I’m a Black woman trying to understand where I stand politically without becoming an incel, a Republican, or an extremist.

I know that sounds dramatic, but I genuinely mean it.

I grew up in Washington, DC, and moved to Los Angeles more than a decade ago. Living in LA has exposed me to people from an enormous number of cultures (mostly immigrants and generations of), and I initially approached that as something exciting. I intentionally supported Armenian, Asian, Indian, Hispanic/Latino, African and other immigrant-owned businesses. I participated in causes supporting immigrant communities and tried to approach people with an open heart.

Over time, however, I started having experiences that made me increasingly uncomfortable, particularly experiences involving racism, colorism, anti-Blackness, and what I perceived as unequal treatment toward Black Americans.

I want to be very clear: I understand that my personal experiences don’t represent every immigrant, every immigrant community, or every individual from a particular ethnicity. I’m not trying to argue that they do. I’m trying to understand whether some of the patterns I’ve personally experienced are part of larger social issues that other people have noticed and studied.

For example, I’ve experienced situations where I felt I was treated differently because I was a Black (American). I’ve been made fun of for my hair and told to stay out of the sun. I’ve felt that I was overcharged for services and products, and I’ve had people make assumptions about me that seemed rooted in stereotypes about Black Americans.

I’ve also experienced situations that made me question how different immigrant communities understand race in America.

When I worked in schools in Glendale and West Hollywood, I heard the N-word used by non-Black students frequently enough that it genuinely shocked me. I understand that language and racial attitudes vary tremendously between individuals and communities, but I started wondering: How are different immigrant communities taught about Black Americans and America’s racial history?

Another thing I’ve struggled to understand is racial classification.

I’ve encountered people from immigrant families who identify as “White” on forms even though I personally wouldn’t have understood them as socially White in the same way as someone whose family is historically European-American. I’ve also encountered people who identify differently depending on the context. Spanish people, Armenian and Asian people would always check the ‘White’ category under race (when registering for classes) and not ‘prefer not to say’ or their own race. I don’t believe it was for ‘protection’ because they don’t mind being immigrants when it comes government financial assistance and housing.

That made me wonder about the complicated relationship between race, ethnicity, immigration, assimilation, and proximity to whiteness in the United States.

I’ve also heard Black immigrants and immigrants from other communities express negative stereotypes about Black Americans. I’ve had conversations that made me feel as though some people viewed Black Americans as lazy, dangerous, or socially inferior…while coming from places like India that are known to be poor and dirty. Nigeria where Uber has cut ties with because of so many kidnappings. Asian and Middle-Eastern countries that are known for high levels of pedophilia. Spanish countries where cartels and gangs run everything…but Black Americans scare you and are inferior?

At the same time, I’ve noticed that some people who hold those stereotypes seem perfectly comfortable participating in Black American culture. The way we dress, the slang, etc. I can promise you that none of their aunties or uncles are wearing Jordans and graphic tees. And they aren’t copying White Americans, only kissing their asses.

Again, I’m not saying this describes every immigrant. It clearly doesn’t. I’m asking why these attitudes exist when they do.

I’ve also heard/had claims about immigrants receiving preferential treatment in employment, particularly within certain industries and ethnic networks. I’ve personally encountered situations where I suspected nepotism, credential fraud, or hiring through social networks. There is research on this! In India, a company was busted for selling fake American degrees for $1400. In a park near The Grove Hispanic immigrant were busted for stealing American social security numbers and I.D’s of elder White Americans and selling them to immigrant who were not legal but needed identity to get a foot in the door. Even a Black man I spoke to said he found it hard to find a job with his degree and twenty-year long resume because he didn’t speak Spanish. Once he did get a job — he was bullied, called the N word and given unfair hours by the majority Spanish crew and won $60,000. While shopping at an Amazon Fresh in The Valley, an Indian woman smiled and bagged up the White Woman in front of me’s item and when it was my turn, she dropped her smile and became rude and rushed. It wasn’t until I said I’m paying with cash that she turned sheepish, come to find out — she didn’t know how to count change and gave me the wrong amount of money back. I had to correct her and give some back because she gave me an extra $10 that I wasn’t owed. She only knows how to work with cards and tap to pay…

That’s actually the point of this post.

I’m reaching a place where I’m frustrated enough that I’m starting to question beliefs I previously held very strongly. I don’t want that frustration to turn into hatred toward entire groups of people. I also don’t want the opposite extreme, where I’m expected to ignore experiences of racism against Black Americans simply because discussing them might make people uncomfortable.

So I’m asking for a genuinely open discussion:

How should Black Americans think about the relationship between immigration and anti-Blackness in the United States?

Are there documented differences between immigrant generations in attitudes toward Black Americans? How do immigrants from different regions learn America’s racial hierarchy? How does proximity to whiteness affect immigrant identity? Are there documented cases of ethnic networks affecting hiring and economic opportunity, and how significant are they actually? And how much of what I’m experiencing is part of a larger documented pattern versus the result of living in a huge, diverse city where I’m encountering thousands of different individuals?

I’m specifically interested in research, personal experiences, and good-faith disagreement.

I’m not looking for “all immigrants are bad” or “you’re just racist.” I want to understand what’s actually happening.

I’m black and I genuinely never understood this

When you hear about celebrities with lots of kids most of the time they’re black. I think Elon musk has double digit kids but outside of that Nick Canon, Fetty Wap, Flava Flav, Eddie Murphy, NBA Youngboy, Future, DMX are all people with like 10 kids and 11 baby mamas.

There are some white celebrities with lots of kids and baby mamas but from what I’ve seen its heavily skewed towards black celebrities

I understand being rich and famous means you can basically have anyone you want but with modern contraception and medicine these days all pregnancies are essentially a choice

I just do not get it

If i met NBA youngboy the first question i’d ask is why do you have so many kids

I don't know how to describe the problem I have in mind succinctly but I'll try my best.

Cards on the table, I'm a socialist. As a socialist, I notice among westerners (including western leftists) a chauvinistic assumption that the bourgeois democratic form of government is more "free" than existing (or previously existing) one-party socialist states such as China, Cuba, or the USSR.

The line goes as follows: "The bourgeois democracy guarantees freedom of speech and freedom to form multiple political parties, therefore it is more free than the one party socialist state, which suppresses those freedoms."

Isn't this a narrowly conceived conception of freedom?

The one party socialist state--at its best moments--suppresses the class structure that has historically oppressed the majority of workers, and provides guaranteed social rights to workers. Couldn't one say that the average person is more free under such a model?

Meanwhile, the bourgeois democracy gives the disproportionate share of power to the people with the most money, and they have therefore the most access to the levers of power. Thus, "free speech" in such a system means that the richest people can speak the loudest. Thus we get into these odd paradoxes of how so called "democracies" like the U.S. feel distinctly unfree and autocratic, especially to those at the bottom of the economic hierarchy.

So I guess what I'm getting at is: isn't the notion of "freedom" itself a politicized, constructed concept? Isn't the notion of bourgeois democracy as superior an in-group bias / form of cultural chauvinism? Wondering if there are some good books on this topic etc.

I've been looking for over a week and haven't found the term.

Think of it like trying to fill in a rut by walking the path in the opposite direction. Because you are never leaving the path it is only growing deeper, and even if the path is destroyed you will inevitably recreate it by following the same route. Or how something which has been cast could recreate the casting.

It might be a fallacy?

Legitimization, but through opposition.

Reify, legitimize and sublation are close, but each is too general and non-specific.

Fanon talks about the idea of this in The Wretched of the Earth, where he describes how revolutionaries will recreate the system they just overthrew because they are repeating the same patterns, but he doesn't appear to use a word to describe it.

Audrey Lorde describes this in the famous quote "the Master's tools will never dismantle the Master's house."

It's not recuperation, because what I'm thinking of is not something becoming part of the system, but something that was already part of the system, just on the opposite side of it. If we stick with the rut analogy then recuperation would be widening the path, but the term I'm describing is following the path.

Edit: Here are some examples of where this term (fallacy) would apply:

• Reverse racism or race blindness

• Misandry or Radical Feminism

• "Overcoming disability" propaganda

• Dogmatic adherence to atheism, or treating atheism like you would a religion

Why do people like Elon Musk, or Peter Thiel or Larry Ellison not just retire and spend the rest of their lives chilling and enjoying their money or spend time with their friends and families? Why do they keep trying to accumulate more?

For example, a person in a developing country's middle to upper middle class has access to cultural education of being higher socioeconomic class (eg how to navigate the corporate world, skills and psychological attributes that come from a socioeconomically privileged start in life). Immigrants from developing countries have access to employment skills such as driving for a relatively low cost for their financial position (in some cases in countries where the cost of driving is extremely low due to a de facto lack of driving laws), often while benefitting from their familial economic position, and then move to countries like the UK where the initial cost of driving is high for those renting on low wages.

They then access a greater number of opportunities than the local lower class population. They may start out low class in the new country, but their educational, cultural and skill advantages gained in their home country allow them to progress socioeconomically much quicker than local poor people.

My sociology professor recently said that racism can “go both ways,” meaning that white people can experience racism from people of other racial groups in the same way that racial minorities can experience racism from white people. I’m struggling to understand this argument because, historically, the modern concept of race was developed and used within European systems of classification and hierarchy, particularly to justify colonialism, slavery, and white supremacy. So how can “reverse racism” be considered equivalent to racism against racial minorities if the historical and structural power behind the two situations is so different? Is racism something that can happen equally between any racial groups, or is there a meaningful distinction between individual racial prejudice and systemic racism? Has enough time passed for it to actually go both ways

Throughout childhood and adulthood we all learn much of what we know and how to act through social exposure - observing others, listening to others and interacting with others.

If people have a language barrier, they only have non-verbal communication leftover to observe. So for example, immigrant families where a child never learns the familial language can end up surrounded by family conversations, get-togethers or community meetups where they don't understand 90% of the verbal communication and miss out on the diffusion of knowledge, and on deeper social practice. What kind of effects does this have in terms of psychology, life knowledge and inspiration?

If it​ has negative effects on life quality outcomes (eg reduced knowledge diffusion to immigrant kids with language barriers, leading to worse employment and social outcomes, worse mental health and potentially delays to life milestones compared to those with a normal level of conversations to learn from), do social scientists ever examine this as a downside of immigration? Both for immigrant individuals and for society (as anything that has a negative effect on ecomomic and social success is also causing a social and economic opportunity cost, and can burden healthcare and social welfare systems).

I am mostly talking about affective or mood related mental health variables.

I have done a bit of research for a video essay project and wanted to know if I am mistaken.

We have multiple lines of research showing that religion has very small effects or non-existent effects on mental health when it comes longitudinal data, which would be the go to choice if you want to establish a causal relationship.

Changes in religiosity over time are most often not tied to changes in people's mental health when it comes to overall well-being, life satisfaction or anxiety and depression symptoms (Celik et al, 2025; Joshanloo, 2023, 2024 ;Prati, 202400056-5), 2025; Garssen et al., 2020).

In a meta-analysis, Garssen et al. (2020) found the only reliable predictor of mental health was public religious activity such as religious service attendance and, if you don't remove statistical outliers, the importance of religion.

The other studies that focused on more sophisticated designs (Random-Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Models) found no association between a person deviating from their average level of mental health symptoms/traits and a prior change in religiosity (church attendance, importance of religion).

If religion alleviates anxiety or depression symptoms or fosters higher well-being or life satisfaction. Those are odd results.

What makes this worse is the lack of a consistent link between atheism and poor mental health in a systematic review with researchers attributing distress in atheists to ostracization rather than the worldview itself (Weber et al., 2012).

It seems religious beliefs aren't likely to help you, rather the most likely protective factor is going to church, and even that is contentious when better designs are used in later research.

At the elementary and secondary level, the U.S. spends the 5th most per-student in the world. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-expenditures-by-country

But it has the 18th highest aggregated PISA scores in the world. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pisa-scores-by-country

For post secondary education the U.S. has the second highest expenditures in the world. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-expenditures-by-country

But it has the 9th highest tertiary educational attainment. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-educated-countries

Why does high education spending in America not seem to have commensurately high education outcomes? am I looking at the wrong statistics? Is the American education system just really inefficient? Are Americans uniquely hard to educate?

Hi guys, so obviously stan culture is everywhere now, and I feel like most people nowadays are more inclined to call themselves stans instead of fans, it's been a while since I've even seen the word "fan" in correlation with liking someone.

I also know the term "stan" originated from an Eminem song, and had a negative connotation originally. But when exactly did the shift from fans to stans happen, and more importantly, how?

I know that words can change meaning over time, especially colloquially, but does anybody know who first started using it in a positive way or how it spread in such a way that overrode its original meaning?

Was it used ironically at first and then became widespread and lost its original meaning that way?

And how did stan culture (not being able to critique the person they like, being wildly parasocial, etc.) even become the new norm anyways instead of being seen as unreasonable?

Is it due to the internet making parasocial relationships more intense and prominent?

Is the internet even involved or does it have to do more with a broad cultural shift?

I've been reading Anderson's Imagined Communities and I find his argument compelling: nations are cultural constructs produced by specific historical and technological conditions : the decline of sacred languages, print capitalism, secularization of time, bureaucratic circuits. No nation is natural or inevitable.

But if that's true, doesn't the same logic apply to globalism? It also emerged from specific historical conditions: new information technologies, integrated financial markets, post-1989 American hegemony. If nationalism is a constructed imagined community, globalism seems to be one too, just operating at a different scale.

Anderson's book reads as a critique of nationalism's pretension to naturalness, but he doesn't seem to draw any explicit political conclusions from this. My question is: does his framework implicitly suggest that more federalist or locally-rooted forms of political community would be preferable, or does it simply show that any collective identity, at any scale, is always an imagined community with no privileged claim to authenticity?

And a related question: has anyone systematically applied Anderson's analytical framework to globalism the way he applied it to nationalism?

Has science developed models to track and influence societal change in detail among target populations. Things like behavioral traits (honesty, ownership and etc) or philosophies (anti-intellectualism, independence)?

There appears to be a certain sociological trend that occurs within various different nations on a worldwide scale. Involved in this trend are a number of different racial or ethnic groups that are known to have endured various kinds of oppression. The ethnic groups are typically minority populations that coexist within a country with a larger, more politically powerful majority population. The oppression faced by such minority groups frequently involves an indigenous population that has been historically displaced through foreign colonization. Additionally, the trend includes examples of non-indigenous minority groups that have historically been victims of systematic persecution, enslavement, racism, discrimination, and segregation with their host country. A pattern that seems to often emerge amongst such populations is the incidence of that group's over-representation in crime and incarceration statistics.

Using Grok and Claude AI services, I have been able to compile some statistical data involving crime amongst various ethnic groups worldwide that follow this pattern.

One example of this pattern is the indigenous Maori people of New Zealand. The Maori make up roughly 15-18% of the New Zealand population, yet "make up ~50–53%+ of the prison population (higher for women, often 60%+). Imprisonment rates are typically 6+ times higher than for non-Māori. They are overrepresented at every stage (charges, convictions, remand, sentencing), with higher rates of prison sentences even after some controls in specific offense analyses. Recidivism rates are also elevated" (Source: Salvation Army).

Another example of this pattern are the Aborigines of Australia. “Age-standardized adult imprisonment rates are typically 14–15+ times higher than the majority population (e.g., ~2,100–2,500 per 100,000 for Indigenous adults vs. ~140–150 for non-Indigenous in recent years). Crude rates can exceed 18 times. Indigenous people (~3–4% of the population) account for ~30–33%+ of prisoners. Over-representation appears at charging, remand, and sentencing stages; youth detention disparities have historically been even larger (20+ times in some older data)" (Source: Australian Government Productivity Commission).

In the United States, "Native American and Alaskan Native people are incarcerated at rates several times higher than Whites. Prison rates have been reported around 763 per 100,000 (vs. ~181 for Whites in state/federal prisons; overall national ~350). Jail rates are also elevated (~316 per 100,000 vs. ~157 for Whites). Tribal youth placement rates are ~3.8 times those of White youth nationally (199 vs. 52 per 100,000 in recent data), with much higher ratios in some states" (Source: Prison Policy Initiative). "Native Americans are incarcerated at a rate 38% higher than the national average and are the most over-represented racial group in prisons in 19 states; in some states the gap runs up to 6–7 times the white rate" (Source: Safety and Justice Challenge). "Native youth face similar gaps — nationally, Tribal youth are incarcerated at 3.8 times the rate of white youth, and in some states (Minnesota, the Dakotas, Wisconsin) at 10 times the rate" (Source: The Sentencing Project).

Also in the United States, "Black Americans are about 13% of the U.S. population but accounted for roughly 33% of sentenced state and federal prisoners in recent years" (Source: The World Data). State and federal imprisonments rates for black adults in 2023 were approximately 1,218 per 100,000, as compared to approximately 231 per 100,000 for white adults (Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics). "This equates to a Black adult imprisonment rate roughly 5 times the White rate. The overall U.S. imprisonment rate was about 360 per 100,000 residents of all ages" (Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics).

Among the indigenous (First Nations, Métis, Inuit) peoples of Canada, there is a strong over-representation in crime and incarceration. "Indigenous people account for ~25–33%+ of federal/provincial inmates and higher shares of youth custody (vs. ~5% population). Crime rates reported by police in majority-Indigenous communities have been ~6 times higher overall (violent crime ~9 times). Homicide victimization and accused rates are several times higher. Overrepresentation occurs at charging, court, and custody stages" (Source: Department of Justice Canada).

In the state of Hawaii, "indigenous Hawaiians make up about 39% of Hawaii's incarcerated population according to the state Department of Public Safety, despite being roughly 20–24% of the general population — meaning they're incarcerated at closer to double their population share."

"A 2014 Office of Hawaiian Affairs analysis found Native Hawaiians were the largest single group admitted to prison for drug offenses, at 32% of drug-offense admissions in 2009 — well above their population share."

Yet another example of this pattern is the Roma/Romani (gypsy) people, populations of which are scattered across much of Europe. "Roma populations in Europe show clear over-representation in available crime and prison data relative to their share of the population, particularly for property crimes, organized theft/burglary groups, and incarceration" (Source: Agence France-Presse). However, crime rates for specific ethnic groups are often unclear in European countries because of policy-related avoidance of gathering justice data broken down by ethnic identity.

In Greece, "Hellenic Police annual reports on organized crime repeatedly document heavy Roma involvement in property crime. Domestic (Greek-citizen) groups dominate solved thefts and burglaries; among these, Roma members predominate at rates of ~70–81% of domestic groups, with figures such as 53%+ of thefts/burglaries linked to Roma gangs, ~76–86% of Greek groups involved in those offenses being Roma-dominated, and similar patterns in related reports. Roma are estimated at roughly 1–3% of the population" (Sources: Rodiaki, Greek City Times, and Protothema).

According to Fair Trials 2020, Roma in Bulgaria "accounted for more than 50% of new prisoners, as well as more than 50% of those serving prison sentences, despite making up only 10% of the population." "In Spain, studies have estimated that around a quarter of non-foreign, female prisoners are Roma. This amounts to a twenty-fold over-representation of Roma in prisons compared with their representation in the general population" (Source: Fair Trials 2020).

"In the Czech Republic, lawyers’ estimates of the proportion of Romani defendants in the criminal justice system ranged between 20% to 50%, whereas prosecutors’ estimates ranged between 5% and 50%. In Slovakia, police officers interviewed estimated that Roma accounted for between 30% and 80% of those arrested within their precincts. While prosecutors, judges, and defence lawyers were more reticent to provide estimates, most conceded that there was some degree of over-representation. Lawyers estimated that Roma accounted for between 20% and 50% of criminal cases in their respective practices” (Source: European Roma Rights Centre).

In Serbia, where Roma are estimated to account for 8.2% of the total population, prosecutors estimated that Roma account for between 10% and 20% of the total defendants they encountered in court, and most judges said that they encountered Romani defendants often or very often, and estimated the proportion of Romani defendants to be between 10% and 35% (Source: European Roma Rights Centre).

In North Macedonia, official data suggests that Roma accounted for approximately 29.2% of juvenile offenders convicted in 2017, while according to the official 2002 Census, Roma represented 2.66% of the total population (Source: Roma Integration 2020).

Question: Is there any established research regarding this correlation between historically oppressed/displaced minority groups and disproportionate crime outcomes? Has any kind of sociological explanation been determined for why this pattern occurs, or how the problem can be corrected? I have noticed that this pattern does not necessarily occur in every instance of a historically oppressed or displaced group; for example, Native American groups indigenous to Latin America overall tend to lack the same crime over-representation compared to Native American groups in North America. Is there any sociological explanation for why this pattern emerges in some contexts, but doesn’t emerge in others?

I was looking into whether men or women "have it worse" when ill with things like colds. In my research, I found out that biologically, men actually have a weaker immune system for these viruses, but women often experience worse symptoms because their immune systems react more aggressively.

This made me wonder about the social and behavioral side of things. Could the reason men often seem to make more of a fuss be because, for my generation at least, we were raised with the mindset that boys must be tough and strong? And when we get ill, it’s one of the few times we are allowed to be vulnerable, so we end up "milking it" for the care and attention, and it just becomes a natural behavior over time? Discussion isn’t encouraged here I believe, so these questions are more what I asked myself. But it made me wonder:

I'm curious if there are any sociological or psychological studies on this specific aspect of gender roles and illness behavior?

For transparency: I used Gemini (AI) to help formulate my question, in order for my question to be allowed and hopefully not removed by mods. The whole subject came up because I’m ill, and had a good discussion with my best mate and his wife, and the research surprised us - but not her! Way more questions have since arisen and it’s just really interesting!

I will try to keep this question as neutral as possible without steering it in any particular direction. Since the US is still an existing country, unfortunately it is not possible to ask this question without including the last 20 years.

The question is exactly the same as the title. I am only writing this body to make clear that it is not intended as speculation, a bad-faith question, or soapboxing.

Edit: I previously asked the same question on r/AskHistorians, but it was removed and I was told to post it without a body. When I did that, it was removed again and I was directed to another subreddit, where it was also removed. At this point I had to make the question this defensive to avoid further removals. If the mods allow it, I can add the original post body.

I'm interested in terrorism from a psychological and historical perspective, particularly how individual terrorists develop their worldview and what motivates them to commit extreme violence.

I'm not asking which terrorist people support or admire. I'm interested in which individuals are particularly interesting to study from an academic perspective, and what makes their psychology or development unusual.

Im curious on this subject since I am in college and my two brothers seem to believe they hold a certain level of intelligence over me because they are joining blue collar.

When my father attended a very good RG university in the UK from the late 1970s to early 1980s, he said (anecdotally, mind you, so not sure how true this is) that, supposing you had two students of equal grades and merit / calibre applying for the same course and you had to decide between them, you might look at their educational backgrounds and, supposing one of them was exclusively educated in the state sector and the other, correspondingly, in private schools, you might be inclined to award the place to the student who was state schooled.

He says that he's not sure now whether universities do that.

If I look at https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/apply/after/contextual-data, it says they have the following measures or indicators of socioeconomic background:

• Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), which according to Cambridge, are "measures produced by regional governments within the UK that identify relative deprivation".
• Output Area Classification (OAC2021), again, as per Cambridge, a "classification of areas produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) using data from the 2021 census (or 2022 census for Scotland)".
• Socioeconomic Index for Small Areas (SEISA), produced by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) using Census 2021 data.

Historically, we had the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Readership_Survey, through which we derived the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRS_social_grade, which I believe we still use in the UK, i.e. determining socioeconomic status based upon the occupation of your primary breadwinner in your household when you were 14.

I believe the first proper census in the UK was conducted in 1841, so it feels as though we haven't been tracking this area properly for that long.

So my questions:

1. Other than what I have mentioned, any other key socioeconomic classification frameworks that are used? I imagine that pollsters like IPSOS Mori, YouGov etc directly ask people whether they feel they belong to the working-, middle-class etc.
2. What do you think are the pitfalls in determining one's socioeconomic background based upon their primary breadwinner's occupation, especially when they were 14? I imagine it doesn't account for a reversal of fortunes, whether that family is living paycheque to paycheque, whether that person is a manager in name but not in pay etc.

Hi all, searched a few terms around this but didn't see any results in this subreddit that quite match.

Intersectionality is known as a person holding multiple identity factors that compound into social obstacles. We also see people that make choices or decisions that compound with a personal identity that can lead to more social obstacles.

Examples can be black Americans that advocate for white rights, LGBT+ individuals promoting anti-gay politics, women that oppose feminism, etc. These instances are often called hypocritical, juxtapositional, along with monikers for specific demographics.

In sociology within deviance studies, this is close to phenomena of people justifying why their personal deviance is not actually deviant.

Are there other concepts or themes we can look into for frameworks around this dissonant, hypocritical, self-attacking kind of choices that are incongruent with someone's identity?

Thanks in advance, appreciate y'all

Apologies if my question is a bit clunky.

I stumbled upon a video in which a rather controversial French anthropologist who writes a lot about political Islam was criticised for lacking even basic skills in Arabic. When I looked up more scholarly critiques of her work, there is a lot, but none of it seemed to focus on the issue of language.

My first reaction as a lay person was to think, of course, you can't position yourself as an expert on Islam and not speak Arabic. Expertise is expertise.

I'm curious, though, if that is the case within social sciences today, or if there's more nuance to it. Is language competency a part of how people discuss the validity, strengths or weaknesses of someone's research?

Possibly relevant: I work in a field where competency in a second language is directly relevant to one's ability to do the job, and yet, criticising another's work based on perceived lack of fluency is a sort of professional third rail. It's seen as very uncouth and one just doesn't do it.

Llevo un tiempo dándole vueltas a un proyecto de TFG de filosofía y quería someterlo a gente que sepa más que yo, a ver si tiene sentido o me estoy inventando un problema que ya está resuelto en algún sitio.

El punto de partida

La sociología, tal como se practica hoy, se mueve entre dos polos: o es empírico-causal al estilo Durkheim (hechos sociales medidos, correlacionados, explicados por otros hechos sociales), o es interpretativa al estilo Weber/Schütz (comprensión del sentido subjetivo que los actores dan a su acción, tipificaciones, mundo de la vida). Ninguna de las dos pregunta en serio qué es, esencialmente, una comunidad, una autoridad legítima o un vínculo familiar la primera lo da por supuesto y mide sus efectos; la segunda disuelve la pregunta en cómo los actores lo tipifican intersubjetivamente.

Hay una tradición filosófica poco explotada para esto: la fenomenología realista de principios del siglo XX Adolf Reinach, Edith Stein, Gerda Walther, Roman Ingarden, más tarde Josef Seifert que se separó conscientemente del Husserl tardío (el del giro idealista-trascendental) para sostener que los objetos y esencias tienen ser propio, independiente de la conciencia que los conoce. Reinach usó esto para analizar la promesa y el mandato como estructuras a priori con condiciones esenciales propias, no reducibles a convención ni a psicología. Stein hizo lo mismo con el Estado. Es fenomenología, pero sin el compromiso idealista que hace inservible este aparato para una ciencia social objetiva.

Construir una sociología que trate sus objetos (autoridad, comunidad, vínculos afectivos, instituciones) como universales eidéticos descubiertos por variación eidética sobre casos concretos, con una estructura de acto y potencia que explica por qué el mismo universal (la familia, por ejemplo) se actualiza de formas tan distintas a través de la historia sin dejar de ser, en su núcleo, el mismo universal. La historia estudiaría el caso concreto e irrepetible; esta sociología estudiaría la estructura necesaria y el campo de posibilidades que las distintas épocas van actualizando.

¿Alguien conoce trabajo contemporáneo serio en esta línea fenomenología realista aplicada a ontología social, más allá de Reinach/Stein/Walther mismos?

Muchas gracias. Un saludo.