Hear me out. There’s nothing innate to an object that makes it “food”. It’s an attribute we give to certain things that meet certain qualities, i.e. being digestible, nutritious, perhaps tasty or satisfying in some way, etc. We could really ingest just about anything, but we call the stuff that’s edible “food”. Does that make it a social construct?
Removed by mod
Do you genuinely think that it is stupid to be wondering about this? That’s a really sad way to live. Anyway, I hope you have a good day today, despite how mean you’ve been to me. Maybe it made you feel better to be mean to me, but I know from experience that you’re usually mean when things aren’t going well. Good luck.
Removed by mod
Well if you really thought this person was stupid, what was the point of calling them such? You just want them to feel terrible about themselves? That’s pretty dumb. If it’s such a stupid question, you could share an intelligent answer to help. But it seems like you’re just triggered and that it probably happens a lot to you.
I’m just waiting for some dipshit to wander in here and talk about how we need to “examine the relationship” with food and start calling it something like “people fuel” or some other bullshit term.
I have never once at any point inserted a “should” into this conversation, besides maybe like “you shouldn’t be a dick”.
is that what’s so scary to you? that thinking leads to shoulding? take your fear out elsewhere please
Did you wave goodbye to the handle as you flew off of it?
Removed by mod
“digestible” and “nutritious” aren’t social constructs, so no. If your body can transform it chemically in a way that produces energy, it’s food. Otherwise it’s not. The same things are food regardless of your culture.
yea this seems to be the deciding factor. but cant we think of something that we wouldn’t normally consider “food” and have it meet all these criteria?
like if you saw a spider’s nest in the corner of your house, would you say “I have some food over here”? Why not? what if they were not poisonous, etc? what nutrients do they need to have in order to be considered food?
what about non-digestible fibers that we may consume? are they not food? aren’t there some parts of plants that we don’t digest or something?
you can see how this can be more ambiguous the deeper you look! it’s honestly such a shame that so many lemmings are SO off-put by even the idea of it.
People are hostile as fuck because that’s the dominant culture right now. Some of it is modulated by bots posing as people to model approved opinions, some of it is humans doing that in a conscious effort to give us this defeatist culture, and some of it is the actual organic, natural culture of the USA lately.
Honestly, after reading the Three Body Problem series (haven’t seen the show; unsure if it creates the same effect) it’s been a lot easier to sort of conceptualize and face overwhelmingly asymmetrically unbalanced and weird warfare tactics. And it just seems like we’re actually legitimately under cultural attack.
But whether it’s all a big conspiracy or if it got that way organically, it’s a dominant culture to be negative right now.
Here’s the key thing: you can see past it if you recognize that it’s there. One small thing is: use a lemmy client that shows you up and downvotes separately, not just the sum score. That way when you get buried by the haters you’ll still see the times you’re connecting with people.
I’d accept the structures within what we define as food being a social construct. Status as fruit or vegetable doesn’t qualify it is healthy as we tend to assume. A potato is a plant and it has more in common with a loaf of bread, a yellow banana has less good in it than a Snickers bar.
Food in total though, that’s a defined thing. Glass isn’t food because we’ve agreed as a society not to eat it, it’s not food because we can’t process it in any meaningful way.
This isn’t a shower thought, it’s embarrassing to even read.
im not ashamed. why would I be ashamed of thinking about things in unfamiliar ways and trying to see what’s behind it?
you should be ashamed for being so condescending. maybe you’re so embarrassed because you identify way too strongly with your thoughts that you can’t tolerate having a bizarre one.
Removed by mod
This constant trend in this stupid community to just post “Is [insert word] not what it is defined to mean??” As some mind blowing idea is exhaustingly boring.
I’ve been fairly polite in this thread but I’m tempted to call you stupid. I won’t, because I get you, but you’re missing the point.
Is [insert word] not what it is defined to mean??
That is NOT what I am saying, you stupid-head. Is that what you think social construct means? Read my other replies and get back to me. Explain to me why your comment is wrong and a gross misinterpretation of what I’m saying.
I’ve been fairly polite in this thread but I’m tempted to call you stupid. I won’t
That’s a lot of words to just call someone stupid and try to get away with it
wow you figured it out! you even figured it out before you got to the part where i directly call them a stupid-head too
Food? No. Cuisine? Perhaps.
This is one of those gender vs sex dealies.
Food is not a social construct. But meals are.
ruh roh what if sex is also a social construct
nah not going down that rabbit hole
(wonder why we chose to group biological factors XYZ to determine those classes instead of classes based on ABC tho…)
sex is also a social construct
Can we also at least stick our head down that rabbit hole? Because holy shit yes that nebulous hybrid of social convention and biological (on a species level) necessity is also where food fits…
(I am referring of course to sex the act, not the synonym for gender…)
I was actually speaking about the biological classification “sex”, not the act! I hadn’t thought about the act as a social construct, but I guess it obviously is. I’m reminded of the old lesbian conundrum: “Was what we just did ‘sex’ or…?”
“Food” is a social construct in the same way as every label we put on a thing is a social construct. “Chair” is a social construct. (The universe didn’t know what a “chair” was before humans started making and naming chairs.) “Tree” is a social construct. (Any physical thing you pick apart enough is particles (and I’m definitely oversimplifying here) and by giving it a human-made label like “tree”, we’re imposing something that wouldn’t otherwise be there.) “Particles” are a social construct! (They’re very much an abstraction of what’s actually going on. Even the math we use to understand things like quantum mechanics is just our way of thinking about something that may or may not “exist” but if it does, definitely isn’t the same as our “thoughts” about it.)
All words are social constructs, but I think there’s at least one more layer at which “everything is a human construct.” Even before we give something a name, we’ve already made the decision to distinguish it from a “background” as a distinct “thing.” (A sufficiently alien mind might, if it encountered earth, consider all of earth “atomic” and “indivisible” to the point that the idea of “a human” wouldn’t make sense to it. It’s not like there’s any empty space between our skin and the soup of amosphere we constantly live in, so in what sense am I a separate thing from the rest of earth?)
So, yeah, “food” is a social construct, but humans are very much removed from “reality” by an opaque ocean of social constructs.
All that said, I wouldn’t say that “food” is a social construct in any way that, say, a “planet” or a “fork” or a “rock” or a “human” isn’t.
You are halfway there. Those examples you gave define constructs but a lot of these things are not what philosophy uses to define social constructs. Scientific taxonomy constructs and linguistic constructs are things but they are fairly useless in discussion surrounding social constructs because while different cultures might draw the line differently around what exactly constitutes a “chair” vs say a “stool” or some such that’s more of just a linguistic boundry. Its basically always a thing you sit on.
Philosophy uses a bunch of different ideas labeled as different forms of construct to break down the idea of how different types of categorization or subjection happen… but when they start talking about “social” constructs they are specifically talking about categories of human interactions with something that have incredibly variable different potential contexts based on culture. It also requires things which are included or excluded from those category for not entirely practical reasons. Philosophy uses this to talk about how social categories are subjective creating or allieving tension between different cultural groups.
Food is actually a good example. There are a lot of things culturally considered food and non food items despite those items all having nutritional value and being safe to consume. In our increasingly cosmopolitan world a lot of expansion has happened to increase the size of the category. Like raw fish was not considered a food item by a lot of people when and where I was growing up. Now sashimi is everywhere and no one bats an eye. Digging for another example mice are technically edible but even raised and slaughtered cleanly very few would consider them valid as food. Whether what I put on your plate is deemed an disgusting insult or a delicious delicacy is really in the eye of the beholder and has caused a number of historical diplomatic and cultural issues around other cultures veiwing each other as inferior.
Just because something is a construct does not automatically make it a social construct.
awesome, this is the what i was lookin for is was is
Removed by mod
you must really hate yourself to treat others like this
how does it feel to take everything so seriously
what would you do if you did what you if you do? huh?
I got you now
Removed by mod
I dunno, man. I think you just got owned.
Removed by mod
I have to agree, considering how often people meeting new people of different cultures have been known to ask “is it food?” When presented with new things that may or may not be food.
There’s plenty of edible things we don’t actually use as food, too. Paste is edible and just made from flour and water. But it’s not food. There are cultures that eat bugs, and those that do not may not consider bugs food. What is and isn’t food is somewhat determined by culture.
that’s a beautiful thing! so… mind or culture?
Are you saying that because most people wouldn’t consider acorns and dandelions edible, or worth processing into food, that the definition of food is meaningless?
Or are you saying that yes you can technically est mud and rocks (what is salt, anyways?) that food is a meaningless concept?
You can drink your coffee from a bowl but that doesn’t make it a mug.
that the definition of food is meaningless?
What?? No. That’s not what social constructs mean. It means they are socially constructed. Created through human interactions, not as a property in the world. Like half the shit we talk about.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by all the negative reactions in this thread… people really do not understand what it means for something to be socially constructed. But hey, neither do I, that’s why I’m thinking about what things are and aren’t.
Every word is created through human interaction.
Go on.
Usually when people say “gender is a social construct” they mean that when your 7th grade biology teacher told you there are males and females, there was more to the story.
If someone tried to tell you that you can fit everything into either the “food” bucket or the “not food” bucket, you would definitely have questions. How do we define food? Food for whom?
If you define food as something edible, with nutritional value… How much nutritional value? A stone covered in lichen probably has nutritional value and I might try to eat it if I were starving to death. Raw grains of wheat might have nutritional value but also might make me sick of I ate them whole, but we all recognize they are generally edible and are usually processed into bread.
“Food” is a useful concept in that it can usually help guide humans toward sustenance. It was never meant as some airtight philosophical concept.
Food is a non-toxic, organic substance that provides nutrition in the form of carbohydrates, protein, fibre, fats/oils, and/or vitamins and minerals. Sure there are some edge cases which you can argue the point in, such as a lump of rock salt maybe, but for the most part it is something which provides sustenance. Sure you could eat mud or plaster and it won’t kill you, but it won’t help keep you alive either, so its not food.
Sure there are some edge cases which you can argue the point in
isn’t that kind of a big deal, though? either it’s not socially constructed and you can’t argue in edge cases, or it is socially constructed and you can. as for what you do with this conclusion, it really doesn’t matter…
until you start discussing social constructs with someone and you have to remember that even the concept of food is socially constructed. which should really comfort us and remind us that this means something can be a social construct and still real, meaningful, and important, but instead it seems everyone wants to freak out at the concept! even in this thread.
I agree that the pile-on wasn’t necessary, people tend to just give their kneejerk response and then move on. Having said that, you probably could have explained your case a bit better too in the original post.
explain better? I don’t wanna lecture. I wanna talk. we figure it out together. that’s what we do together, as a community, instead of telling people off, like here! definitely got some easy new names for my block list though.
Imagine being trans though, holy shit, I don’t envy having to do this regularly…
Our naming and classification of things is all socially constructed. So yes, our categorization of edible things as food is a social construct, but our physical need to fuel our bodies with something digestible is not. But also, using it that way makes existence a social construct, so it depends on how rigid you want to be.
Our naming and classification of things is all socially constructed. So yes, our categorization of edible things as food is a social construct, but our physical need to fuel our bodies with something digestible is not.
i love you
But also, using it that way makes existence a social construct, so it depends on how rigid you want to be.
Explain. (warning lemmings may get mad)
We define what existence is. We have all collectively agreed that being here in the perceptible world means that something exists. We could choose to include the imaginary in its definition and then would be able to say that dragons and wizards exist. We could also choose to say something has to be present in 4 dimensions to exist, in which case we’d not be able to say that anything exists.
A social construct is simply an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society which includes the dictionary itself. I’d also say that these definitions are often useful at allowing us to communicate and cooperate with one another, but that doesn’t mean we didn’t make up the idea.
Excellent! So what’s underneath all this, then? Can something be both real and a social construct? What things aren’t social constructs?
If the thing in question is changed, and the only part of us that can directly affect is our opinion, then I would call that a social construction.
No.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk!
Give me the link to your ted talk please
Someone should build an AI-powered stupid TED talk generator. You just include a link to:
https://dumbted.ai/title-of-your-talk-in-the-pathThen it generates the talk from that title idempotently and shows that in a video player.
Anyone know how I can use some generative AI video from prompt software?
deleted by creator
Maybe this is why people are freaking out. “If food is a social construct, then I’ll start eating mold!” Yeah, and I’m the one who’s stupid and crazy. I’m actually really astounded by how much people are reading their own bullshit into this.
Food is a social construct. For a social construct to exist you have to have a social category with shifting goalposts based on different context and cultural factors that are not rigidly defined. Like “Fat” - what is considered fat for a person is based on context. A supermodel is fat for being 5’9 and 145lbs but we would call a constructiom labourer skinny as fuck at those same dimensions. Each culture constructs it’s own version of what defines “fat” which is different and distinct from something than the medical guidelines for obesity or an expectation of reasonable health. “Fat” is in the eye of the beholder and represents overlapping cultural circles with varying degrees of consideration of what is excluded from the category.
The scientific concept of nutritional substance is not how we always define “food”. Culturally people contest what is considered food vs non food items based on cultural factors. Like eating mice for instance does have nutritional value but there are a lot of people who would contest them as being a valid food item even if they were raised in clean conditions due to cultural adversions. “That isn’t food.” has been uttered in all sincerity by people encountering strange delicacies that their culture has taboos against eating beliving it dangerous, unpleasant or just categorically not something intended to be eaten. Thus “food” would be in part a sociologically constructed category.
I knew the Driveby
Haiku would understand. Nice.
Thank you for responding.
No, it’s not a social construct, it’s a description of things that are consumed for nutritional value. Sure, “food” is a social construct in that it’s an English Language word used to describe said items, but every single life form consumes some form of food, regardless of said life form’s society (or more often lack thereof).
Also there are literally objective things innate to certain objects that make them food so you’re entire initial premise is idiotic.
“carrying and birthing my child was not a social construct” vibes
sure but calling it a certain name based on those qualities is…
