Social diffusion, entropy, intimacy -- random thoughts

There is a need for differentiation if class struggle is a basic characteristic of history. We should consider how difficult it is to maintain such differentiation, given the basic entropic thing of the universe.

We should separately analyze biological differentiation (age, gender, IQ), contrasted with differentiation based on socially constructed shallow properties (race, accent), contrasted with socially constructed deep properties (education, protein at a young age).

What properties of a behavior and a context encourage that behavior to transpose, and what discourages such transposition? How does a person pre-consciously see a behavior as adopt-able?

Diffusion is a function of intimacy rather than proximity - this is a fatal flaw in much analysis, as pointed out in last weeks bacpop - even though intimacy is largely a function of spatial structure (simple proximity is, perhaps, a misrecognition device). This is why, in a way, ethnography is so radical: bodies are put into contact. But mere contact is not enough (Aronson and Musharaf) - cooperating toward outcomes is the best (yes, Dasein is its future). Also, cultural diffusion depends to a large degree on the background practices (Heidegger and Wittgenstein and Bourdieu and Panofsky), rather than on any statements that can explicitly formulated.

The opportunities for intimacy in a neighborhood are radically different than 100 years ago; thus the stake in neighborhood segregation are much less. The importance of race to class is also much less; again less stake in race, though class is as important as ever.

BACPOP guy: we assume hierarchies of spaces. Whatever that means.