Difference between revisions of "Abstractions of categorism"

From Categorism.com
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
While facets are how the categorism is done and foci are what categorization it is done by, abstractions are problems with the categorization itself: Ways in which categorization can be used to create or sustain categorism. While categorization as such is necessary, each particular categorization made by human beings is a more or less arbitrary social construct. That which is categorized in a certain way can always be categorized in another way instead. Such choices are made for better and worse. When categorization creates or supports categorism, it becomes abstractions of categorism. Below follows ten examples of such abstractions.
+
There are two ways in which [[categorization]] becomes [[categorism]]. The one called "abstractions of categorism" is the one where the categorization itself is the problem. This is when facets of categorism are applied to ''how'' we divide people into categories. (The other one is when the applications of facets of categorism is [[foci of categorism|focused on a certain categorization of people]], a categorization which in itself may or may not be reasonable.)
  
This version is being edited, see the old version for reference: [[Abstractions of categorism in the thesis]].
 
  
  
==Co-definitions, used as Guilt By Association or Association By Guilt==
+
* '''[[Categorist Co-definitions]]:''' Merging two group in a categorist way. Such as "Guilt By Association" and "Association By Guilt"
Two concepts that don't fit all that well together are defined as being the same thing. One of the concepts is a category of people. The other is an action that is considered bad, or a category of people defined as those people who do that bad thing.
+
* '''[[Categorist Distinctions]]:''' Dividing a group in a categorist way. Such as to deny them their rights or make their problems invisible.
 
+
* '''[[Equivocations]]:''' Different concepts magically becomes the same thing through using the same term for them.
For example, a preacher  who want to paint gay people in a bad light may fight for a discourse where unprotected sex with strangers is included in the very definition of homosexuality. Either that, or simply use a concept of “sexual deviation” where homosexuality, pedophilia and self-destructive forms of promiscuity are defined as being inherently the same concept.
+
* '''[[Incomprehensibilization of the categorization]]:''' Who need to have comprehensible definitions anyway?
 
+
* '''[[Categorization by Narrativism]]:''' The truth is whatever fits the story.  
==Distinctions, used as Guilt By Disassociation or as denial of rights:==
+
* '''[[Dichotomism]]:''' Rigid division into categories.
Two concepts, one of them being a category of people and the other something completely different, are defined as being incompatible. For example defining being a “Muslim” as being a priori incapable of wanting democracy and human rights.  
+
* '''[[Zero-category]]:''' A core category is excluded from categorization.
 
+
* '''[[Loosely defined Abyss-category]]:''' The ultimate "other" needs no coherent definition.
Note the difference between the idea that "[[Enforcing Cateity|because of your race or religion, you are obliged to be against democracy]]" and the idea that "[[http://categorism.com/wiki/index.php/Abstractions_of_categorism#Distinctions.2C_used_as_Guilt_By_Disassociation_or_as_denial_of_rights:|because of your race or religion, you are by definition against democracy - because that's how we have categorized your race/religion]]". The former is about how a category is viewed, while the other is about how a categorization is made. Thus the former is a facet while the later is an abstraction.
+
* '''[[Categorization by emotional bias]]:''' Including or excluding from a category, based on attitudes.  
 
+
* '''[[Termism]]:''' Such as the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.
==Equivocation==
+
Why settle for one set of bad definitions, when you can use several at once? Any position can be glued together by using overlapping and conflicting definitions of the same concept at the same time.  
+
 
+
==Incomprehensibilization of the categorization==
+
Making the categorization hard to comprehend. The lines of who is or isn't included and on what basis people are included or not bay be fuzzy, mystic, self-referring, or simply undefined. Either way, it may be taboo to discuss – complete with a whiff of conspirationalism: “If you question the concept of this category of people, it's probably because you are secretly one of them”.
+
 
+
==Categorization by Narrativism==
+
If “truth” is whatever makes a good story, we only need to know that the bad guys are the bad guys. Definitions and categorizations are secondary, and does not need to be comprehensible. To even try to analyze them would be to ruin the good story. Which may be something that only one of the bad guys would do, anyway. 
+
 
+
==Dichotomism==
+
The idea that a person is either one category or another, as if the categories were the real thing and the humans only examples of them, rather than the humans being what's real and the categories being crude attempts to get an overview.  
+
 
+
==Zero-category==
+
A lack of intersectionality goes well together with making the normative category invisible. It thus becomes easy to talk about “women” as a concept that actually refers only to white heterosexual women, “people of color” or “muslims” as a concept that actually refers only to heterosexual men of that wider category, and so on.  
+
 
+
==Loosely defined Abyss-category.==
+
Having defined a certain category to be The Evil, anything that feels bad can be squeezed into that concept. For example, the word “fascism” often refers to any political position the user of the word happens to dislike. This usage of the word is unfortunate not only because it's often unfair, but also because it makes it harder to criticize actual fascism.
+
 
+
==Categorization by emotional bias==
+
People you dislike are exempt from categories with positive connotations while people you like are exempt from categories with negative connotations, and vice versa.  
+
 
+
==Termism and the “No true Scotsman” fallacy==
+
The idea that stereotypes are always true, because people who don't fit the stereotype doesn't count: If they were truly part of the category, the stereotype would fit.
+

Revision as of 14:20, 8 September 2014

There are two ways in which categorization becomes categorism. The one called "abstractions of categorism" is the one where the categorization itself is the problem. This is when facets of categorism are applied to how we divide people into categories. (The other one is when the applications of facets of categorism is focused on a certain categorization of people, a categorization which in itself may or may not be reasonable.)