Havel And Stoltenberg's Refusal To Be A Man

2073 Words5 Pages

As defined by Merriam Webster, the term ideology refers to “a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture” (Ideology, definition 2a). In the socio-political realm, the term often refers to the reasoning or concepts supporting a political or cultural system that is beneficial to a ruling or powerful class. As a result of the more powerful class or race wanting to maintain the status quo and grasp on their power, this often leads to the oppression of their subordinate class or racial group. In a collection of texts previously analyzed for this class, Havel, Bonilla-Silva, and Stoltenberg all make pointed arguments concerning contemporary ideologies that are present in society. In each essay, the authors argue that these …show more content…

The author does not expressly mention the phrase “ideology” in the relevant excerpt, but he makes it very clear that is what is being addressed. The author is of the opinion that the ideas of gender and having a sex are a uniquely social construct and forces people to choose (Stoltenberg, 21). In particular, he believes that the idea of the male sex is particularly harmful. He even goes as far as to compare it to the ideology of the Aryan race (Stoltenberg, 22). By making this statement, he is making several key implications about his beliefs about ideology and its relation to society. First, he is indicating that this ideology is completely asinine falsehood that has no real scientific backing (despite males and females having different reproductive organs). Secondly, he is implying that differing traits of people mean they should be included into a socially-constructed group (Stoltenberg, 22). Third, he is associating the violence associated with creating and ensuring an “Aryan race” with the requirements for being a member of the male sex. Thus, he is implying that there is a certain amount of violence involved with the “male sex.” It is telling that he believes that “it is a political entity that flourishes only through acts of force and sexual terrorism” (Stoltenberg, 23). Finally, he is also making the assumption that this …show more content…

For example, all three of the authors would agree on how a socially-constructed ideology loses its credibility. In Havel’s case of the greengrocer, it reinforces that the ideology is socially constructed due to the hypothetical backlash that would be faced if he chooses not to participate in the system and “expose the emperor”. As Havel implies, the strength of a socially constructed ideology is also the weakness. If many people end up following the greengrocers’ lead in aggregate, then people begin to question the system and thus the ideology that governs the system. The same can be said for all three of the authors’ arguments on ideology, although to differing scales. It also follows from this that even though Stoltenberg does not mention the fable of the emperor’s “clothes”, the same message applies and he would also support that

Open Document