Comments on: Is there a new word to add the sociological dictionary? http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/is-there-a-new-word-to-add-the-sociological-dictionary/ Random musings from the radical feminist Christian antiracist left - some having to do with Ubuntu Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:53:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: mc http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/is-there-a-new-word-to-add-the-sociological-dictionary/comment-page-1/#comment-2244 mc Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:05:03 +0000 http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/?p=472#comment-2244 Unfortunately, semantics are necessary in sociology; these words are ill-defined. It's not like chemistry, where valence is always valence, an atom is always an atom, and so forth. Part of the reason these words are so ill-defined is that they're controversial. Things intended for one meaning acquire another; abortion was once a euphemism, but was censored in film for most of the 20th century as a taboo (and still could be considered taboo in some circles). There is a gradual drift and the *isms and associated words mean different things to different people, partly as a result of this. If we did have a new word, it'd eventually come to be associated with things the movement didn't really represent; so how about a paragraph? "Races, religions, and genders are considered different for probably mostly societal reasons, most of which should be eliminated or sprinkled with "not necessarily"s whenever invoked, in order to ensure a more level playing field. Also, though biological factors causing differences may exist, generalizations should be qualified to allow for outliers, because the practical negative implications of discouraging potential female mathematicians or similar supposedly-improbable demographic-career combinations are greater than the negative implications of you being forced to think a little and consider a person for what they are. Thank you." Too long? I thought so. Unfortunately, semantics are necessary in sociology; these words are ill-defined. It’s not like chemistry, where valence is always valence, an atom is always an atom, and so forth.

Part of the reason these words are so ill-defined is that they’re controversial. Things intended for one meaning acquire another; abortion was once a euphemism, but was censored in film for most of the 20th century as a taboo (and still could be considered taboo in some circles). There is a gradual drift and the *isms and associated words mean different things to different people, partly as a result of this.

If we did have a new word, it’d eventually come to be associated with things the movement didn’t really represent; so how about a paragraph?

“Races, religions, and genders are considered different for probably mostly societal reasons, most of which should be eliminated or sprinkled with “not necessarily”s whenever invoked, in order to ensure a more level playing field. Also, though biological factors causing differences may exist, generalizations should be qualified to allow for outliers, because the practical negative implications of discouraging potential female mathematicians or similar supposedly-improbable demographic-career combinations are greater than the negative implications of you being forced to think a little and consider a person for what they are. Thank you.”

Too long? I thought so.

]]>