The problem with starting a critique at the bottom is that it seems revolutionary. Although everyone seems to understand the importance of the bottom in a democratic structure, most theorists don't like to start a critique at the bottom. Instead they begin at the top with worn out abstractions and definitions.  When someone attempts to begin at the bottom and purports to include every individual in the social it seems revolutionary. Why? Simply because of the possibility that every individual at the bottom will be included in some real manner and not just abstractly. That possibility should not be offensive to democratic principles. If our critique begins abstractly we get locked in to abstractions. Consequently, if we can somehow begin concretely, we just might be able to include everyone in our formulations.