4 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2022
    1. Group meanings partially constitute people's identities in terms of the cultural forms, social situation, and history that group members know as theirs, because these meanings have been either forced upon them or forged by them or both (cf. Fiss, 1976). Groups are real not as substances, but as forms of social relations

      I completely agree, this makes me thing of religion or beliefs that pass within cultural groups. If you have a strong belief in something, more often than not, whether it be deliberately or accidental, you will pass this belief to your child. Depending on the child's personality, they may take it, and pass it on to their friends and children, and they cycle continues.

    2. pg 39- "oppression in this sense is structural, rather than the result of a few people's choices or policies"

      This is a huge point, as it takes apart and distinguishes the difference between oppression as a whole and harassment over a certain group/individual. It widens your horizons and allows oppression to be the overarching theme, with multiple layers and actions under it that assist in its continued perpetuation through a society.

    3. pg 38-"Consequently, attempts by theorists ... more fundamental or more grave"

      I think this is a huge problem that we have in society today, belittling or putting down someone's experience because it's not as bad as what it could have been, therefore it has not merit. I appreciate the author's dedication in correcting that wrong and clarifying that although the levels of oppression and/or the definition may not be the exact same for everyone, oppression is still oppression. I like to think of it like flavors of ice cream, some may be a lot stronger or have lots of different add ons, but in the end, it's still ice cream.

    4. Someone who does not see a pane of glass does not know that he does not see d. Someone who, being placed differently, does see it does not know the other does not see it.

      I love the beginning of this, it reminds me of the color of the sky argument. If someone says the sky is red, but you see the sky as blue, how can you tell them what they are seeing is wrong? For you may be seeing blue, but you can not look through their eyes, so you can not say what they are seeing is incorrect, only that you do not see the same color that they are seeing. But then it gets even trickier, because we do not know if their red is your blue or vice versa. It's a complicated thought that circles around perspective, something that I think is not only profound but also intricately important to all arguments and matters of discussion. A change or understanding in one's perspective is the difference between peace and war, and it's understanding all sides of a situation that allow us to begin to comprehend why anyone would view oppression as an acceptable way to treat another human being.