I will begin by exploring the question of “Who gets what and why?” in order to outline specific “ontological myopias” that mars the study of inequality as Abbott seems to see it. I will then turn to classical and contemporary social theorists to examine each of these ontological myopias and develop a set of “methodological precautions” to consider when undertaking research on the nature of inequality. In particular, I will argue that meaningful alternatives to conceptualizing inequality can be developed by way of Karl Marx, W.E.B. Du Bois, Nancy Fraser, and Patricia Hill Collins and the rich traditions of social thought they bring to bear. Each of these theorists respectively highlight a particular feature of inequality that is, at worst, simply not recognized in the kind of thinking on inequality Abbott seems to take to task. Drawing on these theorists collectively can, at best, allow for a more reflexive approach to the question of “Who gets what and why,” one that offers a more expansive sense of the “who,” “what,” and “why.” Ontological Myopias …show more content…
He further elaborates that “they asymmetrically ‘mark’ certain aspects of social life while shielding others from sociological scrutiny” (Rodríguez-Muñiz 2015, 95). In the case of the sociological study of inequality, we must first question who is included or excluded from sociological scrutiny, what goods, conditions, or phenomena are deemed worthy of inquiry and not, and by whom these determinations are made. It is also important to consider implicit or explicit views of what equality looks like in order to fully theorize and conceptualize