Acting as if differences--whether they be real or socially constructed--don't exist isn't a radical methodology, but a (neo)liberal one;
Oh the popular people's front.
From where I stand the theory may be different but the only action I've seen radicals engage in seems to me to be very similar to that which the liberals advocate - a sort of extreme form of political correctness. But I'll take your word for it that there's a difference. I think the question still applies to both groups though - how to deal with inequalities caused by actual biological differences that no amount of social management can alter.
we separate people nature produces into two groups based on criteria that aren't as straight-forward as we act as if they are and then it turns out that there's a disparity between the two groups.
Yes, but it doesn't pay to get too hung up on the extremes of the curve. The disparities after all are not there because of the people on the edges not being acknowledged. Not acknowledging unusual people can be a problem in its own right but it really isn't relevant to the lives of the majority. Besides, societies are often very good at making space for marginal people. To take the example of gender, most societies that I know anything about have always had a place for ambiguously-gendered people. There are roles for them, and ways for the society to acknowledge and thus to some extent overcome its fear of the different, normally involving a form of 'marking' by codes of dress or behaviour. None of which makes a blind bit of difference to the relations between most women and most men.
it doesn't even make sense to ask it about class...it'd be absurd to say that poor people are shorter than rich people even when divorced from an economic system
Yes, because class is a social and economic construct. There are biological differences but they are very diffuse because class does not persist for many generations. So take away the economic and social factors and you won't be able to identify class. I'm not sure if you could say that it wasn't 'real' though, I suppose it depends on what value you are giving to 'real'.
Oddly enough there was an article in this morning's paper that gave a classic example of some people failing to acknowledge the difference between statistics and individuals. I suppose it is good news that at least some of the commenters have acknowledged the difference. Sadly journalists tend to be amongst those who are very bad at understanding statistics.
no subject
;o)
Oh the popular people's front.
From where I stand the theory may be different but the only action I've seen radicals engage in seems to me to be very similar to that which the liberals advocate - a sort of extreme form of political correctness. But I'll take your word for it that there's a difference. I think the question still applies to both groups though - how to deal with inequalities caused by actual biological differences that no amount of social management can alter.
Yes, but it doesn't pay to get too hung up on the extremes of the curve. The disparities after all are not there because of the people on the edges not being acknowledged. Not acknowledging unusual people can be a problem in its own right but it really isn't relevant to the lives of the majority. Besides, societies are often very good at making space for marginal people. To take the example of gender, most societies that I know anything about have always had a place for ambiguously-gendered people. There are roles for them, and ways for the society to acknowledge and thus to some extent overcome its fear of the different, normally involving a form of 'marking' by codes of dress or behaviour. None of which makes a blind bit of difference to the relations between most women and most men.
Yes, because class is a social and economic construct. There are biological differences but they are very diffuse because class does not persist for many generations. So take away the economic and social factors and you won't be able to identify class. I'm not sure if you could say that it wasn't 'real' though, I suppose it depends on what value you are giving to 'real'.
Oddly enough there was an article in this morning's paper that gave a classic example of some people failing to acknowledge the difference between statistics and individuals. I suppose it is good news that at least some of the commenters have acknowledged the difference. Sadly journalists tend to be amongst those who are very bad at understanding statistics.