Well, yes of course, the marginalized should have more power.
But then if you think about it, there are the marginalized, and then there are the marginalized. Even economists in the midst of the 2008 Global Finance Crisis complained, “But no one ever listens to us. . .”
No, the marginalized being identified are that subset of subaltern, the poor, the intersectional, in a word, the peripheralized. But even so, why then aren’t we also talking about, say, the scholars, poets, artists? Scholars are routinely described as marginal and poor and, accordingly, there’s the intersectional permutations to give voice to, like subaltern scholars or scholarly subalterns. Just because–precisely because?–their accomplishments aren’t recorded, they too must have existed given the billions of people who preceded and now surround us.
The marginalized are, in other words, very heterogeneous, so it isn’t like consensus with respect to policy and management can be expected. That would be a banal observation, if it weren’t for the immediate implications drawn are said to be political: Dissensus calls for democracy or republics or authoritarian regimes, or some such. Why ever the first implication of highly differentiated marginals is political is not clear to me, however. I could just as well say that the historical variety of novels, plays and other fictions are a much clearer expression of that material heterogeneity, leaving the follow-on political implications for others to draw.
Nor could you say the expression, “to give voice to,” is political through and through. To my mind, the heterogeneity we are talking about is because human agency is first ontological (think initially of “cognitive biases” with respect to thinking counterfactually) and then over-time political-social-economic-historical-scientific-technological-cultural-and hyphenated further and contingently for the inevitable improvisations along the way. Yes, all islands are unique, even if (but still) they connect under water.
WHEN COMPLEX IS AS SIMPLE AS IT GETS 