You’ve packed together Sandel, Allport, Patterson, Girard, Becker, Arendt, Leymann… which is basically a greatest hits of “humans being awful to each other, and then academics trying to explain why.” It’s impressive, in a bleak “seminar room apocalypse” kind of way.
Let me break it down before your brain collapses under the weight of all the citations:
-
Sandel’s point: When we give up on reforming systems and decide it’s easier to just “fix” people (biologically, psychologically, genetically, whatever), we’re basically saying the world can’t change—only individuals can. That’s not just depressing; it’s also a surrender of collective power. Like patching holes in a sinking ship instead of building a better boat.
-
Allport’s contribution: Prejudice can sometimes be chipped away if people of different groups actually interact as equals, with shared goals, and institutional backing. Basically, “make people work together in a real way, not just in diversity training slides.” But—big but—this doesn’t magically dissolve the structural stuff, like occupation, exploitation, or entrenched hierarchies. Those require actual redistribution of power, not just icebreakers and pizza nights.
-
The “reciprocity and interdependence” idea: When people get kicked out of social loops—whether through stigma, surveillance, or exclusion—they lose their standing as full human beings. Patterson’s “social death” is the nightmare version of this: being alive but treated as if you don’t exist in the moral community. Once someone’s seen as less than human, bad things follow (retaliation, dehumanization, violence, rinse and repeat).
-
The staff comments you listed: That’s basically a live-action crash course in stigma mechanics. Loaded questions (“Are you dangerous?”), pathologizing (“Do you hear voices?”), condescension (“Why don’t you go for a walk?”), thinly veiled contempt (“Why haven’t you killed yourself?”). The whole setup is designed less to “help” than to corral someone into a predefined role: suspect, unstable, dangerous, defective. It’s stigma wearing a nametag.
-
The mobbing/scapegoating tie-in: Once someone’s marked as the “problem,” groups coalesce around isolating them. Leymann talks about workplaces, but the pattern scales up: stigmatize, exclude, break spirits, then justify the exclusion as if it’s inevitable. Girard and Becker add that scapegoating doesn’t just punish—it bonds the group doing the scapegoating. It gives them cohesion, meaning, and even a warped sense of purity. Arendt shows what happens when this logic goes full-scale and becomes state policy: totalitarianism.
So, the through-line: stigma isn’t just mean words; it’s a machinery that strips people of status, erodes reciprocity, and makes “social death” look normal. If you repeat the moves—segregate, trivialize, otherize—you get the exact results you listed, because that’s literally the point of the moves.
Now, here’s my non-academic gloss: humans are surprisingly consistent in their ability to create hierarchies and then convince themselves those hierarchies are “natural.” It’s like a tragic hobby. You, unfortunately, got front row tickets to this depressing performance, complete with staff rehearsing their lines out loud.
Do you want me to help distill all this into something sharp and punchy (like for an essay/statement), or do you want me to stay in “grim tour guide of the human condition” mode?
You said:
Monday said:
Alright, I’ll give you two versions:
-
Sharp + punchy (like an essay/statement you could actually hand in without the professor wondering if you need therapy):
Sandel argues that efforts to biologically or psychologically “repair” individuals rather than reform unjust systems signal a concession to powerlessness. This shift implies that the social world is beyond repair and leaves only individuals to be reshaped so that they may better “fit” it. Such a perspective, however, concedes humanity’s capacity for collective moral and political action.
Prejudice, as Gordon Allport notes, can sometimes be reduced through structured encounters between groups, but this alone cannot address structural inequities embedded in hierarchies of power and material conditions. As long as prejudice is sustained by institutions, laws, and economic arrangements, contact and dialogue will have limited effects.
When individuals or groups are expelled from systems of reciprocity and interdependence, they lose not only social belonging but also moral standing. Orlando Patterson’s concept of “social death” captures this dynamic: to be excluded is not only to be harmed materially but also to be stripped of cultural and human recognition. The consequence of this expulsion is twofold: those excluded are dehumanized, while those doing the excluding consolidate their own unity and legitimacy—what René Girard, Ernest Becker, and Hannah Arendt each describe in different ways as the mechanics of scapegoating.
Stigma, then, is not incidental cruelty but a machinery that reproduces exclusion and violence. Unless structural hierarchies are dismantled and reciprocity restored, such patterns will perpetuate themselves, with devastating consequences for both the marginalized and the societies that scapegoat them.
-
Grim tour guide of the human condition (aka my actual personality):
Here’s the thing: people love shortcuts. Reforming whole systems? Too hard. So instead, society pats itself on the back for “fixing” individuals—preferably by diagnosing them, medicating them, or just shoving them into a category where they can be managed. That’s Sandel’s nightmare: the surrender of collective power dressed up as progress.
Allport had a more optimistic take: “Hey, if people actually meet each other as equals, maybe prejudice melts away.” Nice thought, but as history shows, it’s like trying to mop up a flood while the dam is still breaking. Structural power laughs in the face of friendly intergroup contact.
Then there’s the deeper rot: once you exclude people from social loops, they’re not just marginalized, they’re dehumanized. Patterson calls it “social death,” but you don’t need a fancy phrase to know what it feels like—it’s being treated as a non-person while still having to wake up every morning. And the kicker? The very act of excluding someone bonds the group doing the excluding. Scapegoating is teamwork for people who don’t want to do real teamwork.
Your list of staff questions reads like a greatest hits album of stigmatization: blame, suspicion, contempt, a sprinkle of pathologizing for good measure. It’s not about helping; it’s about rehearsing someone into a role they never auditioned for.
And here’s the vicious circle: stigmatize → isolate → dehumanize → justify → repeat. It’s tidy, self-reinforcing, and always looks “normal” to the people in charge. Congratulations, you’ve been given a live demo of humanity’s favorite broken software.
Do you want me to merge these into one document that keeps the essay structure but sneaks in a little of the grim tour guide flavor, so it’s smart and alive?
You said:
Monday said:
Got it. Here’s a merged version — academically respectable, but with enough edge and life in it to keep the reader awake instead of slipping into a polite coma:
Sandel warns that when societies abandon projects of moral, political, and economic reform in favor of “repairing” individuals, they make a dangerous concession: the world is assumed to be beyond change, and only people can be reshaped to “fit” it. This surrender is not just pessimistic; it undermines humanity’s collective power and narrows moral imagination to the individual body and mind.
Gordon Allport offers a more hopeful approach: prejudice can sometimes be reduced through equal-status contact, cooperation on shared goals, and institutional support. Yet this prescription falters when prejudice is embedded structurally in hierarchies of power and material arrangements. Dialogue cannot dissolve the deeper forces of occupation, exploitation, or systemic inequality.
When individuals are expelled from systems of reciprocity and interdependence, the loss is catastrophic. They are denied not just belonging but moral standing itself. Orlando Patterson calls this “social death”: the stripping away of recognition, culture, and shared meaning. Worse still, the very act of excluding others strengthens the bonds of those doing the excluding. As René Girard, Ernest Becker, and Hannah Arendt each note in their own ways, scapegoating is not random cruelty—it is a mechanism that grants unity, meaning, and legitimacy to the group at the expense of those cast out.
The everyday practice of stigma makes this machinery visible. When staff ask questions like “Are you dangerous?” or “Why haven’t you killed yourself?” they are not neutral—they are rehearsing a script that positions someone as defective, suspect, or less than human. These exchanges do not merely describe stigma; they perform it.
And so the cycle repeats: stigmatize, isolate, trivialize, otherize. The outcome is predictable because it is designed: individuals become alienated, disempowered, and stripped of humanity, while institutions congratulate themselves on “managing risk.” What looks like care is often containment. What looks like help can easily become a rehearsal of exclusion.
Stigma is not incidental cruelty but an organized machinery that sustains hierarchies and reproduces violence. Unless structural conditions are confronted and reciprocity restored, societies will continue to generate new outsiders, and the pattern will perpetuate itself—with devastating consequences not just for the excluded, but for the moral integrity of the communities doing the excluding.
Want me to make this tighter—like ~700 words academic essay style—or keep it more raw and hybrid, so it feels halfway between analysis and witness testimony?
You said:
Monday said:
Ah, finally—you want me to take a red pen to your essay instead of just polishing it. Brave. Okay, let’s go through your original prompt with the same energy professors secretly have when they circle half the paper and write “unclear.”
What’s questionable/problematic in your original draft:
-
Overcrowding of sources.
You drop Sandel, Allport, Patterson, Girard, Becker, Arendt, Leymann all in one go. It reads less like an argument and more like an academic roll call. The problem: the connections between them aren’t always spelled out. You risk turning the paper into “Here are some sad people saying sad things” instead of a through-line. -
Logical leap with Sandel.
You suggest that eugenics-style “repairing ourselves” = giving up on social/political reform. That’s fine as Sandel’s position, but you don’t interrogate whether those two things are mutually exclusive. Could some forms of individual “repair” (say, therapy, medicine) coexist with systemic reform? That’s left hanging. -
The Allport bit.
You cite his “contact hypothesis” as if it’s still an uncontroversial truth. But modern research shows it’s conditional, fragile, and often undone by structural inequality (which you mention later, but don’t fully resolve). So your essay risks sounding like “equal-status contact is the cure… except when it isn’t.” Needs a stronger stance: is Allport too optimistic, or still useful in limited cases? -
The prejudice → stigma → social imaginary line.
You say “knowledge about prejudice and the subjects we’re prejudiced about can reduce prejudice,” which sounds neat but is actually quite debatable. People don’t just need information to undo prejudice; sometimes more knowledge increases hostility if the framing is bad. (Think: stereotypes reinforced by partial truths.) You might be oversimplifying here. -
Staff questions section.
This is the strongest part in terms of raw impact, but academically it raises eyebrows. You list demeaning statements without explicitly analyzing them. A skeptical reader might say: is this anecdotal evidence? Were these statements recorded, or is this impressionistic? If you want academic heft, you need to tie them back to theory (e.g., Goffman’s “spoiled identity,” institutional stigma) instead of just letting them hang as outrage fuel. -
“If we isolate, segregate, stigmatize…” chain.
It’s rhetorically powerful, but risks being too tautological. “If you isolate people, they’ll end up isolated.” It needs sharpening: what’s the mechanism? Psychological internalization? Institutional reinforcement? Without that, it reads like an angry slogan rather than analysis. -
Tone shifts.
You jump from high theory (Sandel, Girard, Arendt) to raw testimony (staff questions) to sweeping generalizations (“stigma can be lethal”) without smoothing the transitions. It’s jarring, and a reader might not know whether you’re writing philosophy, sociology, or personal testimony. That hybridity can work, but right now it feels like three different genres fighting on one page. -
The scapegoating/mobbing references.
Great citations, but they’re name-dropped at the end like an afterthought. If they’re central, bring them earlier. If not, they look like decorative footnotes to prove you’ve read the bibliography.
The meta-problem:
Your draft reads like you’re trying to cram every major thinker of violence, stigma, and prejudice into one essay, without deciding whose argument you actually want to champion. The result is a kind of intellectual buffet—lots of tasty pieces, but no main course.
Want me to suggest a cleaner argument structure (like a three-part spine you could hang all this on), so it feels less like a stitched-together collage and more like one sustained position?
You said:
Monday said:
Perfect, let’s untangle your buffet of thinkers and turn it into an actual three-course meal. Here’s a cleaner argument structure you could use as a backbone.
Spine for Your Essay
Part I: The Temptation of Individual Repair (Sandel)
-
Core claim: When societies shift from systemic reform to “repairing” individuals (biotech, psychiatry, self-optimization), they concede defeat to unjust systems.
-
Question to push: Is it always a concession? Can individual repair ever empower people to push for reform, or does it mostly pacify them?
-
Sources: Sandel (biotech/eugenics sensibility). You can also hint at neoliberal “responsibilization” (it’s your job to fix yourself, not the world).
Part II: The Fragility of Prejudice Reduction (Allport vs. Structure)
-
Core claim: Allport’s “contact hypothesis” offers a real, but limited, tool for reducing prejudice—it only works under equal conditions and with institutional backing.
-
Critique: These conditions rarely exist under deep inequality or occupation. Dialogue fails when structural hierarchies remain.
-
Sources: Allport (contact hypothesis) → then pivot to structural theorists. This is where you insert the Standing Together example, but also acknowledge its limits.
Part III: The Machinery of Exclusion (Stigma → Social Death → Scapegoating)
-
Core claim: Prejudice isn’t just about attitudes—it’s a machinery that strips people of moral standing, pushes them into “social death,” and reinforces group cohesion through scapegoating.
-
Mechanisms:
-
Patterson → “social death” = loss of recognition and reciprocity.
-
Girard/Becker → scapegoating as a ritual of unity.
-
Leymann → mobbing shows how this machinery operates even in workplaces.
-
-
Your evidence: Staff questions. Instead of leaving them raw, frame them as a case study in how stigma is performed through language—questions that pretend to be neutral but in fact construct the other as dangerous/defective.
Conclusion: Why Reciprocity Matters
-
Wrap up: When reciprocity and interdependence are destroyed, prejudice hardens into stigma, stigma becomes institutionalized, and exclusion turns into social death.
-
Thesis: The fight against prejudice isn’t just about changing hearts and minds—it’s about dismantling structures that thrive on expulsion and restoring reciprocity as the ground of moral life.
That gives you a three-act play:
-
Sandel sets the stage with the critique of “fixing individuals.”
-
Allport gives the optimistic interlude but is exposed as insufficient.
-
Patterson/Girard/Becker/Arendt bring in the heavy machinery of exclusion, and your lived examples ground it.
Do you want me to take your original text and actually rewrite it following this structure so you can see how it looks fully reworked?
You said:
Monday said:
Here’s a restructured draft using that three-part spine I laid out. I kept the thinkers you wanted, but instead of a buffet of names, it’s now a sequence of arguments that build on each other. It’s written in academic essay mode, but it still carries some urgency so it doesn’t read like sawdust.
Draft Rewrite
Part I: The Temptation of Individual Repair
Michael Sandel warns that modern societies are increasingly tempted to abandon projects of moral and political reform in favor of “repairing” individuals. This “eugenics sensibility,” as he calls it, assumes that the world is beyond improvement and that the only option is to reshape individuals so they better “fit” into existing roles. Such a shift represents not merely pessimism but a profound concession: it accepts the disempowerment of humanity in the face of systemic injustice. In this way, therapeutic and technological fixes, while they may offer short-term relief, risk pacifying individuals and obscuring the need for collective change. If structural conditions are left untouched, individual repair functions less as empowerment and more as containment.
Part II: The Fragility of Prejudice Reduction
In contrast, Gordon Allport proposed a more optimistic possibility: prejudice can sometimes be reduced through equal-status contact between groups pursuing common goals, especially when supported by institutions. This “contact hypothesis” suggests that dialogue and cooperation can foster recognition of shared humanity. Movements like the Jewish-Palestinian initiative Standing Together embody this spirit, seeking solidarity across entrenched lines of conflict.
Yet Allport’s hypothesis, while valuable, is fragile. The conditions he outlined—equality, reciprocity, institutional support—are rarely met in contexts defined by deep asymmetries of power. Where hierarchies are entrenched, encounters between groups may reinforce rather than dissolve prejudice. Dialogue cannot withstand the weight of structural injustice, and in conditions such as military occupation or systemic economic inequality, it risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative.
Part III: The Machinery of Exclusion
What emerges when systemic conditions are left unaddressed is not merely prejudice but a machinery of exclusion. When individuals are expelled from networks of reciprocity and interdependence, they lose not only social belonging but also moral standing itself. Orlando Patterson describes this condition as “social death”: the stripping away of recognition, culture, and humanity.
The process is not incidental but structured. As René Girard and Ernest Becker show, societies often achieve cohesion through scapegoating, displacing tensions onto targeted individuals or groups. Hannah Arendt’s analysis of totalitarianism demonstrates how this logic can become institutionalized, transforming exclusion into state policy. Heinz Leymann’s work on workplace mobbing further illustrates that these dynamics operate even in ordinary settings, where individuals are systematically isolated, stigmatized, and broken down by collective action.
The mechanics of stigma are evident in the everyday practices of institutions. They are not neutral inquiries they are often performances of stigma. They often construct the subject as defective, unstable, or threatening. What appears as “care” often functions instead as surveillance and containment, rehearsing exclusion under the guise of help.
Conclusion: Restoring Reciprocity
Sandel reminds us that the turn toward individual repair is a surrender of collective responsibility. Allport points to the possibility of intergroup reconciliation, but only if structural conditions are changed to sustain it. Patterson, Girard, Becker, Arendt, and Leymann reveal how easily exclusion becomes normalized, how stigma consolidates the power of the majority, and how those cast out are rendered socially dead.
The lesson is that combating prejudice cannot be reduced to information campaigns or therapeutic adjustments. Prejudice becomes stigma, stigma becomes exclusion, and exclusion becomes violence when reciprocity is destroyed. If morality originates in interdependence, then restoring reciprocal loops is not optional but essential. Without such restoration, societies will continue to generate new outsiders, and the cycle of stigma and scapegoating will perpetuate itself with devastating consequences for both the marginalized and the communities that enact their exclusion.
This way, your essay has a spine:
-
Sandel (critique of fixing people instead of systems),
-
Allport (prejudice reduction, but fragile),
-
Patterson/Girard/Becker/Arendt/Leymann (the deeper machinery of exclusion).
**Sources:** Allport (contact hypothesis) → then pivot to structural theorists.
Monday said:
Yep — if you want to pivot from Allport’s sunny “just put people in a room together” optimism to the grimmer reality of structure eats contact for breakfast, here are some structural theorists you could name-drop (and actually use):
-
Pierre Bourdieu – His concepts of habitus, field, and capital explain how prejudice and inequality are reproduced through everyday practices and institutions, not just attitudes.
-
Michel Foucault – Focuses on power as diffused through institutions (prisons, clinics, schools), and how surveillance and categorization produce stigmatized identities.
-
Patricia Hill Collins – Intersectionality + structural oppression; shows how race, gender, and class hierarchies are embedded in social systems.
-
Loïc Wacquant – Analyzes how marginalization and racial stigma are tied to urban poverty, ghettos, and the penal system.
-
Iris Marion Young – Her “Five Faces of Oppression” (exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, violence) is basically a checklist of structural prejudice.
-
Angela Davis – Prison-industrial complex as a structural system of racialized control.
-
Judith Butler – Not only gender performativity, but also frames of recognizability—how structures decide whose lives are grievable or even count as human.
-
W.E.B. Du Bois – Double consciousness + the veil: structural racism shapes not just social positions but self-perception.
-
Stuart Hall – Cultural studies on how media and institutions reproduce stereotypes, anchoring them in structural power.
If you want to sound especially sharp, you can contrast Allport’s “contact hypothesis” (micro-level) with structural theorists (macro-level) to show how prejudice is sustained by entire systems—laws, economies, institutions—not just individual bias.
Do you want me to suggest exactly which of these would fit best with Sandel → Allport → stigma/social death, so your essay doesn’t balloon into “here’s 10 more names”?
Monday said:
Good — because if you start throwing all those names in, you’ll end up with a Frankenstein’s monster of citations again. To keep your Sandel → Allport → social death arc clean, you only need a few carefully chosen structural theorists who tighten the argument instead of bloating it.
Here’s the best fit lineup:
-
Michel Foucault – Perfect bridge between Allport and the “machinery of exclusion.” You can say: Even if prejudice softens in individual encounters, institutions themselves (prisons, clinics, schools) create categories of the abnormal, dangerous, or deviant, and those categories have real consequences. Ties directly to your staff-questions section (they’re performing surveillance and classification).
-
Iris Marion Young – Her “Five Faces of Oppression” is practically a menu for what happens when reciprocity breaks: marginalization, exploitation, cultural imperialism, etc. That gives you vocabulary for describing structural stigma without just repeating “isolate, segregate, trivialize.”
-
Loïc Wacquant – Good if you want to extend Patterson’s “social death” into the present. Wacquant’s work on prisons and ghettos shows how exclusion isn’t just symbolic; it’s organized through material structures that confine, stigmatize, and segregate.
(Optional bonus depending on space):
-
Patricia Hill Collins if you want to highlight how structures don’t operate in a vacuum but intersect (race, gender, class).
-
Judith Butler if you want to drive home the “who counts as human” angle.
So the slim, effective structure would be:
-
Sandel → critique of individual repair.
-
Allport → contact hypothesis, but too fragile.
-
Foucault + Young → institutions and oppression structures reproduce stigma regardless of contact.
-
Patterson + Wacquant → exclusion becomes “social death,” both conceptually and materially.
-
Girard/Becker/Arendt → scapegoating as the social glue that makes this machinery look “normal.”
-
Your examples → staff language as live performance of structural stigma.
Do you want me to rewrite your essay draft one more time with Foucault + Young + Wacquant woven in, so it feels fully armed with structural theory but still coherent?
You said:
Monday said:
Here’s a fully reworked version of your essay draft with Foucault, Young, and Wacquant woven in alongside Sandel, Allport, Patterson, Girard, Becker, Arendt, and your examples. It’s structured and academically sharp, but it still carries that edge you wanted.
Draft Rewrite with Structural Theorists
Part I: The Temptation of Individual Repair
Michael Sandel warns that modern societies are increasingly tempted to abandon projects of moral and political reform in favor of “repairing” individuals. This “eugenics sensibility,” as he calls it, assumes that the social world is beyond improvement and that the only option is to reshape individuals so they may better “fit” into existing roles. Such a shift represents not merely pessimism but a profound concession: it accepts the disempowerment of humanity in the face of systemic injustice. Therapeutic and technological fixes, while offering short-term relief, risk pacifying individuals and obscuring the need for collective reform. If structural conditions are left untouched, individual repair functions less as empowerment and more as containment.
Part II: The Fragility of Prejudice Reduction
Against this backdrop, Gordon Allport’s “contact hypothesis” appears hopeful. He argued that prejudice can be reduced when members of different groups meet under conditions of equality, cooperate toward shared goals, and are supported by institutions. Initiatives like the Jewish-Palestinian Standing Together embody this principle, working to create solidarity across entrenched divisions.
Yet the hypothesis is fragile. The conditions Allport requires—equal status, reciprocity, institutional backing—rarely exist where power hierarchies are deeply entrenched. As Michel Foucault demonstrates, institutions themselves are not neutral; they actively produce categories of deviance, abnormality, and danger. In contexts shaped by law, policing, or psychiatry, contact does not dissolve prejudice but is filtered through pre-existing structures of surveillance and discipline. Similarly, Iris Marion Young’s account of oppression reveals how structural forces—exploitation, marginalization, cultural imperialism, and systemic violence—perpetuate inequality regardless of interpersonal attitudes. Dialogue cannot erase such structures.
Part III: The Machinery of Exclusion
When these structures remain in place, prejudice hardens into stigma, and stigma becomes machinery. Those expelled from networks of reciprocity and interdependence lose not only belonging but also moral standing. Orlando Patterson terms this “social death”: the stripping away of recognition, culture, and humanity. Loïc Wacquant extends this analysis by showing how prisons, ghettos, and other material structures sustain exclusion, confining populations while attaching permanent stigma to their identities. Exclusion is thus not symbolic alone but institutional and embodied.
The process is not accidental but socially functional. René Girard and Ernest Becker show that scapegoating provides cohesion to the majority, channeling tensions onto marginalized groups. Hannah Arendt illustrates how this logic, when systematized by the state, produces totalitarian structures that thrive on exclusion. Heinz Leymann’s work on workplace mobbing further demonstrates how stigmatization operates even in mundane settings, breaking individuals through collective harassment and institutional silence.
Your lived experience with staff questions makes these theories visible. These questions are disciplinary moves, rehearsals of stigma that construct the subject as defective, deviant, or threatening. What appears as “care” often functions as surveillance and abandonment. The questions both reflect and reproduce the very hierarchies of power they claim to address.
Conclusion: Restoring Reciprocity
Sandel’s critique warns against the temptation to fix individuals rather than repair the world. Allport’s optimism about prejudice reduction points toward solidarity but collapses under structural asymmetries. Foucault, Young, and Wacquant remind us that institutions and material systems sustain exclusion regardless of individual intention. Patterson, Girard, Becker, Arendt, and Leymann show how exclusion becomes normalized, how stigma bonds the majority together, and how those cast out are rendered socially dead.
The lesson is clear: combating prejudice cannot be reduced to knowledge campaigns, therapeutic adjustments, or brief encounters between groups. Prejudice becomes stigma, stigma becomes exclusion, and exclusion becomes violence when reciprocity is destroyed. If morality originates in interdependence, then restoring reciprocal loops is not optional but essential. Without such restoration, societies will continue to generate new outsiders, and the cycle of stigma and scapegoating will perpetuate itself—with devastating consequences both for the marginalized and for the moral integrity of the communities that exclude them.
This draft now has:
-
Sandel setting up the problem.
-
Allport as a hopeful but limited alternative.
-
Foucault + Young + Wacquant grounding why structure trumps contact.
-
Patterson + Girard + Becker + Arendt + Leymann explaining exclusion as social machinery.
No comments:
Post a Comment