Some of my difficulty to understand is probably derived from me not being deep into philosophical study, I might simply not understand the terms being used:
These new institutions of the second modernity produced capacities to contradict the meanings defined by those institutions of the first modernity, illustrating the constructed character and thus the instability of knowledge and meaning.
I kind of get what is being said here, but without an example I find it difficult to picture what is being said. How did individualism and globalisation contradict the meanings of science, economics and democracy? What is a constructed character?
but both also have a bias that undermines their reflexive capacity; enabling environments favours problematised identities while harm reduction favours existing power structures that produce problematisations.
When you say power structures, do you mean the sociocultural identity on the non-disadvantaged side of the problematisation conflict?
the internet makes challenge of the logics associated with modernity increasingly possible.
The wording seems a bit strange, I think what you are saying is the internet enables reflexive policy based interactions/systems because it does not have a centralized authoritative control.
The contexts associated with problematised identities, such as the identities associated with
This sentence kind of twists on itself, the words identities and associated are swapped around in the first and last parts of the sentence - confusing me. I think you are meaning "examples of problematised identities:..". Also thinking homelessness is not an identity, but the homeless (or people experiencing homelessness) are?
While I have focused specifically on a drug using community, this research showed
the capacity of community participants to subvert and challenge traditional discursive meanings that
I think I understand what you are saying, that this identity (drug users) that is disadvantaged by another group (not sure who - but probably the rest of society) were able to find solutions to the narrative that they are bad people that should be targeted/disadvantaged? It takes a bit of time for me to re-read the sentences to sort of get to this conclusion whereas an example could help visualize it quicker.
This has led me to suggest that perhaps the experience of problematisation increases the capacity to understand meaning as flexible, that is, perhaps the experience of problematisation increases comprehension of reflexivity, by encouraging the provision of sensitivity.
Are you saying that those who are in disadvantaged identities grow more open to the idea that solutions between identities are possible, that conflict resolution is possible by testing solutions (perhaps meaning more empathic)? Or when you say "experience of problematisation" are you meaning when you introduced the ideas of problematisation/reflexivity to those disadvantaged identities, they became more aware solutions were possible?
To societies and cultures invested in modernity, and other identities interested in maintaining the
status quo, reflexive policies may appear as conflict.
It seems to me you are describing everyone, you either have those invested in modernity, or those invested in the status quo? If I misunderstand this maybe you need to clarify what each of these are, you write about two stages of modernity above, which spawns cosmopolitanism which is reflexive, and rejects the existing status quo/authoritarianism?
It seems to me reflexive policy is kind of like responsive policy (responding to what is happening), with the understanding that the response (or even support of the suggested response) can affect the problem and needs to be assessed. Any effective form of responsive policy making would require an effective decision analysis cycle, bias is applied by whoever is analysing and making the decisions, under IBDD that would be the population according to how much each person cares about each issue.