Blackout
Permabanned
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2015
- Messages
- 1,356
- MBTI Type
- infp
- Enneagram
- 4w3
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/so
Do sociological terms like "Marginalizaition" ever get used by anything beyond
Do sociological terms like "Marginalization" ever get used by anything beyond theories and academia?
I am just wondering.
If you look it up, there's all these articles on defining what exactly it is, and surely enough there are many like these who have existed for a fairly long while and seem to be generally well known or acknowledged as possibly existing, but all these ideas seem to just stop there. I was wondering why, and if it's because they're just relegated to intellectual fodder, usually...?
This is a good example:
http://www.compsy.org.uk/margibarc.pdf
"Being a member of a
marginalized group also brings the risk of some more psychosocial-
ideological threats. The first of these is the definition of one’s identity by others: the
ideological definition of one’s
marginalized identity in the interest of the dominant
groups in society. What typically seems to happen is that the situation of the
marginalized"
"persons is portrayed as a result of their own characteristics. What is essentially a social
and historical phenomenon is presented as a biological or an intrapsychic phenomenon.
[Insert figure 1 about here]
The problems that people face are then seen as of their own making, or at least as
inseparable from their particular nature. The phenomenon is naturalised, seen not as a
socially determined reality, but as something to be expected given the way the person is.
This phenomenon has been called 'blaming the victim'"
"A further result of victim-blaming ideologies, imposed but assimilated, is the definition
of one's reality by 'experts'. This is most obvious in the case of disabled people and those
with mental health difficulties, where personal experiences become a set of pathologies
with technical names and technological treatments, and research and intervention agendas
are
highjacked by oppressive ways of doing things to people, rather than with them."
Do sociological terms like "Marginalization" ever get used by anything beyond theories and academia?
I am just wondering.
If you look it up, there's all these articles on defining what exactly it is, and surely enough there are many like these who have existed for a fairly long while and seem to be generally well known or acknowledged as possibly existing, but all these ideas seem to just stop there. I was wondering why, and if it's because they're just relegated to intellectual fodder, usually...?
This is a good example:
http://www.compsy.org.uk/margibarc.pdf
"Being a member of a
marginalized group also brings the risk of some more psychosocial-
ideological threats. The first of these is the definition of one’s identity by others: the
ideological definition of one’s
marginalized identity in the interest of the dominant
groups in society. What typically seems to happen is that the situation of the
marginalized"
"persons is portrayed as a result of their own characteristics. What is essentially a social
and historical phenomenon is presented as a biological or an intrapsychic phenomenon.
[Insert figure 1 about here]
The problems that people face are then seen as of their own making, or at least as
inseparable from their particular nature. The phenomenon is naturalised, seen not as a
socially determined reality, but as something to be expected given the way the person is.
This phenomenon has been called 'blaming the victim'"
"A further result of victim-blaming ideologies, imposed but assimilated, is the definition
of one's reality by 'experts'. This is most obvious in the case of disabled people and those
with mental health difficulties, where personal experiences become a set of pathologies
with technical names and technological treatments, and research and intervention agendas
are
highjacked by oppressive ways of doing things to people, rather than with them."