Weinberger, Essentialism, Post-Modernity, and um... Dating... Yay!

I wrote and posted this, and almost immediately started feeling a bit queasy about my somewhat extreme characterization of men and dating, which comes toward the end. A note of explanation. The niece that I write about here just recently turned fifteen, and I'm sort of in the role of "insane over-protective uncle." This is because I remember precisely how big of a jerk I was as a teenage guy, actually well in to my twenties. But I'm certainly open to the idea that things aren't quite as bad as I'm making them out here-- actually, I'm probably exaggerating a bit here to make a point.

I definitely appreciated the last few chapters of Weinberger. His essential point seems to be that the web prepares the ground for what, to many people, will be an entirely new way of knowing. In the old order, “knowledge was supposed to be a mirror of reality. It thus was either true or not true, end of story” (218). This is basically the essentialist or objectivist worldview. In contrast, third-order information systems make visible the very social process of mediation that actually constructs knowledge. Weinberger’s strongest point is that this results in a “startling change in our culture’s belief that truth means accuracy, effectiveness requires adherence to clear lines of command and control, and knowledge is power” (229). Out with essentialism, and in with post-modernity!

Now, I could certainly dispute whether the web will necessarily lead to this new way of knowing, because there are any number of cultural factors—traditional religion, conservatism, secondary education—that seem to oppose this shift. I nonetheless hope that Weinberger is right. Part of my desire is practical. As a teacher, I have a great deal of trouble dislodging the idea, common with my students, that whatever they have to say is common-sensical, obvious, true, and doesn’t need to be explained. At the same time, I have even more difficulty trying to demonstrate that there are more than two sides to any given issue, and that the complexity and nuance of someone’s thought generally trumps its’ volume. Basically, my students are essentialists, and this badly hinders their capacity to write. I’d prefer they were post-modernists.

But as I was thinking through the implications of Weinberger’s thought, I realized that essentialism disrupts even the trivial parts of our lives. I began thinking about this because of two conversations I had that were related to dating—one with my niece, the other with a friend from way back. My niece had been complaining about a guy she was interested in, and I think her story is something most people could relate to. The guy would be attentive one moment, and ignore her the next. Sometimes he was incredibly sweet, and at other times he was incredibly cold. This sort of behavior seems to me, almost as though it were a courtship ritual. Men are often taught this ritual at a very young age because there’s the very real notion that “nice guys finish last.” The idea with dating, in some circles, is just to mess with girls and prey on their insecurities, so that they'll give men sex. And this behavior works. In fact, it’s wildly effective. (Trust me on this. I spent five years in the Navy.)

(Um, I swear to God, I am going somewhere with this.)

As I was mulling over the wisdom of my advice to my niece—“You should consider becoming a lesbian.”—a friend from my Navy days called me. He had met a girl he was interested in and gotten her number. He was incredibly worked up, because he couldn’t decide rather he should wait two or three days to call her. This distinction was important, because he didn’t want to come across as either too interested or too disinterested. I’m not sure if my advice to my friend was all that helpful—“you should call her at precisely midnight of the second day, so as to signify, all at once, both desire and disdain”—but our conversation nonetheless set me thinking. What we call dating is really just culturally constructed and bizarre. It seems to rely on outdated ideas about masculinity, femininity, and what relationships are.

I think it would be lovely if people started to question how their gender is constructed. If the majority of women started to question why they’re so often objectified, and the majority of men started to wonder why exactly they play "the game" in the way that they do. (Hmmm... but women play games too.) It would even be nice if, while dating, people stopped wondering about the label for their relationship—“serious dating, casual dating, etc”—and started thinking instead about its’ definition, whatever it is that they actually want. If this were to happen--if people were to generally accept the new way of knowing that Weinberger suggests—I’d be pretty happy. But I’m not sure if I’m quite as hopeful as Weinberger. At the very least, I don’t see the shift he envisions happening yet. I hate to be the bitter curmudgeon that ruins the party, but doesn't Everything is Miscellaneous seem just a bit too optimistic?

So I’m wondering if I managed to offend just about everybody at this point. Thoughts?