A “nang” is a particular locus or kernel upon which an ongoing social issue (typically one determinant of ‘isms’) tends to be focused around. Examples of “nang” subjects include “females in all-male pro sports” and “equal pay for females in corporate America”. Typical responses to “nang” subjects which are often incorrectly assessed include “affirmative action” responses which seem conceivably to react only to a singular focus or particular component of an overall social issue.
Rather obviously, direct affirmative action without thorough consideration is potentially compromising to social structure overall, as having females compete in all male pro sports can be physically dangerous and issues such as pregnancy off-time relative to corporate position and many other specific factors weigh in. The purpose of this writing is to illustrate how “Social Inclusion Policy” can include thoughtful and insightful “triangulations” of dense kernels of social issues in order to approximate a core of understanding by which the essence of the social issue (the “nang”) is inherently ascertainable and thus can become unraveled.
A “nang” will tend to exist embedded within a particular social construct (such as “work”, “public”, “pro-sports”, “art” or some other focus-specific element of social milieu. The particular “nang” in question will also tend to reference specific forms of unresolved social inequality in such a way as to (harmfully) restrict a certain type of individual from engagement or otherwise detriment or demerit a particular type of human individuality within said capacity or construct of social milieu.
Finding a particular locus of specificity which is a base component or axis around which that particular ‘ism’ oriented appearance is generated upon, then searching deeper to contextualize a meritable resolution (rather than a direct affirmative action reaction) is the appropriate key to social resolution (of “nangs”) without over-exerting a non-resolving effort or otherwise over-complexifying an original problem (if any) as it currently stands )with said issue). Furthermore, ‘unlocking’ that “nang” with understanding and more sufficient equality based resolutions all-around will tend to provide not only meaningful insight into human individuality but also furthering insightful understanding and thus socially productive resolutions to other (more complicated) “nangs”.
Although a “nang” level solution provides much better fine resolution, it requires at least (typically) 3 -4 different categorical angles of analysis in the overall issue and many (if not all) of those angles have to be analyzed at several different levels. A schema will soon be available for sorting out nang-type sociological issues.
Alternative solutions to nang theory have included “affirmative action” and more recently “DEI”. Affirmative action can be a simple solution to very simple nangs, however, will primarily tend to ignore the actual root of the problem itself and over-apply a conceived solution based on reactivity to social pressure. This type of reaction response application can often not only fail to resolve the root of the issue and thus the appearance of that issue overall but also back-fire from its unwieldy application, allowing (if not creating) greater social issues overall and leading unreservedly down a path of very ‘ismy’ outcome (slang depicting sexism, racism, ageism, etc…).