Originally Posted by applejuice
siobhang, you know that wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information, don't you, with your Master's Degree in Anthropology. Your professors would not have accepted that reference as valid for your thesis.
heh, interesting point. esp as that particular wikipedia article doesn't contain references.
however, since I am:
*not writing a master's thesis, I am posting on an internet board; and
* trying to establish a popularly understood definition of exploitation;
I think Wikipedia is not irrelevant - it being a popularly accepted source for every day usage. In fact, for the purposes of discovering "commonly held definitions by the general public", which is, of course, at the heart of Anthropology, Wikipedia is a wonderful source.
But if you want something more, um, academically meaty (to what end, I am not sure - are you questioning the definition of exploitation offered by Wikipedia? Or are you just nitpicking one citation and ignoring the rest of the argument - not a bad, albeit overused, rhetorical device, but I digress).
|American Heritage Dictionary
1. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.
2. Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.
3. An advertising or a publicity program.
Or how about from Merriam Webster
|Main Entry: 2ex·ploit
Pronunciation: ik-'sploit, 'ek-"
Function: transitive verb
1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness>
2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>
- ex·ploit·abil·i·ty /ik-"sploi-t&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- ex·ploit·able /-'sploi-t&-b&l/ adjective
- ex·ploit·er noun
Of course, to really understand the two definitions, one has to define "meanly or unfairly" or "selfish purposes" - or at least state how the action one dubs as "exploitation" meets those criteria.
And since the word exploitation can also mean "to use" (which is not inherently harmful), the onus is on the describer to show that the exploitation is in some way harmful to someone somewhere.
Otherwise, what exactly are we arguing about?