuality, why couldn't or why wouldn't the proletariat do the same? How could they 'the reprobate' be more moral or just/fair than the bourgeoisie of any society ever were?
Is there any hope for the reprobate? Well, that's up to society at large in terms of what is stable. And, what again is that? Stable society is when there is consensus about what works (sustainably/stably) for the majority in the place where they are.
1 COR 15:38-39 ~ God gives it a body as He has designed, and to each kind of seed He gives its own body. Not all flesh is the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another, and fish another.…
