You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
As someone with an actual PhD in sociology, I'd say you shouldn't trust any sociologist who suggests sociology is a discipline full of fixed definitions & concepts. It isn't, and anybody who suggests otherwise should be sent back to remedial sociology class.https://twitter.com/tootsiekannah/status/973324950143578112 …
Sociologists might claim that a concept such as "race" should always be conceptualised in a certain fashion. They might also claim that there is a definitive sociological definition (ha!). But it's just hot air. There is no sociology police to enforce such claims.
So long as you define your terms, use them in a logically consistent & coherent manner, you're good to go. (Though obviously that's not in the least bit a guarantee your concepts are going to describe the world accurately or be useful).
Of course, if you define "racism" so that it refers to hierarchical relations between the sexes, people are going to think you're a ninny. But if you define "racism" so that it refers to racially motivated bigotry, then that wouldn't be - or shouldn't be - the case.
So if you see any sociologist claiming the sociological definition of "racism" is prejudice plus power, or something like that, don't believe them. Call them on it. Ask them to specify the sociological authority that polices the correct use of sociological language.
I need to finish this by saying that none of this means that the "prejudice plus power" formulation isn't useful. It is useful. The loathing of a black slave for white people isn't the same thing as white people's loathing of black slaves, for example.
It's just you don't get to tell the sociologist or social psychologist who is using the term "racism" in its normal sense to mean racially motivated bigotry that they are somehow using language wrong. They're not.
I’m not sure if you are referring to me in this post. I certainly wasn’t suggesting any functional view of language. My work deals specifically with epistemic games and the creation of meaning so if you think I was pushing for fixed definitions, there has been a misunderstanding
How are you not pushing for fixed definitions if you claim that there can't be reverse racism?
Perhaps there has been a lapse in pragmatic competence here. Read in context, it is quite clear that my post is in reference to surface level arguments, where people attempt to label things as rascist or sexist which are in no way analogous to what they imply.
That entirely begs the question. You're telling people who use the term "racism" in its usual fashion, not to do so, because it doesn't line up with the way some sociologists use it. That's a nonsense.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
