A point of consideration in this paper is the different ways the term system is defined and applied to social phenomena. Another implicit suggestion is that over time, these ways of considering the notion of the system may or may not be relevant as social phenomena continue to change. All this begs the question if these earlier scholars – who still shared an academic desire to understand social phenomena – could not agree with their definitions, what chance do lay people have in producing meaningful engagement around concepts that we understand so differently based on our history, social location, and perspective? I have grappled with this question throughout my program as peers and I went head-to-head on topics we did not see eye-to-eye on, only to realize the way we were defining concepts was disparate. I have dealt with this interpersonally, trying to translate my academic jargon to folks citing lived experience and socially acquired understanding – no one stance better than the other, just distinct in their definition of language. I have had moments of frustration and somewhat bitter relief when a 30-minute discussion revealed myself and another person were saying the same thing but passionately contending because we were using language differently. 

 

In my experience, the most basic definition of feminism is equality. I came into an uncomfortable dialogue with a person who was firm that women and men are not equal. We went back and forth about what this person believed was only achievable by men or only by women. There was nothing, even when a field or behaviour was more prominent in one gender, there was always a citable exception – nullifying the notion that one gender could not do something that the other could. After a long, passionate conversation, laced with rabbit holes and circle backs – I was able to say equal does not mean the same. This clarity, though in my mind straightforward, led the conversation to a much more empowering place about gender differences. The conversation pivoted to meaningful dialogue about the medical system, health needs, and differences in social support among other topics. This relationship has been the source of repeated realization about how differently people define the same concepts. In this situation, it often, meant we agreed but couldn’t arrive at that conclusion unless diving deeply into the topic. Other times it meant we were missing each other's perspective entirely because of the way we understood a concept and therefore our world was completely different. 

 

What Artifact Two and my social experiences have taught me is that each way of understanding has its contributions and limitations. In the end, it’s almost always worth it to sit down and unpack where the differences and similarities are, how different perspectives bridge the gaps in our overall understanding of the world and where issues come up against each other and cause – sometimes massive – friction. In a world so divided based on social and political beliefs, I can’t say that my heart and intellect have space for every stance there is. However, because of the MAIS program and assignments like Artifact Two, comparing and considering the valences of perspectives is a practiced tendency. Like the benefits of group discussions in developing a tolerance for ambiguity, the absence of one right answer and the ability to unpack this repeatedly in a safe academic environment has caused me to surrender the notion of a singular objective truth and lean into the idea that messiness is a source to pull new idea and order from. And that we have more to gain from weighing pros and cons than we do from discarding ideas that do not comfortably fit. Still can’t say the same for high heels though.