[Xmca-l] Re: structure and agency
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Wed Jul 1 21:11:51 PDT 2020
Your observations square with ever so milder versions of
what I have experienced and heard re the DDR. I remember as
liberating the total absence of advertising and even the
annoying absence of a customer-service-provider mentality,
and at the same time being covertly approach for illicit
foreign exchange transactions made me feel dirty and oozed
oppression. Anyway, I don't think this is a structure/agency
issue. The Chinese leadership know exactly what they are
doing. Your observations about the US more clearly implicate
structure/agency distinctions, in my view.
As to Logic and Language, as I have previously remarked in
this connection, David, for a man with a hammer everything
is a nail. One of the problems is for people to presume that
Logic (and concepts) is some kind of non-material entity,
while speech and action are somehow more material. If you
see these forms of human life as somehow "immaterial" then
any rational account of human life is going appear
"idealist" but the "idealism" is really on the other foot.
andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Hegel for Social Movements <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!XG20jZAulcz4arWPBi7LhZYB_jxeuQVJcTP3B-xAOd_aKMu7wM_bQr0x0D1qy15a4vHSTw$ >
Home Page <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!XG20jZAulcz4arWPBi7LhZYB_jxeuQVJcTP3B-xAOd_aKMu7wM_bQr0x0D1qy17IvkEsJQ$ >
On 2/07/2020 12:11 pm, David Kellogg wrote:
> This morning I have heard, from two very different human
> voices, that China is a totalitarian state in which the
> political structure inexorably determines agency. The
> first speaker, on an arts programme, cited his work
> in producing the London Olympics opening ceremony "in
> defiance" of the one which opened the Beijing Olympics: he
> set about artistically counterposing viscerality to
> pageantry. The second, on a science programme, spoke in
> awe of the ability of the municipal government of Wuhan to
> test the entire population in ten days--an achievement
> that he--rightly--valued higher than the construction of
> two large hospitals during the same time frame. It is
> interesting that both speakers denied that Chinese people
> might actually be exercising agency in both situations.
>
> I am trying to square this with my own experience in
> China. I was naive about a lot of things, but I don't
> think repression was one of them: I had certainly
> experienced repressive political structures in Sudan,
> Algeria, and Syria, in addition to my own country, where
> at the age of fourteen I had to sign an affidavit
> declaring that I was not a member of the Communist Party
> in order to get a summer gig at an A&W root beer stand! On
> Chinese television I heard of demonstrators being shot in
> the streets in Beijing, student leaders executed in
> Shanghai and sit-in protestors cut in half by trains; in
> Xinjiang and Guangzhou I witnessed public executions
> myself, and I certainly knew people who were imprisoned
> for their role in strikes, even when that role was merely
> acting as a mediator between workers and cops. I was fired
> from jobs for making statements of simple historical fact
> in Beijing and again in Xiamen, and I knew that I could
> not sue to get my job back. But there were three things
> which seemed to set me free, and which still sets life
> in China apart for me.
>
> The first was that for the first time in my life I was
> absolutely at liberty to say that I was a Marxist, even a
> Communist (although people would laugh at me and shake
> their heads and patiently explain that I didn't really
> know what I was on about). The second was that on public
> streets the vast majority of texts that I studied (I was
> still learning to read Chinese) had absolutely nothing to
> do with the exchange of commodities, the sale of
> information or branding of any kind. The third, however,
> was that almost everybody, including most Party members I
> knew, were unofficial, off-the-record,
> between-you-and-me dissidents of one kind or another. It
> struck me that the situation was really topsy-turvy. In
> the USA, where I was born, voting allowed a vast majority
> of people to regularly register as official dissenters,
> but in private there were hardly any people who opposed
> the social system as whole, that is, as a structure.
> (Isn't "contradiction" really a linguistic rather than a
> logical category? For that matter, isn't logic just a
> tidied up form of language, just as dialectics--hence the
> name--is a tidied up version of human voices?)
>
> David Kellogg
> Sangmyung University
>
> New Article: Ruqaiya Hasan, in memoriam: A manual and a
> manifesto.
> Outlines, Spring 2020
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238__;!!Mih3wA!XG20jZAulcz4arWPBi7LhZYB_jxeuQVJcTP3B-xAOd_aKMu7wM_bQr0x0D1qy16hyPIBrA$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238__;!!Mih3wA!V5MRtRT8itUiBVI4OZBrmcb1ljjSLlhO5yXi4SKhmoZv9BAhTqNkhbPPKXe8T0U6JeoFlA$>
> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: /L.S. Vygotsky's
> Pedological Works/ /Volume One: Foundations of Pedology/"
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!XG20jZAulcz4arWPBi7LhZYB_jxeuQVJcTP3B-xAOd_aKMu7wM_bQr0x0D1qy150xfCkXQ$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!V5MRtRT8itUiBVI4OZBrmcb1ljjSLlhO5yXi4SKhmoZv9BAhTqNkhbPPKXe8T0W1gPUEew$>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:02 AM Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
> I am guessing that the aim of replacing
> "contradiction" with "disco-ordination" is locate the
> essential process in activity rather than logic. This
> is a worthy aim, but it is mistaken for two reasons.
> (1) Disco-ordination actually refers to behaviour
> rather than activity, that is, physical movements that
> are not necessarily fulfilling the actors' reasons or
> intentions. While such disco-ordination can disrupts
> norms and aggravate conflict, I don't believe they are
> impulses to social change, because the norms are not
> confronted by alternative norms - one has to look to
> why norms are not binding, and (2) People do things
> for reasons and insofar as people do different things
> for the same reason, which could possibly cause
> disco-ordination, I don't think this is threatening to
> a social formation. A certain amount of
> disco-ordination can be a stabilising thing.
>
> The fact is that social formations are ideal orders,
> not just patterns of movement.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Hegel for Social Movements
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!UO3GqHpf8x54Sb0F4DVygXFECH7CEZ4Md34ReAC-0dwNTy61-MyqVAlQKrWeKY0gE4YOCw$>
> Home Page
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!UO3GqHpf8x54Sb0F4DVygXFECH7CEZ4Md34ReAC-0dwNTy61-MyqVAlQKrWeKY163svBLw$>
>
> On 2/07/2020 2:44 am, mike cole wrote:
>> Andy et
>>
>> Is it permissible to substitute the term,
>> discoordination for contradiction at least at the
>> empirical level. We observe selective
>> discoordination and infer the contradictions?
>> mike
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:47 PM Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>
>> "Contradiction" is only a coherent concept
>> insofar as there is a "logic", i.e., some
>> institution. The general idea is that all logics
>> contain such contradictions. Institutions "try"
>> to eliminate contradictions and instantiate a
>> "logic," but it turns out to be a losing battle.
>>
>> Nonetheless, an institution can live forever
>> without changing despite harbouring
>> contradictions. The structure has to be subject
>> to critique; the contradictions have to be
>> exposed and pursued. Movement and change is not
>> automatic.
>>
>> But yes, you are right, life, let alone social
>> life, is impossible without "institutions." We
>> continue building that aeroplane as it flies
>> through the sky. Without institutions, norms,
>> shared meanings, collaborative activities, trust
>> we will all die.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social Movements
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!Vbo2U2NxoEFafJtBUR40AtvkBVYT1KAKn_9LlHZa_fRicMs7nWhBIVZhw2mOPL4Daq3h8g$>
>> 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$>
>>>
>>> On 1/07/2020 1:42 pm, mike cole wrote:
>>>> David,Andy. So what has transformational
>>>> agency to do with the distinctions you are
>>>> making?
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 7:04 PM Andy
>>>> Blunden <andyb@marxists.org
>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I beg to differ with you David.
>>>> "Structuralism" dates from the
>>>> beginning of the 20th century and
>>>> poststructuralism from the 1970s
>>>> roughly. That there were structuralist
>>>> tendencies in Marx's writing is
>>>> undeniable, and likewise with Hegel and
>>>> with Vygotsky. But as I see it,
>>>> "Structuralism" and "Poststructuralism"
>>>> are specific historically bounded
>>>> projects. I agree that both of these
>>>> projects have had an impact or
>>>> influence on the development of
>>>> Critical Theory and CHAT, but neither
>>>> are "structuralist."
>>>>
>>>> * https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/concrete-historicism.pdf__;!!Mih3wA!XG20jZAulcz4arWPBi7LhZYB_jxeuQVJcTP3B-xAOd_aKMu7wM_bQr0x0D1qy14r5MnrNA$
>>>> <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!XG20jZAulcz4arWPBi7LhZYB_jxeuQVJcTP3B-xAOd_aKMu7wM_bQr0x0D1qy148t9ggQQ$
>>>>> <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:
>>>>>
>>>>> Lindsayand 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!XG20jZAulcz4arWPBi7LhZYB_jxeuQVJcTP3B-xAOd_aKMu7wM_bQr0x0D1qy15ZWjZG4w$
>>>>> <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$>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> S’ma
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Simangele Mayisela
>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 23 June
>>>>> 2020 22:10
>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind,
>>>>> Culture, Activity
>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> *Subject:* RE: [Xmca-l]
>>>>> Re: Your views on a question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Alfredo
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for taking my
>>>>> attention of “level” which
>>>>> is crucial to rendering
>>>>> the question “scientific”.
>>>>> But couple with level,
>>>>> which could be quantifies
>>>>> as “high” and “low” or
>>>>> “superior” or “inferior”
>>>>> would account for
>>>>> “difference”. As much as
>>>>> the question to be asked
>>>>> should be about the
>>>>> “ideological basis” , I
>>>>> think the “hypothesis” is
>>>>> likely to be linked to the
>>>>> “ideolody” as the
>>>>> hypothesis serves as
>>>>> springboard from which the
>>>>> scientist works from,
>>>>> which informs where the
>>>>> person will land in
>>>>> terms of the ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless thank you for
>>>>> the clarification. I see
>>>>> what you mean ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> S’ma
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Crush human humanity out of shape once
>>>> more, under similar hammers, and it will
>>>> twist itself into the same tortured
>>>> forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious
>>>> license and oppression over again, and it
>>>> will surely yield the same fruit,
>>>> according to its kind. C.Dickens.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>> Cultural Praxis Website:
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!XG20jZAulcz4arWPBi7LhZYB_jxeuQVJcTP3B-xAOd_aKMu7wM_bQr0x0D1qy17C_DR0ug$
>>>> <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!XG20jZAulcz4arWPBi7LhZYB_jxeuQVJcTP3B-xAOd_aKMu7wM_bQr0x0D1qy17C_DR0ug$
>>> <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>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> 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!XG20jZAulcz4arWPBi7LhZYB_jxeuQVJcTP3B-xAOd_aKMu7wM_bQr0x0D1qy17C_DR0ug$
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!UtoKrfxi3sZ3NjF4DR5th-IZNVsQcMsq_kt9ksl6RVohAkfKsXZvVi4tIZ_i-TFSUyEwFw$>
>> Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://re-generatingchat.com__;!!Mih3wA!UtoKrfxi3sZ3NjF4DR5th-IZNVsQcMsq_kt9ksl6RVohAkfKsXZvVi4tIZ_i-TFWAlRbUw$>
>> 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/20200702/31ad3b18/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list