Political sociology - theoretical, looking at political mobilization.
-
But one can claim that it IS better understood that way and the definition should reflect that.
- I'd been wound up by some other sociologist making exactly the same claim about the word racism! 
Not if definition excludes things it ought not to exclude. So, for example: black power group, committed to white genocide because of inherent genetic inferiority of white race, undertakes terroristic acts of violence against whites - on your view, not racist. That's ludicrous.
-
-
No, not at all? That is also a fairly absurd example, although I imagine that was your point. That's still a systematic form of racial violence, but the power element is missing as you say.
-
The structural, systemic element is missing - systematic is a red herring here. Yes, it's a reductio ad absurdum, and it works as such. Of course such a group would be correctly labelled as racist.
-
Right, but the definition I am putting forward captures the normative and instrumental problems of racism, and refocuses the gaze where it belongs; on people and groups of power.
-
Yes, that's it's advantage. But you're not merely claiming that it has an advantage. You're claiming people are making some kind of mistake if they use it in a broader way. (There are also advantages of the broader use - i.e., precisely that it doesn't negate the interpersonal).
-
Well sure, let's downgrade the claim to "it's an advantage". And while those interpersonal acts may be considered through the lens of race, again I think it misses the mark on the actual problem.
-
Entirely happy with that - there are undeniably advantages in seeing racism as a structural/systemic problem. (As well as some disadvantages.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.