Sorry I was more referring to "personifying" the roles is fraught. Like, the master and the slave aren't people. Some insights may be made by putting yourself in one or the other role and switching between them, but I don't think we can really understand how these theories are internally consistent parts of a larger analytical framework by making them less abstract. It also might open the door to some personal bias sneaking into the method, as I draw conclusions based on "my experience as master and/or slave". We can't remove our selves from our thinking, but we can use caution. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree
Sorry I was more referring to "personifying" the roles is fraught. Like, the master and the slave aren't people. Some insights may be made by putting yourself in one or the other role and switching between them, but I don't think we can really understand how these theories are internally consistent parts of a larger analytical framework by making them less abstract. It also might open the door to some personal bias sneaking into the method, as I draw conclusions based on "my experience as master and/or slave". We can't remove our selves from our thinking, but we can use caution. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree
No I see your point, I agree that personifying it into individuals is problematic theoretically and practically.