I partly disagree with this statement since I believe we cannot escape the complexity of a system which is *both* material and social. It is not advisable to dwell exclusively in either the social or the material world – we must include both in the analysis. Therefore an adequate account of society must develop a vocabulary to analyze both these realms – hence the distinction between sex/gender. This is not about boundaries but about clarity of analysis.

With all due respect, Franscis, shall we not try to break walls instead of building them? Isn’t that what serious thinkers are all about? They seek for transcending boundaries, *all* boundaries.

If our senses were entirely founded in biology adopted children would inherit their biological parents views – not develop their world-view in accordance with their social parents. My friend adopted to Sweden from India when he was an infant would think the caste system was natural, and that inidian food was the most tasty – which he does not.

We can say that cognition is biological in that we perceive certain things in certain ways (certain wavelengths of light, certain atomic movements as heat, etc.), but we always interpret them in relation to our experience in society and the world. Therefore (to continue the same analogy) a house that we perceive is interpreted differently by different persons. So biology and society both come into play.

Consequently I’m not implying that we have a soul, but that we interpret things according to our experience in the world – an experience that largely depends on how society (family, friends, enemies, etc.) shapes us. So I would say that we have something which is beyond biochemical reactions in our own heads since we are part of an extremely complex web of social and material relations which we call society.

So I would disagree that it’s a matter of taste only – it’s also a matter of how society has shaped us…

Point taken. In fact, I pretty much knew what kind of response I would get right after I read the “biologists defining normality” of yours.

However, as much as I would like to agree with you, some of what you said does not make sense to me. A dumb question for you first: what is ‘mind’? Aren’t our senses and preconceptions biological?

And you said: the complicated relations between society and biology show us that we are not strictly biological. What exactly do you mean by ‘we are not strictly biological’? Are you implying that ‘we’ have something (call it ’soul’ if you want) which is beyond the reach of biochemical reactions?

This has probably gone to far. Again, I understand and appreciate your stand points, and yet I have mine. It’s a matter of taste.

well done!!!

can i take this reply to my blog??? i’ll post it and translate it there.

i did give a track-back from my blog (the chinese one) here and translated part of what you wrote to me on the eamil a few days ago.

… and i still have to say that this is so classic. it clearly shows you have been devoting your time teaching! and on the contrary all i have done after one month is live inside my head. (and i do understand that i am in need of it at this stage, so, no, i am not complaining.) but still… wish i could be this patient and pedagogical one day.

*applause*

If we use an example I might illustrate the point. Take a house. It is just a structure of (physical) materials, but we as human beings name it a house, live in it, define it as nice/not-nice. In effect we socially define it as a house (apart from being just a structure of materials).

To take the analogy with the house further: some features of a house are deemed important (and nice) in some countries, while those features can have a completely different meaning in other places or times. For example the wall-to-wall carpet is deemed ugly and non-hip in Sweden – while it is deemed as very nice in certain places and classes in the U.S. Different meanings to the same material reality.

The same argument can be made of gender. What is deemed a good man or woman varies. To this end we can see that what is masculine and feminine varies with time, place, culture and class. What is feminine/masculine in one place (or time, or culture, or class) is not feminine/masculine in another.

And this also goes for our interpretation of biology (remember the analogy house). What we deem as important features of the female or male body varies - both in biological science as well as in society. The biological definition (if you talk to a biologist at least) of male/female is not so precise – it varies and is based in the interpretation of the biologist.

This is not saying biology does not play a crucial role in our lives – it does. But the complicated relations between society and biology show us that we are not strictly biological – but also interpreting the biological into the social realm.

The relations between biology and society are not clear-cut and simple – they are complex and messy. Saying that we know the final truth seems like oversimplifying – and awfully much like dogma.