4 ms·
It’s almost as though they actually believe there are no individuals, just group members. Or rather, that what we call an individual is more appropriately descr
by jkhdigital 6y ago
It’s almost as though they actually believe there are no individuals, just group members. Or rather, that what we call an individual is more appropriately described as the intersection of a collection of group memberships.
- dfgdghdf 6y agoYeah, there's nuance here that so many miss. We can understand humans through a social lens when discussing psychology or anthropology. However, we might consider humans through another lens when discussing political theory. It would be entirely consistent to be an ardent individualist politically whilst also believing that humans are social animals who prefer close-knit units. I think the root of the problem is the naturalistic fallacy.
- jkhdigital 6y agoIndeed, it reminds me of Jordan Peterson’s remark that every household is communist.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoThis is in essence the core of intersectionality, which is very popular in academia right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
- soco 6y agoWhich might be correct, and those group memberships are different for every one - making it a gasp individual-individual!