[Xmca-l] Re: structure and agency
Annalisa Aguilar
annalisa@unm.edu
Wed Jul 1 10:58:40 PDT 2020
Hello Huw and Andy and Mike and even S'ma and Martin, as well as venerable others,
I understand Huw's argument about leaving the remediation of black lives in the hands of government reform being misplaced, meaning the sentiment.
However, there is in effect laws already that (are supposed to) protect the lives of our citizenry. We don't need new laws, but follow through.
As such, the true problem is enforcement of those laws. If the government is the creator of laws and the enforcer of the laws and the government isn't doing that, and in reality agents of the government, i.e., police officers, and district attorney offices (who do not press charges), are looking the other way for reasons that quack like a duck, must mean its a duck!
Then the question is how to get the government to do its job?
I think defunding the police is a good route to take as a first step. Why is it possible to lay off laborers who might not be considered "effective workers" in a company, but not seek justice for bad cops?
Remember that the government is representative of the people, for the people, by the people. We are not subjects, at least... not yet.
I agree that malignancy, as you put it, is replicable. The process likely resembles the passing down of "genetic" pathologies biological and psychological in families and other social entities.
Sunlight seems to be the best antidote.
Isn't that what a court trial is intended to do? Or other legislative process?
I'm not sure how the "remediation of black lives" could ever happen, if not through the government, but only if the people demand it as the citizenry. It should not come to protests, this should have been addressed long ago.
Additionally, this conflict is also propelled by different ideologies of what a federal government is obliged to act upon. This manifests as a conflict between state's rights verses federal mandate, which is what the American Civil War was all about.
I think it is misleading to pose the entire BLM movement as a cry for governmental reform.
I think it has to do with living up to the laws that already exist.
Murder is a crime and has been for quite a while.
Why are police officers getting away with murder is the real question here.
Kind regards,
Annalisa
________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 2:44 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: structure and agency
[EXTERNAL]
One could say that dialectics is only a partial account of the logic of mediation. Perhaps structuralism, to the degree that it differs, has some contribution or exercises some aspect of this. A robust study of institutions should include both a means of studying institutional malignancy and also their scope of operations. It is important to heed the prerogative of the institution for self-maintenance. When this self-maintenance is not predicated upon legitimate service then malignancy ensues. Hence the idealist hope for remediating 'black lives' placed in governmental reform seems misplaced.
Huw
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 05:47, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org<mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
"Contradiction" is only a coherent concept insofar as there is a "logic", i.e., some institution. The general idea is that all logics contain such contradictions. Institutions "try" to eliminate contradictions and instantiate a "logic," but it turns out to be a losing battle.
Nonetheless, an institution can live forever without changing despite harbouring contradictions. The structure has to be subject to critique; the contradictions have to be exposed and pursued. Movement and change is not automatic.
But yes, you are right, life, let alone social life, is impossible without "institutions." We continue building that aeroplane as it flies through the sky. Without institutions, norms, shared meanings, collaborative activities, trust we will all die.
Andy
________________________________
Andy Blunden
Hegel for Social Movements<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!Vbo2U2NxoEFafJtBUR40AtvkBVYT1KAKn_9LlHZa_fRicMs7nWhBIVZhw2mOPL4Daq3h8g$>
Home Page<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!Vbo2U2NxoEFafJtBUR40AtvkBVYT1KAKn_9LlHZa_fRicMs7nWhBIVZhw2mOPL4TN5Z-gg$>
On 1/07/2020 2:16 pm, mike cole wrote:
Andy -- You write that " The structure is built around contradictions"
Would it be useful to say, also, that "structures contain the contradictions minist in social life?
I am asking because i am thinking of institutions as sociocultural structures that coordinate constituent
activities sufficiently to enable human biocuturalsocial re-production..
mike
and g'night!
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:06 PM Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org<mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
At first glance Hegel and Marx appear to have erected giant structures, which explicate how a social formation reproduces itself. I.e., they look like structuralists. But look again. At the heart of Hegel's Logic and Marx's Capital is a contradiction. The structure is built around contradictions. Under the impact of critique, at a certain point, the contradiction(s) unfolds as social transformation.
Yrjo Engestrom has endeavoured to incorporate this idea in his system with its 4-levels of contradiction, and Ilyenkov explains in detail how Marx and Hegel did it in his 1960 monograph "The Abstract and Concrete in Marx's Capital."
andy
________________________________
Andy Blunden
Hegel for Social Movements<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!VrJ6ogmE0QXMa3fMTmRp6YRhgzkXCIbZ0jSEci2-B6Gvtituftx_3TXEEt7HTGjjKVnsjw$>
Home Page<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!VrJ6ogmE0QXMa3fMTmRp6YRhgzkXCIbZ0jSEci2-B6Gvtituftx_3TXEEt7HTGhl_8RK9w$>
On 1/07/2020 1:42 pm, mike cole wrote:
David,Andy. So what has transformational agency to do with the distinctions you are making?
Mike
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 7:04 PM Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org<mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
I beg to differ with you David. "Structuralism" dates from the beginning of the 20th century and poststructuralism from the 1970s roughly. That there were structuralist tendencies in Marx's writing is undeniable, and likewise with Hegel and with Vygotsky. But as I see it, "Structuralism" and "Poststructuralism" are specific historically bounded projects. I agree that both of these projects have had an impact or influence on the development of Critical Theory and CHAT, but neither are "structuralist."
* https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/concrete-historicism.pdf__;!!Mih3wA!XJa5FS83z80G_U3HlPpCKyIkbuDaNEGL_LlrGYl8G2IGpWqI2MtL1GboyqgY-CHsHhv4Ag$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/concrete-historicism.pdf__;!!Mih3wA!VhKMxK62RuHFPtSiafVaIhcBWu6Corlc8Jwv8StB7faR8dToPmZRX0GyVindCZxvdPoTlw$>
Andy
________________________________
Andy Blunden
Hegel for Social Movements<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!VhKMxK62RuHFPtSiafVaIhcBWu6Corlc8Jwv8StB7faR8dToPmZRX0GyVindCZwfv_bGZg$>
Home Page<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!VhKMxK62RuHFPtSiafVaIhcBWu6Corlc8Jwv8StB7faR8dToPmZRX0GyVindCZwpXrkYXg$>
On 1/07/2020 10:35 am, David H Kirshner wrote:
Mike,
Marx and Vygotsky both were structural theorists. My guess/impression is that as critical theory and sociocultural theory evolved both have been influenced by poststructural thought, but neither has made a true poststructural turn; nor have scholars in either arena really grappled with the implications of such a turn.
David
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu><mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> On Behalf Of mike cole
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 6:59 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu><mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
That was a very clarifying note, David, thanks. So is cultural marxism one way to deal with mutability or stability of structure?
Most of the marxist social science I am reading these days focuses on transformational agency and take their roots from Vygotsky
and (various )predecessors, so this is post-structuralist Marxism?
mike
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 6:19 AM David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu<mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>> wrote:
S’ma et al.,
The issue of victimhood and “victim mentality” is roiled by crosscurrents of modernist and postmodernist, structuralist and poststructuralist thought. Victim mentality is always perspectival—I have been wronged. In a modernist frame, the perspective of victim may be able to be aligned with an overarching (i.e., structuralist) account that authorizes its significance. Critical theory, stemming from Marxist theory, is such a structuralist account—or perhaps, more accurately, a structuralist project as it is not clear that critical theorists have arrived at consensus about the theory. Postmodernism and poststructuralism abandon the structuralist mandate, accepting that there is no bedrock structural perspective that can encompass the variety of local perspectives. So my sense of my victimhood is simply my perspective, and the project of establishing its viability is purely a political one. Any of us can experience ourselves as victims, and assert a political claim to that effect. Interestingly, it is the political Right that embodies this poststructuralist critique of victimhood, and the political Left that orients itself in structuralism.
David
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> On Behalf Of Simangele Mayisela
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 5:25 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
Hi Annalisa and colleagues
Thank you for processing my earlier articulation in such an impeccable manner. I see how your method of using definitions as a foundation for conversations, specially sensitive conversations in a multicultural forum such as this one. You have beautifully demonstrated that in your response below and in some of your previous enlightening contributions.
Your reference to the George Orwell’s 1984 is quite fitting in this situation; when a victim expresses that they are victimised, they are then “gaslighted”, as there is something seriously wrong with their mentality – the victim mentality. It is short of saying “do not think” that you are victimised even if there is “victimisation”, or you “were” victimised. Perhaps we can accept better with “survivors” but the conditions and the context under which” survivors” continue to survive.
Ok then, then the survivors develop a concept, “Critical Theory” to name, and shine light on the hidden aspects of “survivorhood”, where the conditions for thinking about or “reflecting” surviving are determined and controlled, even those who have power – “scientific or unscientific”.
There is undeniable history of efforts and activities of survivors of different forms oppressions and genocides, where generations of survivors have shown resilience and the ability to move on, but only to be met with new and systematic ways of psychological and economic oppression. Leaving them with no option but to survive by different means at the disposal, including becoming religious with the home for future redemption. Of more interest to me are those who keep trying using “enlightened” ways by intellectually explaining to themselves as a collective and to the oppressor with the hope to bring about change for their situation – the “doing something about their situation.” Using the analogy of a monopoly game Tameka Jones Young https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158129729940856&id=522190855__;!!Mih3wA!XJa5FS83z80G_U3HlPpCKyIkbuDaNEGL_LlrGYl8G2IGpWqI2MtL1GboyqgY-CHbKJppQw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fm.facebook.com*2Fstory.php*3Fstory_fbid*3D10158129729940856*26id*3D522190855__*3B!!Mih3wA!VX_uq7D0v43DAvM9nEC46ZStRpXjResRedVQUr9zhmuKYSRyZ34CmtUCYxxDViAr2G5ncg*24*26data*3D02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C3980c805ddde48ffcda308d81ce02bb5*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637291096420272281*26sdata*3DwTDn9GfEmrNWmDs7ZKaYDsB6FZCeMUVhqsyWF9XzaeE*3D*26reserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Mih3wA!XgF09Z_7Jf5M7eawhdePrcY6Ga6UVHH-Wen9Vq7UBXWfzeFgYdOg20ED5HIi0LWe6MGJgg*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C793f465e2c064597a6ec08d81d52307d*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637291586126470977&sdata=Uuw6Xaz8ott*2FqhOnnPfx1NVKD7viv29J7hBq6yDOtQU*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqKioqKioqKiolJSoqKioqKioqJSUqJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!Mih3wA!WBb97M0rnCTuW6rx_rhYvkAPQLCK1TlHV1j2_71whs8hUwhp1NiF5m7opU1Tv5D4stnMCQ$> (please watch if you a minute to spare) , has a way that highlights why “victim mentality” is not an appropriate, or rather demeaning of those who are working hard to be free, let alone to be at par with the oppressors’ “survivors” if I may say so. The video is in the context of the gruesome protests after the murder of George Floyd, perhaps what is important for this conversation is the content, the meaning of her articulations, though her expressions are accompanied by very strong emotions, I found her monopoly analogy worth my reflection.
I must say I owe it to myself to try draw some links between Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Critical Race Theory and Social Justice theory, I admire scholars, some who maybe in this thread who have used these theoretical lenses in their work in trying to understand mental development it the global context. I think Cultural Historical Activity Theory maybe one of the appropriate tools to explain that which concerns Lindsay; how Critical theory is finding its way of infiltrating critical spaces in communities, including academia, which he sees as nothing but “Grievance Studies” and threatening scientific thinking.
It has been good partaking in these conversations. I think reflections can continue to happen in private at a personal level and in smaller groups. What is important is; yes need to reflect on our thinking and our learning. I myself have learned a lot from this thread, in conscious and unconscious ways I transform as I read your contributions, to the point I at times pleasantly surprise myself quoting what was said in this thread.
Regards
S’ma
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar
Sent: Friday, 26 June 2020 22:37
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
Hello S'ma and venerable others,
I was intrigued by this notion of Critical Theory being posed as a "grievance science," as if taking on a maudlin cape of "victim mentality" around the shoulders, etc.
It seems something of a cop-out to reduce it to that. It is almost as grievous as Holocaust deniers.
Still, to consider it analytically, Critical Theory by design is intended to uncover the ideologies by which certain social sciences have been taught and promulgated. It's de-constructive, right? This stance might be seen as nihilistic, but there has been some valuable work from stripping off the veneer of power structures in order to analyze its underlying logic, which in many cases has been arbitrary and reveals that privilege is usually not earned through merit.
When considering relations of power, it's easy (albeit insensitive) for someone of privilege to name the powerless as "victims," but when this is done, it is only in an objection when victims call themselves victims, as if they have no right to do so.
So who has the right to use this word "victim"?
I feel there is a strange aura about the word that is likened to the word "masochistic" and it's *that baggage* I am wrangling with in my post here.
Must there be prejudice cast upon those who are actual and legitimate victims. There seems intertwined in the meaning of the word something unquantifiable but that does result in "blaming the victim" dynamics, and even more insidious, gaslighting, and these have results of its own harmful effects. (Like when we say "to add insult to injury").
Can no one use the word "victim" anymore?
Frequently people use the word "survivor," which does have connotations of resilience and fortitude against odds (of being victimized). But when we consider the word "survivor" when used as the name of a reality game show (in the early naughts). where people choose to put themselves in difficult circumstances on deserted islands to overcome these circumstances by their wits, to then be "voted off the island" by the other "survivors." Talk about social Darwinism!
I feel there is still something the word "survivor" leaves unspoken about the representation of a person who has been a target of prejudice, crime, neglect, or abuse, whether intentionally or not.
Curious, I looked up the definitions of "victim" and found these:
1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident.
2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency: a victim of misplaced confidence; the victim of a swindler; a victim of an optical illusion.
3. a person or animal sacrificed or regarded as sacrificed: war victims.
4. a living creature sacrificed in religious rites.
When I look up synonyms for "victim" I find this:
casualty, fatality, martyr, sufferer, butt, clown, dupe, fool, gambit, gopher, gudgeon, gull, hireling, immolation, innocent, mark, patsy, pawn, pigeon, prey, pushover, quarry, sacrifice, scapegoat, stooge, sucker, underdog, wretch, babe in woods, easy make, easy mark, hunted, injured party, sitting duck, sitting target, soft touch.
I did the same for the term survivor:
1. a person or thing that survives.
2. Law. the one of two or more designated persons, as joint tenants or others having a joint interest, who outlives the other or others.
3. a person who continues to function or prosper in spite of opposition, hardship, or setbacks.
Synoymns:
balance, debris, leftovers, legacy, oddments, remainder, remnant, remnants, residue, rest, scraps, surplus, trash, odds and ends, orts
The third definition seems the lest frequent usage, or is it the most recent accepted meaning?
It is odd to consider victims as designated parties of sacrifice; and survivors to be considered mere leftovers.
Is it that the life energy of victims are like easily accessible batteries to be utilized for the benefit of those not sacrificed? Isn't that what criminals do? To appropriate the property or energy of others for their own unearned benefit and advancement?
Is that fitness or crime?
t the same time to be a survivor seems to be something left less whole.
What then would one call an individual or group who has been overpowered against their self-agency by another individual or group? Is there a word without these undertowing currents of meaning?
We can say oppressed, but no one likes to say "I have been oppressed." or "I am oppressed," just as no one likes to say "I have been victimized," "I am a victim," or "My society is victimized by your society," or "My ancestors were enslaved by yours."
And yet, these would be factual pronouncements, were legitimate individuals (victims) of those actual experiences to describe themselves in this fashion.
Would it be no different than an individual saying, "I have been an oppressor." or "I oppress." No one likes to say "I victimize others," "I am a perpetrator," or "My society victimizes your society," or "My ancestors enslaved yours."
The problem in making these sorts of statements is that while factual and descriptive, they can actually be twisted into being prescriptive. As if to say, "I did this and I can do it again because that's who I am." or "This happened to me and it can happen again because that's who I am."
While there are people such as this Lindsay (I did not watch the video), who can throw about "victimization" as if it were a shameful badge to wear, I don't see anyone of that camp using the same disdain to describe those who performed grave injustices against others, to perhaps utter a phrase like "perpetrator of injustices", that might invoke that same shadow of shame. To my estimation, whatever the words, it would be right and just they should provide that shadow of shame, given the injustices that Critical Theory is attempting to understand, without further empowering perpetrators and without further disempowering victims.
Is the reason for this blindspot or lapse because a crime performed in past cannot be adjusted to correct for the crime, that it somehow means justice cannot be performed? In a sort of "shrugged shoulders - c'est la vie" kind of attitude? That no one believes exhuming the "dead bodies" from "unmarked graves" worth the unpleasantness of the task?
Why is it easy to commit the crime, but so hard to bend the arc of justice to meet the crime?
In the days of the American Wild West, justice was doled out too quickly, but now it seems it is too slowly.
This is why I wonder how to consider science when we are talking about power structures. What is scientific about justice/injustice? Power seems unscientific. It is arbitrary. Or is it?
Were we to describe the cause and effect of such power structures and their internal reasoning, it would start to sound like Nazi propaganda, or the promotion of eugenics.
I'm reminded of a Bill Moyers interview I saw many years ago, the name of the guest I don't remember. I only recall he was a politico for the George W Bush campaign, and the fellow claimed his favorite book was Orwell's 1984, as if to say that it was an instruction booklet on how to create the kind of society he wanted. The blatant honesty was breathtaking.
Reading S'ma's post made me aware of how in the case of (all forms of) oppression it's rare for the oppressor to say, "I have some self-reflection to do to answer for the deeds of my ancestors, to make up for the injustices suffered by your ancestors," or "My sense of privilege allowed me to oppress you, and I don't feel right about that, so I will stop that now. I see the errors of my ways."
It feels there is no obligation for reconciliation because such folk percieve the cement of history has been poured and dried. "It's in the past, let's move on."
There is something absurd about the tacit agreement to avoid self-naming, and I'm trying to sort out how it might be not to be so absurd sounding.
Has anyone a hand up to provide me on this reflection?
I'm not sure I'm articulating this very well, but that is my best attempt. Forgive any flaws in my reasoning, and of course the typos there above.
Kind regards,
Annalisa
________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Simangele Mayisela <simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za<mailto:simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za>>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 6:04 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
[EXTERNAL]
Hi Andy and Alfredo
Thank you for responding to my communication, and for viewing the video I referred to in my previous email. Let me say that the connection between the current conversation about “scientific” knowledge (in this case in relation to “levels” of mental development and “ideology”) and James Lindsay’s argument on Critical Theory having no scientific basis (in the video) is this:
Lindsay and his colleagues believe that Critical Theory, I suppose with its shoots like Critical Race Theory, Critical Race Feminist theory, Identity Theories, etc. do not have a scientific base but are a movement which they call “Grievance studies”, that perpetuates “self-pity” and “victim mentality”. They further went on to produce fake scientific study “dog rape culture and feminism” known as “hoax science” as evidence of how unscientific “grievance studies” are; most of which are of course are situated in the social sciences. This further exposed the paucity in the system of peer reviews in scientific journals, which some believe are also tainted by ideological predispositions – my fear is that this introduces mistrust in the notion of review processes of scientific journals - which we have to be concerned about.
The reason I brought up Lindsay’s argument to the picture is: while I am not certain if I wholly agree with Lindsay’s argument on Critical Theories, I am however fascinated by the fact that they confirm the influence of ideological position an individual or rather a “scientist” holds, ( an idea alluded to by some, earlier in this thread). I believe, as much as we aspire to be objective in our pursuit of scientific enquiry, the narratives associated with our scientific knowledge(s) are likely to be tainted with ideologically biases or historicity. The likes of Lindsay and Weinstein bring to our attention the dangers of the exclusion of the masses in the name of “scientific evidence” – who in this day of rapid technological connection the collective is gradually become global rather than in specific localities. Even those that deemed to have “primitive mental functioning” or “unsophisticated” mental functioning, their unexpected ability to infiltrate academia and other spaces with Critical Theory like a “Trojan Horse”, that’s according to Bret Weinstein ( po.nl/2020/06/20/must-watch-joe-rogan-with-bret-weinstein-critical-theory-is-basically-a-trojan-horse/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__http*3A*2F*2Fpo.nl*2F2020*2F06*2F20*2Fmust-watch-joe-rogan-with-bret-weinstein-critical-theory-is-basically-a-trojan-horse*2F__*3B!!Mih3wA!QCD7ed0aCRAAlp7GdBrl0meYtbgs9bxM8e7Zg-RtwtTHcq2MHVUupotmjSed87zhqcRqSA*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C793f465e2c064597a6ec08d81d52307d*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637291586126480974&sdata=OgkwRQ102d*2BW*2FUntR5jqwUD44OozPBxwZ495zg7NrtI*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!Mih3wA!WBb97M0rnCTuW6rx_rhYvkAPQLCK1TlHV1j2_71whs8hUwhp1NiF5m7opU1Tv5As5j44Bw$> ) seems to surprise us. I wonder though, if Critical Theorists' Trojan Horse is scientific evidence of “self-pity”, “victim mentality”, unsophisticated mental functioning, … (we can add other classifying adjectives to describe all those who have not developed “scientific tools”).
My reference to Lindsay and Marxism, is related to some of the sources that I have encountered earlier, clearly not on this YouTube video I referred you to, but it is within this line of debates about “scientific” knowledge”.
It seems to me that the association of Paulo Freire’s “Education for the Oppressed” to "victim mentality" is kind of twisted and perhaps mistook for “Education for the Depressed”, which is unfortunate, especially if we take into consideration all the publications by Freire, like Education for Liberation. Nevertheless, the Trojan Horse analogy for the Critical Education is evidence of the collectively formulated knowledge that is generously shared, rendering the commodified "scientific" knowledge accessible to the privileged few, generously shared to all who needs to advance the survival of humanity.
Regards,
Simangele
simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za<mailto:simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za>
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Wednesday, 24 June 2020 03:37
To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
Casting collective efforts at self-determination as "victim mentality" or "self pity" has long been a line of right-wing criticism of progressive movements. Of all people, Paulo Freire is the last to be guilty of such a sin though; his pedagogy is aimed specifically, like Myles Horton's, at stimulating and equipping people from being victims to self-determination. There is such a thing as a politics of pity though; it is called philanthropy and charity.
Andy
________________________________
Andy Blunden
Hegel for Social Movements<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fbrill.com*2Fview*2Ftitle*2F54574__*3B!!Mih3wA!WCK45j6Y4AscTY1OVN1quxD0_VDKtR1Y9u5SYoUgfTIzhGpvyRCeU6XnFqBCRESHVrtCaw*24*26data*3D02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C3980c805ddde48ffcda308d81ce02bb5*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637291096420282275*26sdata*3DoX74*2BlINhl3MWMlwht3oCw5PTrjXyxOQX17*2BfVvxpf8*3D*26reserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!Mih3wA!XgF09Z_7Jf5M7eawhdePrcY6Ga6UVHH-Wen9Vq7UBXWfzeFgYdOg20ED5HIi0LW-P86LBA*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C793f465e2c064597a6ec08d81d52307d*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637291586126480974&sdata=IkuUm91U9GMwiGxaDJXhs8w5QnwrCsBLNDtBPb0z6pA*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqKioqKiolJSoqKioqKioqJSUqKiolJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Mih3wA!WBb97M0rnCTuW6rx_rhYvkAPQLCK1TlHV1j2_71whs8hUwhp1NiF5m7opU1Tv5BzBwex0g$>
Home Page<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fwww.ethicalpolitics.org*2Fablunden*2Findex.htm__*3B!!Mih3wA!WCK45j6Y4AscTY1OVN1quxD0_VDKtR1Y9u5SYoUgfTIzhGpvyRCeU6XnFqBCREQ2rLbDLg*24*26data*3D02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C3980c805ddde48ffcda308d81ce02bb5*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637291096420282275*26sdata*3D97yLyLrH0AJ5QXEU2RAXGWLVxXa6i54MPGgfam6vXFI*3D*26reserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!Mih3wA!XgF09Z_7Jf5M7eawhdePrcY6Ga6UVHH-Wen9Vq7UBXWfzeFgYdOg20ED5HIi0LU90iyCdw*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C793f465e2c064597a6ec08d81d52307d*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637291586126490969&sdata=NqHc8uV*2BR9b3*2BpgP4CeIG*2F8x8fTkOajO08luWCkeAzo*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqKioqKiUlKioqKioqKiolJSolJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Mih3wA!WBb97M0rnCTuW6rx_rhYvkAPQLCK1TlHV1j2_71whs8hUwhp1NiF5m7opU1Tv5Ck5wUnZA$>
On 24/06/2020 9:11 am, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
thanks S’ma; among the many philosophy of science scholars who discuss what rigorous scientific and scholarship are or can be, your choice—a video critiquing critical theory in terms of what Lindsay refers to as “grievance studies”–is indeed surprising and remarkable in the context of this conversation!
In the video, which did not so much touch my small Marxist me (I am not so well read so as to know how much of a Marxist I am!), Lindsay mentions Paolo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed as an example of “critical social justice” books, which he defines as “a codified way to indulge people into self pity…”(min. 47:50). He complains that teachers are being educated with Freire’s book, and that students are being taught with this critical (or, as Lindsay’s says, this self-pity) attitude. Without going into whether Lindsay’s critique holds or has any touch with what critical theory scholars argue and do, I wonder, what would be, from Lindsay’s position, an example of a good book for teachers, and why would that one be it?
Alfredo
From: <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu><mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Martin Packer <mpacker@cantab.net><mailto:mpacker@cantab.net>
Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu><mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 23 June 2020 at 23:54
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu><mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
Hi Simangele,
How are you evaluating “level of mental functioning”? I would say that is something with which psychology has had some difficulty.
Martin
"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself” (Malinowski, 1930)
On Jun 23, 2020, at 4:32 PM, Simangele Mayisela <simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za<mailto:simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za>> wrote:
Further, I still have more questions, however it does appear to me that at the heart of the “hypothesis” of the scientific question are the “levels” of mental development which are associated to “skin colour”, with little consideration of the historical oppression that created the “backwards” economies that keep the third of the global population is what appears to be of low level of mental functioning. The question is more about “what is the quality of the contents of what is embodies by the black skin or a white skin?” with the aim to find evidence for the difference.
Just to share, lately have been viewing James Lindsay argument on what is “scientific”, “rigorous scientific” and “scholarship” vs popular narratives that are a propaganda based on Critical Theory, which are taking over academy. Here is one his videos that you may want to view – if you are Marxist at heart be warned that you may be challenged by Lindsay’s argument on ideologies.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N55gFjg4yg__;!!Mih3wA!XJa5FS83z80G_U3HlPpCKyIkbuDaNEGL_LlrGYl8G2IGpWqI2MtL1GboyqgY-CH3Qw84kA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fwww.youtube.com*2Fwatch*3Fv*3D8N55gFjg4yg__*3B!!Mih3wA!V2LYI2I2g-qSP--eE84G38eGWBud9YwatVDWX1IvY27YgsR7kTdkqVGDNoLNCYNmswIv-Q*24*26data*3D02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C3980c805ddde48ffcda308d81ce02bb5*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637291096420292271*26sdata*3DtYB881hofx2qlKcYHVaGFLwJWbzpFnRD8oRsTDV1y3U*3D*26reserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Mih3wA!XgF09Z_7Jf5M7eawhdePrcY6Ga6UVHH-Wen9Vq7UBXWfzeFgYdOg20ED5HIi0LWZEZpvXQ*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C793f465e2c064597a6ec08d81d52307d*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637291586126490969&sdata=QtplwvBnPbeO8pEDjpsqP1r5VP8rKbh4hV6gmpYUbDE*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqKioqKiolJSoqKioqKioqJSUqJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!Mih3wA!WBb97M0rnCTuW6rx_rhYvkAPQLCK1TlHV1j2_71whs8hUwhp1NiF5m7opU1Tv5Aaswj01g$>
Regards
S’ma
From: Simangele Mayisela
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June 2020 22:10
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
Dear Alfredo
Thank you for taking my attention of “level” which is crucial to rendering the question “scientific”. But couple with level, which could be quantifies as “high” and “low” or “superior” or “inferior” would account for “difference”. As much as the question to be asked should be about the “ideological basis” , I think the “hypothesis” is likely to be linked to the “ideolody” as the hypothesis serves as springboard from which the scientist works from, which informs where the person will land in terms of the ideas.
Nevertheless thank you for the clarification. I see what you mean ?
Regards,
S’ma
--
Crush human humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit, according to its kind. C.Dickens.
---------------------------------------------------
Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!XJa5FS83z80G_U3HlPpCKyIkbuDaNEGL_LlrGYl8G2IGpWqI2MtL1GboyqgY-CHlTMAn-w$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!Q_q_DNhDoq1Xzty8Vz0Wuuux1nL8ULgJJJ2-vL13YzNjFRpGelADB-JXAxMUbAotW_H_mw$>
Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://re-generatingchat.com__;!!Mih3wA!Q_q_DNhDoq1Xzty8Vz0Wuuux1nL8ULgJJJ2-vL13YzNjFRpGelADB-JXAxMUbAoOrejabA$>
Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu<http://lchc.ucsd.edu>.
Narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu<http://lchcautobio.ucsd.edu>.
--
Crush human humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit, according to its kind. C.Dickens.
---------------------------------------------------
Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!XJa5FS83z80G_U3HlPpCKyIkbuDaNEGL_LlrGYl8G2IGpWqI2MtL1GboyqgY-CHlTMAn-w$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!V-mYNb3iJ4MF7rB0hejs8XZr-x47zmuly5qtpqPQPH_4pacZ-MyCn3K8BNOiCivThQbJOQ$>
Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://re-generatingchat.com__;!!Mih3wA!V-mYNb3iJ4MF7rB0hejs8XZr-x47zmuly5qtpqPQPH_4pacZ-MyCn3K8BNOiCiv56BzdDQ$>
Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu<http://lchc.ucsd.edu>.
Narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu<http://lchcautobio.ucsd.edu>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200701/8c0a6025/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list