Hello!

[[I originally intended this post for the feminist subreddit, but I wanted to ask here as well, just explaining why it is feminist-focused]]

So something that I have noticed with feminism alongside other ideologies which may fall under critical theory etc., is that the patriarchy and other systems of power seem to act / be considered as the fundamental constituents of social reality \[in order to be more concise and precise I will be referring primarily to the patriarchy from now on, but I do recognize the intersectionality nuance\].

I feel like critical theory/feminism many times is more about criticizing than understanding society. I was watching an interview of a critical theorist which said that “critical theory is not about understanding why like the rest of philosophy, it is about revealing how people are oppressed and has the aim of emancipation”. \[\[https://youtu.be/o5Zap4hTZNw —- it is around 23:00 if someone is interested\]\]. She talks about how revealing how people are oppressed / systems of power are the link that ties it all together and I think this in a way explains my question.

Analysis seems to position the patriarchy as the root of all \[gender in this case\] injustice. I many times here the argument that “the patriarchy (etc.) is the root of all evil” and I see very little discussion if any when it comes to things like collectivism vs individualism, an extent of inevitable human ignorance and egoism, imperfect knowledge etc. I know that such analyses have some times been used I just don’t see it that much especially in contemporary discourse. Or they are often “absorbed” by an interpretation of them as being used maliciously for the purpose of harm (rather thana mix of the two).

Edit: for example, when you personally start ti try and understand society, how do you start your inquiry? What types of questions do you ask yourself? Where in history do you look?

Also any resources, thinkers, articles etc. are well appreciated!

In his book Vita Contemplativa, Byung-Chul Han views the ability of contemplation as lacking in the our new digital age.

Han constracts the life of in-activity with the life of activity. The digital age is an age of non-stop activity.

Contemplative inactivity, " is alien to the machine. It knows only two states: on and off. Simply deactivating the machine does not bring about a contemplative state."

What distinguishes contemplater from a guardian or observer who always pursues a particular goal. Is that the contemplater, by contrast, lacks all intention, has no goal in sight.

Han’s thesis is not about going back to premodern in-activity, but to not let our glorification of activity takes from us the value of inactivity.

Conetmplation is non-instrumental human experience. Justice and Beauty are not goal oriented, but valuable in themselves.

This reminds of Benjamin's Aura. Which Politics takes its place. Spiritual stability substituted by political recognition.

But what replaces the faculty of contemplation ? What we do when we are inactive ?

Any recommended readings that explore such a question ?