I apologize for misunderstanding your stance on mediated development.
My point was regarding a person that MISPERCEIVES being oppressed. This
misperception of being oppressed is what is causing the growing trend of
'victims' in US cities. People who currently live in the Gaza strip are
oppressed! Certainly much more so then any resident of a US city.
<ablunden who-is-at mira.n To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] can't have it both ways
xmca-bounces who-is-at web
Mmmm. Obviously lots of cross-purposes communication going on here Eric.
You mentioned "the vastly growing 'victim' class of urban residents in
america," and now point out that life in any US city is better than the
Warsaw Ghetto or the Gaza Strip. What is your point?
I certainly don't "want to disregard any studies that place empirical
evidence for the zone of proximal development." Perhaps that was someone
else? I certainly do believe that development is a mediated process.
At 09:12 AM 4/12/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>You mention references I am unfamiliar with. I am not naive enough to
>assume since one person can achieve success regardless of circumstance
>it makes the case for all in the same circumstance. I certainly do not
>want to justify horrendous abuses but I also do not believe what exists in
>any area of the US to be horrendous. Warsaw of WW2 or the gaza strip
>certainly deserve that classification!
>My point was that you want to disregard any studies that place empirical
>evidence for the zone of proximal development yet you want to then claim
>poverty or oppresive conditions mediate a person's development. Which one
>is it Andy, is there a mediation of a person's development or is there
> <ablunden who-is-at mira.n To: "eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
> et> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] can't
> have it both ways
> xmca-bounces who-is-at web
>Eric, I think you are agreeing with people like Frank Furedi, Charles
>Taylor and Robert Hughes, who see people who identify themselves as
>of some kind of injustice (e.g. feminists or antidiscriminationists) as
>actively adopting a victim-identity and thereby actually reinforcing their
>own suffering so in fact being the cause of their own suffering. Yes?
>You reject the fact that (for example) a poor ghetto resident is oppressed
>and believe that the fact that many who leave the ghetto and make good
>proves your point. Yes?
>Well, I think you're wrong. It is true that making a claim to having been
>treated unjustly does not ipso facto make your claim valid. So it is
>necessary to have some way of figuring out whether such claims are
>justified. I really don't think your criterion, of asking whether there
>exist people who escape from the condition of injustice, stands up to a
>cursory glance. It would justify the most horrendous abuses. Perhaps you
>argue that even though (for example) a ghetto-dweller is oppressed, they
>would be better advised to find an individual solution to their injustice
>and move house, rather than try to do something about poverty and
>discrimination. You are welcome to your view, but I think it misses the
>point. A read of Jane Jacobs' "Death and Life of Great American Cities" is
>always worthwhile; Jacobs show that people who are poor and powerless for
>other reasons end up having to live in a ghetto (where they suffer from
>further disadvantage resulting from place), and stay there only so long as
>they are poor and powerless.
>In relation to your second paragraph about mediation, you seem to be
>claiming that poverty and suffering is unmediated, i.e., it is not someone
>else's fault but your own. Yes? So you are putting a radical individualist
>position: the black man given the chair for a crime he did not commit is
>responsible for his own fate; if he had pulled himself up by his
>and got an education and a good job, he could have afforded a good lawyer.
>There are many problems with this position. But I doubt that I can
>you out of radical individualism in psychology at this late stage.
>At 09:38 AM 1/12/2006 -0600, you wrote:
> >What if a person misperceives being oppressed? Such as the vastly
> >"victim" class of urban residents in america. There is clearly a
> >misperception on their part that they are being oppressed. Choices in
> >their life have placed them in a position of feeling and acting
> >yet numerous people who grow up in the same environment leave the "hood"
> >behind and make a great life for themselves.
> >Are you merely stating a rhetorical question regarding oppression being
> >mediated and do not believe this to be the case? I truely am confused
> >your argument. You have taken a circuitous route of dismissing dualism
> >you use dualism to make your point.
>xmca mailing list
>xmca mailing list
Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435, AIM
identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:18 PST