Stay in your way. Get your knitting. These are perhaps the worst stereotypes that can be given in our interconnected and network world.
For a large part of history, in particular from the Enlightenment, our societies have been fairly able to create classifications and create areas of work and study.
In the end, the fields represent a specific type of research machines: a collection of rallying cries, standards, donors and bureaucratic arrangements designed to produce new ideas on the world as a whole. The fields increase and fall under their ability to provide useful knowledge and ideas. Researchers – in particular good – merger around productive areas, because they are also the most effective engines to continue the questions they wish to continue. In the end, that's what matters. –Essentialism on the ground
The fields are often created to be useful, but they can also be used for power and control. I remember visiting the Apartheid museum In South Africa and one of the chambers showed all the laws around the breed that had been in place during the apartheid regime. They started as a few laws, but continued to be added because there was no way to make a complex field just complicated.
The Apartheid bureaucracy designed complex (and often arbitrary) criteria at a time when the population registration law was implemented to determine who was colored. Minor officials would give tests to determine whether someone should be classified colorful or white, or if another person should be classified in color or black. The tests included the pencil test, in which a pencil was pushed into the curly hair of the subjects and the subjects made to shake the head. If the pencil stuck, they were tried black; If they are delicate, they have been pronounced in color. Other tests consisted in examining the forms of jaw lines and buttocks and pinching people to see in which language they would say “ouch”. Following these tests, different members of the same family met in different racing groups. Other tests have determined belonging to the different sub-racial groups of colored. –Wikipedia
Similar discussions and decisions about sex and sex make sport more complicated.
DSDs (sex development disorders) are a group of extremely complex conditions. These anomalies question both our scientific and social understanding of what “sex” and “sexual differentiation” are. DSD management is difficult; The traditional approach bases the attribution of sex around the future reproductive potential, the future sexual potential and the aesthetic appearance of external genitals. 16 The recent research of neuroscience suggests that the sexual dimorphism of the brain can occur prenaturally, which implies that typical gender behavior can be determined before sexual attribution. A more flexible approach to DSD management, involving parental decision -making and close connection with a child psychiatrist, is currently suggested.
Sport has struggled with the question of gender anomalies for years and the controversy concerning how to “test” the remains of the DSD. Chromosomes can be tested, but sex is not so easily determined – our education and the attitude of society towards us play a crucial role in the definition of sex. For these female athletes with DSD, it seems much more likely that they do their best to compete like the sex chosen for them at birth rather than trying to reach an unjust advantage by passing their sex. As such, compulsory verification of gender seems unfair, humiliating and unproductive in the majority of situations, although vigilance must remain to identify those whose goal is to win, whatever the cost. –Intersex and Olympic Games
I noted in Hierarchies, experts and dogma This established and institutionalized professional organization too often has the diversity of the thought necessary to deal with complex problems. In 2019, the Long Now Foundation said that Illumination is deadto be replaced by tangle.
As we become more entangled with our technologies, we are also increasingly tangled with each other. Power (physical, political and social) has gone from hierarchies understandable to less intelligent networks. We can no longer understand how the world works by decomposing it as parts linked to a vague connection which reflect the hierarchy of physical space or deliberate conception. Instead, we have to look at the flows of information, ideas, energy and matter that connect us, and the communication, confidence and distribution networks that allow these flows … (continue to conclude) … Unlike lights, where progress was analytical and came from things, the progression of the era of the tangle is synthetic and comes from the implementation of things. Instead of classifying the organizations, we build them. Instead of discovering new worlds, we create them. And our creation process is very different. ” –Illumination is dead
The over-classification and the limits of the limits of the field may not be the best ways to understand complex relationships. As part of controlling personal knowledge, diversity is the key to creating meaning – Diversity> Learning> Confidence. The search for knowledge networks, creation of active meaning and public sharing are practices that must be widespread. This is how we can manage ambiguity and complexity.
