IV: Rebuttals to my Characterisation of Reclamation
In the above, I have created a model to represent to sociological phenomena of the reclamation of slurs. I have given an example how we can see this mechanism at work with respect to the word queer. Though this provides evidence in support of my thesis the question arises as to what measure should be used to more so test the effectiveness of the model. What should be considered and how can my thesis best be supported?
The model which I have created is described by as an idealisation model (Frigg and Hartmann, 2016). That is, a model that aims to simplify a complicated system in order to make sense of what is going on. How can one assess whether what I have created should be seen as an accurate …show more content…
The main idealisation powering my model, I contend, is the alignment within classes. That is, the alignment and agreement within the group doing the reclaiming and also alignment within society as to how to react the reclamation project. As noted, this is often not actually the fact of the matter above (the in group disagreement on what the n-word should denote). Though this may seem a stumbling block for my model this feature can be in fact interpreted as a limit of the features of the real world system. To see this I evoke the idea of communities which I previously used in Part II of this paper. As stated in this section human kinds generally pick out communities or the designation of a group has the potential to create a community (my example being “Nigerians”). As I argued in Part III slurs are projected onto human kinds and hence the idea of communities extends to my model of reclamation of slurs. In Section II I contented that due to communication within communities individuals are likely to have similar points of view about their designations. Hence the idealised limit of Laymon’s thesis can, in my thesis, be seen to be this community agreement. It can be seen how one may work towards greater community agreement, for example holding meetings rallies etc. Though in many cases as Laymon contends it is likely to be impossible to have complete agreement. Using Laymon’s …show more content…
I then used this framework to explain the process of reclamation of slurs. I next argued that the model I have created is fit for purpose using Laymon’s ideas on satisfactory idealisations. Finally I acknowledged the fact that as it is, my conception of reclamation is unable to quite capture all of what is occurring in the reclamation project and that one may want to supplement my model. On this note, due to the brevity of this paper there are a couple of other important questions about reclamation which I have not had chance to discuss which may be of interest to the
In the above, I have created a model to represent to sociological phenomena of the reclamation of slurs. I have given an example how we can see this mechanism at work with respect to the word queer. Though this provides evidence in support of my thesis the question arises as to what measure should be used to more so test the effectiveness of the model. What should be considered and how can my thesis best be supported?
The model which I have created is described by as an idealisation model (Frigg and Hartmann, 2016). That is, a model that aims to simplify a complicated system in order to make sense of what is going on. How can one assess whether what I have created should be seen as an accurate …show more content…
The main idealisation powering my model, I contend, is the alignment within classes. That is, the alignment and agreement within the group doing the reclaiming and also alignment within society as to how to react the reclamation project. As noted, this is often not actually the fact of the matter above (the in group disagreement on what the n-word should denote). Though this may seem a stumbling block for my model this feature can be in fact interpreted as a limit of the features of the real world system. To see this I evoke the idea of communities which I previously used in Part II of this paper. As stated in this section human kinds generally pick out communities or the designation of a group has the potential to create a community (my example being “Nigerians”). As I argued in Part III slurs are projected onto human kinds and hence the idea of communities extends to my model of reclamation of slurs. In Section II I contented that due to communication within communities individuals are likely to have similar points of view about their designations. Hence the idealised limit of Laymon’s thesis can, in my thesis, be seen to be this community agreement. It can be seen how one may work towards greater community agreement, for example holding meetings rallies etc. Though in many cases as Laymon contends it is likely to be impossible to have complete agreement. Using Laymon’s …show more content…
I then used this framework to explain the process of reclamation of slurs. I next argued that the model I have created is fit for purpose using Laymon’s ideas on satisfactory idealisations. Finally I acknowledged the fact that as it is, my conception of reclamation is unable to quite capture all of what is occurring in the reclamation project and that one may want to supplement my model. On this note, due to the brevity of this paper there are a couple of other important questions about reclamation which I have not had chance to discuss which may be of interest to the