"But Mom, Crop-Tops Are Cute!

": Social Knowledge, Social Structure and Ideology

Critique Philosophical Issues Author: Haslanger, Sally; Type: Article; Pages: 70 - 91;
Publication Date: 2007; Volume: 17: The Metaphysics of Epistemology

Knowledge is entangled with the reality it represents

Social institutions are constituted by a set of beliefs or conventions
Epistemology of the social realm must be concerned with whether a belief is justified and
true

In what sense may the social reality created by the belief an illusion?
- MacKinnon asks how epistemology of the social should proceed in oppressive social
contexts – “consciousness raising inquires into an intrinsically social situation, in the
mixture of thought and materiality, which comprises gender in its broadest sense”
(MacKinnon, 1989, 83)
- Given the interdependence of social thought and reality, change in meaning can
transform one’s social world – this calls for a new branch of epistemology
o Epistemology does not deny that a relation exists between thought and reality
other than thought, it redefined the epistemological issue from being specific
to a problem of the relation of consciousness to social being
o Here MacKinnon is raising an epistemological problem about what “should”
be thought in those domains where what is thought determines and is
determined by its object
- Goal of the essay – give resources for developing a response

II. Are Crop Tops Cute?

- Fashion in school
o Belief that girls wearing crop tops constitutes the fact it is fashionable to wear
crop tops
o One may argue it would be better if young girls don’t wear crop tops
o Parents that disagree with this fashion may suggest to their daughter that she
shouldn’t care about being fashionable
o Even if the daughter can retain respect without conforming to the trend, it may
still be true that she is marginalised for this (Warner, 2007)
o Bucking conventions are partial solutions for some people, but the problem is
not individual, the situation would be better if “7th graders will be wearing
crop tops in summer” was not part of a set of beliefs that constitute common
knowledge in the school
- There is something correct about the Daughter’s beliefs that trackpants are dorky and
crop tops are cute, but parents dismissing these beliefs is not sufficient
o Initially we may see this as a disagreement over the truth-value of these
claims:
 7th graders wearing crop tops are cute
 7th graders wearing tracksuits are dorks
o One way to unpack the truth value of this is to suggest that the cute/dork terms
are evaluative and those who believe (1) and (2) are wrong about the objective
value of crop tops and tracksuits
 This is implausible, as the patterns of social interaction at school are
what determines the extension of cute and dork labels
 o If we read these are subjectivist readings, this is a disagreement over taste –
parents and children have different taste in fashion
o BUT this does not allow us to see how the parents are in a position to critique
the fashion trends
- Another reading of this disagreement is to see the parents as rejecting the cute/dork
dichotomy – these ways of classifying yourself are misguided and should be avoided
o Parents want to disrupt this classification
o Call this reading the framework reading
o (1) is true and one may be justified in believing it
o But, believing (1) reinforces a misguided distinction
o If this dichotomy exists in reality, then we cannot ignore this as it is important
social knowledge
 At the same time, one could say that the dichotomy is an illusion, one
that is morally problematic as it is reified through a pattern of belief
and expectation, and this could be undermined by refusing to have
beliefs within its terms
o We can generate a contradiction
 It is true that p, so you should believe p
 But believing in p makes it true and it would be better if p wasn’t true,
therefore you shouldn’t believe p

III. “Should Believe”

- It appears that the girl should and shouldn’t believe the idea that crop tops are cute
o The girl should believe what is true – the epistemic should
o The girl should not believe this for moral/political reasons as this will
contribute to the patterns of expectations constituting the social fact that these
girls are cute
 This should is pragmatic or moral
o Thus, there is an equivocation in the argument and the puzzle dissolves
o This response (from the framework reading) is not sufficient
 Its controversial to suggest that moral norms apply to beliefs, as it is
not clear that believing is a matter of choice (Williams, 1973)
 Saying the cute/dork dichotomy is misguided suggests that the teen
categories are ill-conceived
 A reason to reject (1) and (2) is that there is inaccuracy or
misrepresentation
 But there is something true about the claim
 There is something illusory about the cute/dorky distinction
- Although some considerations that count against accepting (1) and (2) may not be
epistemic, we should consider that there is some epistemic failing in the daughter’s
commitment to (1) and (2)
o There seems to be a sense in which the daughter both should and should not
believe this

IV. Social Reality

- The girl and her parents are members of different social groups, and have different
experiences, beliefs and frameworks to make sense of the world
o They both have important social knowledge but their knowledge is at odds
- Aspects of interdependence of thought and reality in the social world must be
explored so we can understand how thought can fail us without being false
- There are multiple social worlds, or milieus

a. Ideology
- There is a lot of disagreement over the nature of ideology
- Ideologies are representations of social life that serve to undergird social practices
o We are not just cogs in the structures and practice of subordination, we enact
them
o How we represent the world is a constitutive part of that enactment, and keeps
it going
- For the purpose of this reading, ideology is taken to be an element in a social system
that contributes to its survival and is susceptible to change through some form of
cognitive critique
- Should be attentive to the fact that ideology is not just a set of beliefs and ideology
critique is not a matter of showing the belief is false
o Framework reading of the cute/dorky dichotomy is ideological and responses
conditioned to believe this may be something less than a full belief
o Ideology is not simply a matter of belief for the following reasons
 Belief seems too cognitive or intellectual
 Ideology can take the form of practical knowledge
 Ideologies work at the level of slogans that can be interpreted
differently over time and by different people – beliefs however have a
determinate content that is incompatible with this
 Beliefs may be too individualistic – social practices are ideological, but
many people live in cultures and follow their practices may not have
beliefs that undergird the practices

b. Social Structure
- What is a social structure?
o General category of social phenomena, e.g. social institutions, practices and
conventions, roles, hierarchies or locations
o Structures shape people’s practices and people’s practices constitute the
structures (Sewell, 1992)
 Schemas and resources presuppose one another
 Schema – array of binary oppositions that make up a society’s tool of
thought, as well as the conventions build up with these tools
 These schemas are not private, they are intersubjective and
transposable to new circumstances
 Schemas are both mental and social, they both derive from and
constitute cultural, semiotic and symbolic systems (Howard, 1994)
 Schemas encode knowledge and provide scripts for social interactions
 Schemas exist at different depths – deep schemas are pervasive and
unconscious whereas surface schemas are narrow and easier to change
 Changing a surface schema may leave the deep schema in tact
- Schemas are on component of social structures, the other is resources
o Alongside a mental content there must be an actualisation of it in the world
o Resources are anything that “can be used to enhance or maintain power”
(Sewell, 1993)
  Includes human resources and materials
- How do schemas and resources constitute social structures?
o A social structure exists when there is a causal, mutually-sustaining
interdependence between a collective schema and an organisation of resources
o These two elements imply and sustain one another
- If practice is the structured project of the schema and resources, it is not subjective,
social structures are not just in our heads, they are public and are constituted by
material things
o They are constructed by us
o One can believe in them without accepting the idea
- This account of social structures helps us define the idea of a social milieu
o Schemas that constitute social structures are cultural patterns that are
internalised to form the basis of our response to socially meaningful
objects/actions
 The dominant cultural schema will be the one that individuals have
made their own
 Individuals may be ignorant of, or reject, the dominance schema, or
may modify it for their own purpose
 One may be out of sync with ones milieu
 Different schemas compete for social dominance
o The schema one employs is a matter of socialisation and/or choice
- Define an individual’s social milieu in terms of the social structures within which they
operate, whether or not the public schemas have been internalised
o We cannot always choose the structures we live in
o Individuals do not live only within one milieu, and milieu’s overlap
o It is important to specify an individual’s milieu at a time and place, and
possibly in relation to others
- In the case of crop tops:
o The cute/dork labels are features that must be judged from the social milieus
as they are constituted by that milieus
o The daughter internalises the schemas that plague the 7th grade, these schemas
govern response to clothes
o In the parents milieu (1) is incorrect
o Both say something true as (1) is true relative to one milieu and not the other
o How do we make sense of milieu relativism?

V. Social Truths

a. Relative Truth
- Strategy – explore how the truth of a statement may be sensitive to context
- Example: (3) This oatmeal is lumpy
o Indexical term this gives context – it is a particular bowl of oatmeal
o Whether it is true or not depends on the world or world/time pair
 Even if we know which bowl we are referring to, this may be true or
false, depending on the world and the time
o Thus, context plays two roles in determining truth-value of (3)
 Fixes the sematic value of any indexical utterance and yields
propositional content
  Fixes circumstances relative to which we should evaluate the position’s
truth or falsity
- John MacFarlane’s account of relative truth (2005)
o Indexicality – context is necessary to complete the proposition expressed
o Context sensitivity – context is necessary to determine the truth value of the
proposition by determining the circumstances of evaluation
o In addition to context of use, context of assessment is relevant to determine the
truth value of a statement
 Example: (4) This oatmeal is yummy
 If Fred asserts (4), yummy is used indexically – meaning this
oatmeal is yummy-to-Fred
 Ginger denies a different proposition by saying “this oatmeal is
not yummy” (5) as they mean that it is not yummy to them
o Advantage of context-sensitivity over indexicality is that the proposition
expressed by (5) is the denial of the proposition expressed by (4)
 Context does not change the content of the proposition, but determines
the circumstances of evaluation
o We should allow the context of use and the context of assessment to play a
role in determine the circumstances of evaluation (MacFarlane, 2005)
 Since Ginger’s context of assessment is different from the context of
Fred’s use and assessment, (4) is true relative to Fred’s context of
assessment, and false relative to Ginger’s
 Fred’s context of use (as determined by the indexical ‘this’) and the
context of assessments determine the different ratings of yumminess –
they disagree as their statements cannot be true relative to a common
context of assessment
 This is a faultless disagreement

b. Truth relative to milieu – social truth relativism

- Context of assessment determines the milieu in question by reference to the assessor’s
milieu – the schemas and resources operating in this context, for them
- How does the context of assessment determine the milieu?
o It is tricky to identify which structures are operative for an individual within a
particular context
- Relativist reading of the crop top example
o Captures some objectivist elements – the statements are true by virtue of
capturing social reality
o Captures some subjectivist elements – truth of the claims made by each party
depends on their perspective
o So, the parents reject the cute/dork dichotomy but do not deny the daughter’s
claim
 There are two dimensions for responses to this framework –
understanding and critique
 One can accept the distinction but object to its application
 One can accept a distinction but find it confusing
 One can object to the distinction and refuse to employ it, but be
able to mimic applications of it
 One can find a distinction incoherent
  Social structures may be more or less accessible from other structures
(understanding) and may be more or less in harmony (critique)
o In this example, the meaning of crop tops are at odds between different milieu
 The cute/dork distinction is not in the parents social milieu so they
have no intention to import meaning to it, or enter a milieu that does
 The daughter’s milieu is accessible to them, they can understand it but
there is disharmony between the daughters and parents milieu – this
leads them to reject to invoke the schemas, so that they are not
reinforced
 Refusal to collaborate in the collective definition of cuteness
 Parents don’t disagree by rejecting what she asserts, they reject her
claim due to their denial of the use of the term cute
 Suggests that the degree of genuine disagreement over the
truth-value of these claims will eb a function of the
accessibility and harmony of milieu

VI. Critique
- Social milieu relativism provides a model of how both the parents and daughter may
say something true or important, yet they contradict one another
- There is still a crucial problem – should the daughter believe that crop tops are not
cute?
o The problem is that is social truth is relative to milieu, then there is no basis
for adjudicating social truths across milieu
 What can the parents do or say beyond exposing her to their milieu and
hooping she will be moved to coordinate with them?
- A key element in recognising the illusion in one’s social context is to see that how
things are is not how they must be
o Simple hypothesis – exposure to a different social reality by engaging with
assessors from another milieu, one will see the weakness of their own milieu
 Exposure to another milieu can destabilise investment in ones current
milieu, providing opportunities for improvement
 Critique is not necessary – you just need to broaden the other’s
horizions, to help them gain consciousness and gravitate to liberation
o Although this destabilisation can happen, it is not guaranteed, and they may
not gravitate toward liberation
 Exposure to alternatives is necessary but not suffcient for seeing
through the illusion
- Two other options to consider for grounding critique
o There may be an objective basis for privileging some milieus over others, so
that truth relative to those milieus is more sound than relative truth to others
 If some are more epistemically privileged than others, those in less
privileged milieus ought to accept critique of practice from more
privileged milieu
 Challenge for this – provide a basis for evaluating the epistemic and
moral practices that is not relative to a milieus
 In the social domain our practices can generate facts, even if a practice
is truth-conducive, it may still be problematic
 How can we be objective about this?
 o Develop a notion of critique that requires more than just truth relative to the
milieu of the assessor
 To say a critique is genuine is not to say that it is the final word, it is to
say that the response was called for
 Crop top example – the parents shouldn’t just deny their daughter, it is
their responsibility to seek common ground from which the daughter
can assess their critique
 Advantage of this notion of critique is that it helps make sense of the
idea that ideology critique is transformative – it is a matter of finding a
common milieu, then because a milieu is partly constituted by
dispositions to experience and respond in keeping with the milieu, then
there is a possibility for agency other than those scripted by the old
milieu
o The notion of common ground is symmetrical between parties in the debate,
but we are looking for a basis of privileging some milieus over others
- One may set conditions on an adequate common ground to exclude those formed
through coercive measures, conditions should be sensitive to information available to
either side
- This is a promising strategy but it is hard to figure out which conditions give the right
results
o There is also a danger of idealising conditions by which something counts as
common ground, to the point that genuine ideology critique is impossible to
achieve

VII. Conclusion
- If ideology partly constitutes the social world, then descriptions of ideology
formations will be true, and it is unclear what is wrong with them, epistemically
speaking
- We may provide a moral critique of social structures, but this is invaluable as a moral
critique can be too abstract or controversial to have an effect
- The material world reinforces our dispositions
- Social structures constitute our lived reality and are common sense to us
- Ideology critique requires a normative shift, and a critique of our schemas for
interpreting and interacting with the world, and a critique of the reality these schemas
form
- This paper offers a relativist model to make sense of how two sides of a social issue
may disagree, but both be saying something true, and have suggested strategies for
developing an account of critique
- Critique is not a matter of changing beliefs, but of creating social spaces that disrupt
dominant schemas – this is consistent with value and power of consciousness raising
- The remaining challenge is to justify when a change of consciousness is genuinely
emancipatory, and when it is just more ideology