you could kind of go deeper with that is um do the work of like fred moten and stephanos harney's uh black study or radical study in in the undercommons of of this idea of like um there are these molds intellectual practice you know that sometimes we don't give you know uh you know credit to or sort of like survive underneath in the subterfuge of what's happening—Christopher R. Rogers (autogenerated transcript)

He's talking about work (scholarship) that may sit outside the mainstream that for one reason or another aren't recognized (in this case, because the scholars are marginalized in a culture mired in racist ideas, colonialism, etc.). At it's roots, it doesn't necessarily make the work any more or less valuable than that in

cf. with the academic samizdat of Vladimir Bukovsky who was working under a repressive Russian government

cf similarly with the work of Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Consensus can very often only be consensus until it isn't.

How do these ideas interoperate with those of power (power over and power with)? One groups power over another definitely doesn't make them right (or just) at the end of the day.

I like the word "undercommons", which could be thought of not in a marginalizing way, but in the way of a different (and possibly better) perspective.