Sankaran’s article constantly reinforces a traditional, heteronormative, positively archaic notion of the family and the community. So? The notion of family and community do happen to have their ground in heteronormative and traditional notions. An old idea is not obsolete because of its antiquated origins [genetic fallacy]. Far too many incidents over the past decade have shown us that a romanticized celebration of community, that viewing the domestic family unit embedded in a closely knit community as the source of all that is good and positive as opposed to evil “outside” or “western” influences is highly misinformed Just as far too many bad solutions to math problems in papers by math graduates have shown us that math is irremediably misinformed. . ...Wait...that doesnt make any sense. It must be that several instances of practice have failed to substantiate our wishful thinking about complex psychosocial dynamics that give contour and meaning to individual and communal life. This doesnt in the least demonstrate a problem with the structures that enable, and determine, the practices that give meaning to the ideas of the family, and the community. [Fallacy of misplaced concreteness]. Households and communities are not sanitized entities free of normative conceptions of gender roles. So, the family is a valid institution only when not a single misdemeanour is reported among all the families in the world? With the National Crime Records Bureau’s statistics showing that over 90% of reported rapes is perpetrated by men who are known to the victim, this notion of family being a safe haven breaks down Theres no notion of the family being a safe heaven which is defeasible by pointing to some families as violent, abusive etc. If communities were truly guardians of virtues that do not solely derive their legitimacy from perpetuating a convenient status-quo, we would never have heard of the names of Divya and Ilavarasan. This is a bullshit inference. Consider this counterargument: If communities were not truly guardians of virtues [1], and if virtues were not defined by the status quo [2], then, we would not have heard the names of Divya and Ilavarasan. Does that follow? Nope. Too much counterfactual speculation and tender sentiment without sinew, and soundness in argument. Since we may still have heard about Divya and Ilavarasan if there were nothing in common between community values and the status quo, it cannot necessarily follow that this would not be the case if the premises were denied. [Affirming the consequent, and regress of rules; 2 fallacies in one argument] firstpost/living/nyts-version-of-the-good-indian-man-middle-class-and-married-1186763.html?utm_source=ref_article
Posted on: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 08:12:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015