Considering that anyone can provide an unpredictable insight, and you can’t invite everyone to the debate, so you need to use some heuristic to get maximum insight per number of people invited… the social justice heuristic (focusing on gender, race, sexual orientation) is actually quite good.
It can be further improved by also considering social class and religion/politics.
I hadn’t considered that angle. Still, that heuristic assumes
a) that the field is one where those differences are salient (I maintain mathematics at least is exempt) and
b) that the people you’re inviting have sufficient background to make meaningful contributions, contra the orthodox intersectional considerations you mentioned before.
I’m tempted say that this heuristic (diversity of identity) is strictly less effective than diversity of thought/ideology, but that seems to be what Scott runs against. It would indicate that there are insights not available just through ideology but through (to use an abused phrase) lived experience.
As to how these cross over and whether they’re intersectional, that’s another can of worms I’m not going to open.
Considering that anyone can provide an unpredictable insight, and you can’t invite everyone to the debate, so you need to use some heuristic to get maximum insight per number of people invited… the social justice heuristic (focusing on gender, race, sexual orientation) is actually quite good.
It can be further improved by also considering social class and religion/politics.
I hadn’t considered that angle. Still, that heuristic assumes
a) that the field is one where those differences are salient (I maintain mathematics at least is exempt) and
b) that the people you’re inviting have sufficient background to make meaningful contributions, contra the orthodox intersectional considerations you mentioned before.
I’m tempted say that this heuristic (diversity of identity) is strictly less effective than diversity of thought/ideology, but that seems to be what Scott runs against. It would indicate that there are insights not available just through ideology but through (to use an abused phrase) lived experience.
As to how these cross over and whether they’re intersectional, that’s another can of worms I’m not going to open.