[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Black Underachievement, etc.

The problem with that assessment andy is that it makes the assumption that amidst lytical changes, which I am assuming come from praxis,  the ideological structure remains oblivious to the processes taking place...it does not.  It incorporates, refutes, etc.  I think polanyi's double movement is appropriate here.  The ideological superstructure frames lytical changes within the dialectical contradictions of its discourse rendering them innocuous. ..would you say homosexuality, pan-africanism, transgenderism, are lytical changes?  If they are, what would you say about gay marriage, or the death of pan-africanism amongst black americanism?

Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.

-------- Original message --------
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> 
Date: 11/04/2013  7:25 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe" <pmocombe@mocombeian.com> 
Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>,Cecile.Wright@nottingham.ac.uk,carol Tomlin <info@caroltomlin.com> 
Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Black Underachievement, etc. 
I think the fundamental flaw of this approach, Paul, is that it takes as 
its fundamental units, entities which are unchanging. Yes, an ideology 
is by definition, self-sustaining and self-justifying. But, while it is 
true that history is littered with disasters, and the critical periods 
of social change are indeed marked by catastrophe, these crtitical 
phases are prepared and constituted by phases of lytical change and are 
inseparable from them. This general character of development teaches us 
that it is a mistake to separate lytical and critical phases of 
development. I think that in order to grasp social life as essential 
lysubject to change, development and transformation, one must take as a 
fundamental unit of analysis something which is inherently a process of 
development. I use "project", others simply call it "an activity".

*Andy Blunden*

Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> Andy,
> Unfortunately, I am in agreement with althusser.  I cannot think of 
> one historical case to prove the contrary.  It is necessary for one 
> historical frame to replace another via catastrophe and revolution. 
>  Can we truly say that the middle class represents an alternative to 
> the dominant ideology of the upper-class of owners and high-level 
> executives?  I do not think say.  Just the same, the argument you 
> raise is tantamount to the hybridity discourse of homi bhabha...and I 
> am in agreement with spivak, hybridity is not an alternative to the 
> discourse of the colonizer...it is using the discourse of the 
> colonizer to convict them of not identifying with their logic, which 
> the colonized accepts and reproduces.  This is not liberating, nor 
> does it offer an alternative to the discourse of the colonizer.
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe