Link: Category structures and oppression

[redbird]

shweta_narayan has posted some useful and interesting thoughts on category structures and oppression, starting with the idea that, for most people, a robin has more bird-ness than an albatross does. Weirder, apparently people think that an albatross is more like a robin than a robin is like an albatross; intuitively, I would have thought that "A is like B" was reflexive. And if you ask people
"is this a bird?" they'll say yes faster about a robin than about an albatross or an emu.

That's interesting when it's robins and eagles and albatrosses, or whether 4 is a "better" even number than 4,278, but it extends to different groups and kinds of people. And it may be part of why people "just happen" to think of white men more often than nonwhites or women when they're looking for contributors to an anthology, or speakers at a conference, or candidates for city council.

Comments

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

While I do think these association-time studies are useful, I've begun to question whether they mean as much as, or the exact things that, at least people in the popular culture are saying. (I probably will look up the key studies to see what the scientists are saying.)

Especially with the bird study, it seems to me that familiarity is a confounding factor. That is, people may just be taking some time to consciously place what the photo is of and then identifying it as a bird just as quickly as with the immediately-recognized sparrow. And with the even numbers--it would take me seconds just to identify whether 4,278 is odd or even! (If I think about it, I look just to the last number first, but my first instinct is to read the whole number, think a tiny bit, then look to the last number.)

In other words, if what is being tested is sheer familiarity (how used am I to thinking of albatrosses or 4,278?) that seems to me more valid than how familiar the categorization is (how used am I to thinking of an albatross as a bird or 4,278 as an even number?), let alone what you are concluding (robins are better birds, 4 is a better even number).

I will say that one implication of all interpretations, which is usually a great idea in many ways, is "Think again." And I do have to say that in my experience, people do ponder when thinking of contributors to anthologies or speakers at a conference, not decide in seconds or even minutes. Actually, "Think again, differently" is an even better conclusion, and, again, great in many, many ways.

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

Having read the entry & links--

I was thinking more about another time-of-reaction study, in which whites generally took longer to link positive words & terms for African Americans than they did to link positive words and terms for whites.

Prototype theory is something else. I'd argue that "better" in the sense of "a better bird" or "a better even number" is not necessarily "better" in any value sense. Lots of people might say a beagle is a better dog in the sense of being more prototypical but always adopt and dote on dachshunds and their atypical short legs.

The most relevant study to privilege, imo, is the one about famous people, but even then that's not really who is valued per se, since it's shaped by who has typically made it into the history books. And in both ways--women and PoC are much less likely to be in the history books, whereas William Howard Taft and others would be famous but probably not viewed as prototypical humans (because of body size) now.

But she clearly has an academic background, so I'm sure peers will critique this particular extension of the ideas when/if she presents/publishes.