[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders
- From: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 18:25:14 -0400
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: <email@example.com>
I use "practical consciousness" as defined within structurationist sociology. The ideas of consciousness we recursively organize and reproduce as praxis (habermas, giddens, bourdieu, sahlins). For me, building on the work of marcuse via althusser these ideas are a product of reified (via language, the mode of production, and ideological apparatuses) ideologies, which interpellates us as subjects (in the words of althusser, "there is no subject , but by and for their subjection"). So consciousness here is not necessarily a reference to self-awareness, which structurationist sociology view as a "present at hand" (heidegger's term) viewpoint, i.e., the viewpoint of science.
Second, I do not subscribe, within my structurationist understanding of consciousness constitution, to the viewpoint that blacks, women, gays, etc. Interpellated and embourgeoised within western society necessarily bring an alternative practical consciousness to any issue. They are subjects of the system who recursively reorganize and reproduce it's ideas and "rules of conduct which are sanctioned" (giddens's term) for their ontological security amidst structural differentiation. So for me obama is a dark skinned white man, and hillary is a white man in drag seeking equality of opportunity, recognition, and distribution for their structurally differentiated "identities." They are subjects, or as my sociology professor, the late Stanford lyman referred to as agents of the protestant ethic, of a perverse world-system which threatens all life on earth.
Nancy fraser's "justice interruptus" a great analysis of the post-socialist era...
Fanon's "black skin white mask" and "the wretched of the earth" are classics. I do not subscribe to fanon's psychoanalysis, but his conclusions are still valid. There is work currently underway to put together his letters and lectures into a new monograph I believe at Duke university.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Annalisa Aguilar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 4/24/2016 4:46 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders
I was wondering when you would join the fray. :)
I'm not sure what is your definition of "identity politics". Maybe you can enlighten me on that. I'm also not sure what to make of "practical consciousness", as to me a person is either aware or not aware or somewhat aware of something. In other words, to me, consciousness can have no adjective, because all things that have qualities are inside consciousness, not outside of it. Awareness on the other hand, is a human experience that has to do with a quality of mind, how it reflects its context, and certainly people can and do identify themselves based upon those qualities are present (reflecting) in their minds.
With that in mind, I'd say identity politics just means standing up for yourself even if you are different from others. Difference of course is an amorphous thing to define, since it's always up for grabs what difference means, but it does seem to depend upon context and who is calling who "different."
What is amazing to me is that each human being is a unique individual, genetically, culturally, psychologically, etc. and yet we tend to "identify" with others whom we feel a being-at-home. How that comes to be is also quite unique.
As far as the determination that barak and hillary are actually white-men, I can find some agreement with that, but I'd ask why they have to partake in that identity. Likely, because of neoliberal requirements of the gatekeepers in this political milieu we find ourselves.
Despite that, I think that most African Americans would rather have barak than mitt, and I think most women would rather have hillary than trump.
Examination of critical theorists you mention and how they overlap CHAT is a worthwhile venture, don't you think? Have you got any texts you can recommend by Nancy Fraser and Frantz Fanon that we might read?
Might help in creating a moment of understanding?