[Xmca-l] Re: structure and agency

[Huw Lloyd]

This is a video I sent before in which Thomas Sowell questions the virtue
of placing expectation or hope in a government's ability to reform social
circumstances.

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS5WYp5xmvI__;!!Mih3wA!RBIWB6goBl3Er3F9rjHMe_hZkmvxVp4J-ioMPM9G2iygq1xhVj5gbMhVhglPkN3q07bi8g$ 

And similar sentiments from Walter Williams:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZGvQcxoAPg__;!!Mih3wA!RBIWB6goBl3Er3F9rjHMe_hZkmvxVp4J-ioMPM9G2iygq1xhVj5gbMhVhglPkN1061kzfA$ 

Huw



On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 19:00, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:

> 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> 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> 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> 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!RBIWB6goBl3Er3F9rjHMe_hZkmvxVp4J-ioMPM9G2iygq1xhVj5gbMhVhglPkN2olznuFQ$ 
>    <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 <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <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>
> <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> 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 <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>
> *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!RBIWB6goBl3Er3F9rjHMe_hZkmvxVp4J-ioMPM9G2iygq1xhVj5gbMhVhglPkN2_L_6wYA$ 
> <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 <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>
> *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 <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Simangele Mayisela <simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 25, 2020 6:04 AM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <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
>
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Andy Blunden
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 24 June 2020 03:37
> *To:* 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>
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Martin Packer
> <mpacker@cantab.net> <mpacker@cantab.net>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 23 June 2020 at 23:54
> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <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> 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!RBIWB6goBl3Er3F9rjHMe_hZkmvxVp4J-ioMPM9G2iygq1xhVj5gbMhVhglPkN1CrFVmPA$ 
> <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$>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> S’ma
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Simangele Mayisela
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 23 June 2020 22:10
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
>
>
>
> Dear Alfredo
>
>
>
> Thank you for taking my attention of “level” which is crucial to rendering
> the question “scientific”. But couple with level, which could be quantifies
> as “high” and “low” or “superior” or “inferior” would account for
> “difference”. As much as the question to be asked should be about the
> “ideological basis” , I think the “hypothesis” is likely to be linked to
> the “ideolody” as the hypothesis serves as springboard from which the
> scientist works from, which informs where the person  will land  in terms
> of the ideas.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless thank you for the clarification. I see what you mean ?
>
> Regards,
>
> S’ma
>
>
>
> --
>
> Crush human humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it
> will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of
> rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the
> same fruit, according to its kind.  C.Dickens.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!RBIWB6goBl3Er3F9rjHMe_hZkmvxVp4J-ioMPM9G2iygq1xhVj5gbMhVhglPkN3wYdy6WA$ 
> <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.
> Narrative history of LCHC:  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!RBIWB6goBl3Er3F9rjHMe_hZkmvxVp4J-ioMPM9G2iygq1xhVj5gbMhVhglPkN3wYdy6WA$ 
> <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.
> Narrative history of LCHC:  lchcautobio.ucsd.edu.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200701/3b6b664e/attachment.html