candy ex machina
New member
Okay, so I was looking at the reviews for a certain book that was about the concept of post-blackness. It was basically saying that since there are so many different black people, there are therefore many different ways to be black and all of them were equally legitimate.
But, basically what this is saying is that there are no specific qualities that define blackness.
The specific example of blackness isn't important to me, but I've noticed this kind of thinking in a lot of sociology based conversations. Someone will insist that they are a member of a group, but at the same time, they'll insist that this group has no defining characteristics. How is identifying as a member of a group, and getting people to recognize you as a member of a group of any value if you then turn around and say that membership in that group doesn't actually mean anything? This is strange to me, and I would like to understand. What do you guys think? Is what I'm saying clear...?
But, basically what this is saying is that there are no specific qualities that define blackness.
The specific example of blackness isn't important to me, but I've noticed this kind of thinking in a lot of sociology based conversations. Someone will insist that they are a member of a group, but at the same time, they'll insist that this group has no defining characteristics. How is identifying as a member of a group, and getting people to recognize you as a member of a group of any value if you then turn around and say that membership in that group doesn't actually mean anything? This is strange to me, and I would like to understand. What do you guys think? Is what I'm saying clear...?