Valid struggle against categorism

Jump to: navigation, search

Concepts are what we make of them. As conceptualizations are made and concepts are used, careful consideration need to be taken so that the concepts are defined in ways that maximize their potential to be used in favor of universal human rights, understanding and mutual respect. While minimizing their potential to be used to legitimize totalitarianism, pseudoscience, or harassment.

Although all terms and concepts can be twisted in destructive ways or contain unforeseen flaws, one can minimize the risk by striving for clarity. (For example, Spivak's term “strategic essentialism” has often been hijacked to excuse actual essentialism.) Ultimately, the 30:th and final article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides the disclaimer needed here:

“Nothing in this Declaration [or thesis or wiki, as the case may be] may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.“

The various facets of categorism and other related concepts has been defined in ways designed to maximize their usefulness as tools for identifying and understanding actual problems, while minimizing their potential for being misused as thought-terminating clichés. Nevertheless, there is always potential for use that isn't optimal, as well as outright misuse.

Concepts are what we make of them. Therefore, we all need to try our best to make the best of them, and continue to develop them in as meaningful ways as possible.