Talk:Recuperation (politics)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Untitled edit
I have contacted an administrator about it, but if anyone notices, the sociology categorization is wrong, copied the page to Recuperation_(politics) (also not perfect but much more accurate), but do not know how to do it properly. No discussion on the discussion page, can't imagine it is a big problem.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
French edit
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9cup%C3%A9ration_politique. --Japarthur (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Move the The New Jim Crow? edit
I believe the statement currently in the "Examples" section:
"Social justice advocates have identified the popular discourse of The New Jim Crow as recuperative, saying that it obscures an analysis of mass-incarceration in the United States by adhering to a counterrevolutionary contextual framework."
is far too broad language for the example since there is tremendous counter-evidence that social justice advocates in fact see The New Jim Crow as a clear-eyed and liberatory analysis.[1][2][3] But even if it was the general attitude that New Jim Crow is counter-revolutionary it is not relevant to this article in a straightforward way. That may be why it was removed before by an anonymous user - although reversed because the removal wasn't explained.
I'm convinced that this example would best serve readers in the "Reception" section of the New Jim Crow article itself.
I think it's important for us to expand on examples of liberal analysis neutralizing more radical movements, but I don't think this is a relevant or substantiated example of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycoolsighman (talk • contribs) 06:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jul/23/new-jim-crow-mass-incarceration-in-age-colourblindness-michelle-alexander-review
- ^ https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/ten-years-after-the-new-jim-crow
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html
verb overload edit
"are twisted, co-opted, absorbed, defused, incorporated, annexed or commodified within media culture and bourgeois society,"
there's so many verbs in that clause that the meaning is diffused into nothingness. typical of sociologist academese 217.38.175.57 (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Citation Appears Incorrect edit
The article makes the following statement: "The concept of recuperation was formulated by members of the Situationist International, its first published instance in 1960." There's a link to the article, "Preliminaries Toward Defining a Unitary Revolutionary Program." However, I can't find a reference to the term "recuperation" anywhere in that article. There isn't even a clear reference to the concept.
Unfortunately I don't know where the term "recuperation" originated. If anyone can clarify, it would be great for this article. Otherwise, it seems like the link and citation should be removed, as it's inaccurate. Catmom500 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)